I am no legal expert and cannot comment on any aspect of the case of Shamima Begum on that front. What I can do is comment from a moral perspective, or that of what it says about the state of our society. Shamima is not easy to like and I cannot say that I do. I have only seen a few clips of her being interviewed but she comes across poorly, as I am sure would most teenage girls, especially ones in her position. The thought of an interview of a teenage me being how I was judged is a pretty chilling prospect. Shamima has also made some very poor life choices. Being dislikeable and having allied herself with public enemy number one she has made herself quite easy to villainize. That being said, our governments attempts to wash their hands of her is utterly disgraceful and wrong on multiple levels. I don't think she should be given a free pass, I don't know the specifics of her actions, and thus a fitting punishment if required, but I do know she deserves a fair trail and that is our responsibility. She is our mess and if you make a mess you clear it up, that is pretty basic stuff.
Now, lets us consider that she was 15, a minor, when she left the UK. We failed to protect a minor being groomed by a terrorist organization. We failed to stop them stealing our children and putting them to use in their quite awful cause. Then we had the gall to blame her and make her the bad guy. We are trying to punish a child victim as an adult perpetrator. We are doing so despite that not being how the law works by not letting her have her trail or become repatriated. We have failed this girl every step of the way and neither admitting this failing nor trying to make amends. We are likely going to continue to fail her simply in an attempt to avoid having to admit that we ever did in the first place.
While this is bad on a personal level for her and her family it is more concerning on a societal level. Imagine her name was Emily Watts and she was pretty, eloquent, and white. Would she have her citizenship revoked? Much as those responsible for this debacle would argue that they would but you know they wouldn't have. This hypothetical Emily could have dual nationality with somewhere else like Australia or Canada or other "people like us" countries and that wouldn't change things either. Sure, we would try Emily when we brought her back and she would do some jail time if deemed that she had acted criminally but we would never discard her. What we are essentially promoting here as a nation is a pretty clear racial bias where by people who look like like Shamima are not regarded as British regardless of the fact that she is 100% British. She has never visited Bangladesh. She speaks with a London accent. I don't care what you look like or what your name is, your accent betrays "where you are from". Shamima is a Londoner. All you do by trying to claim she isn't somehow is to disenfranchise all those British people who also look like her and reinforce an "us and them" bias in white British people who are predisposed to such things.
Revoking Shamima's citizenship is a huge betrayal of individual justice while also being a massive betrayal of the British people as a whole, particularly those that have dark skin. It is a terrible example to set and really diminishes our ability as a nation to try and take the high moral ground. Not that anyone which much of an interest in history would be fooled into thinking we had that in the first place... What I find most distasteful about this whole thing is that there is relatively little in the way of outrage. This is the kind of thing that has long term implications and fall out. It is like when you drop bombs with too much disregard for civilians and then wonder why a generation later there are loads of easily radicalised young adults. These choices are imposing a rift on society that is of no merit and to no ones advantage. Rifts that can last for generations. The public seem like they either don't care all that much or actively support this choice and this re-enforces this rift. Obviously ours, and most other governments do loads of shady and immoral stuff, plenty of which results in loss or life or other injustices. What stands out about this act is that it is a very symbolic one with little in the way of benefits. It looks like a political stunt. Like, selling arms to even shadier nations is bad but you have to pay the bills somehow. You can see why arm deals happen and appreciate there are some perks involved. This case however has nothing but drawbacks and would be so easy to just not do. I guess at least it does showcase that governments act a lot more like they have your interests at heart than the reality. Even the favoured people are still third in line behind self interest and those with power and money.
