Cynicism, recklessness and hypocrisy
Why the government’s decision to strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship should alarm us all
Photograph: Former Home Secretary Sajid Javid. Credit: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office on Flickr.
This updated article was originally published in our March 2019 print issue.
In February 2015, three teenage girls from East London boarded a Turkish Airlines flight from Gatwick to Istanbul. Unbeknown to their parents at the time, the so-called ‘Bethnal Green trio’ had fled their homes to join Islamic State (IS). Five years later, one of them wants to return.
Shamima Begum has been awarded little pity ever since a Times journalist found her in a Syrian refugee camp. She did not appear to regret her decision to join the terror group, showed little remorse for its victims. The tabloid press went into a frenzy. Opinion polls showed that the overwhelming majority of the British public wanted her to stay in Syria. Ultimately, the Home Secretary, then Sajid Javid, responded by revoking her UK citizenship.
Legal experts remain divided on whether this represents a breach of international law, which maintains that a person cannot be made stateless. The UK government insists that Begum is eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh, her parent’s birthplace. The latter objects, pointing out that she has never held Bangladeshi citizenship, is a British citizen by birth and has never applied for dual-nationality.
Mine is not a popular view to hold on this issue, but I shall state it anyway. The response by Javid and the British government was wrong. While the legality of the matter is yet to be decided by the courts, the former Home Secretary had, under pressure from the press and buoyed by his own political ambitions, set a dangerous precedent which should alarm us all.
Firstly, I find it deeply worrisome that so many of those who bemoan the ever-encroaching ‘nanny-state’ when the government taxes sugary drinks are now fine with politicians playing games with something as fundamental as the nature of our citizenship. This is an issue far greater than Begum and her idiotic exploits. Tabloid hysteria and the stroke of a pen is all it took for someone to be deprived of a fundamental right. All because Sajid Javid wanted to lead the Tory Party.
Don’t assume for a moment that you are isolated from this issue. The government’s decision effectively devalues everyone’s citizenship, not just those who went to join a murderous death cult. It reclassifies it as a privilege that may be taken away as easily as a visa. If unchallenged, it means that you too can potentially be left stateless abroad as long as the court of public opinion demands it, and as long as it remains in someone’s political interest to do so. This episode should terrify anyone concerned with government overreach.
All British nationals should be equal before the law, yet it now appears that some are more equal than others. More specifically, the passport of anyone with recent foreign ancestry is now firmly in the latter group. I don’t want to use the ‘R-word’, but it’s difficult not to view it that way. Begum was born in London, has only ever held British citizenship and has never set foot in Bangladesh. The government’s decision has effectively created two tiers of citizenship. It implies that someone like Begum (or, indeed, Sajid Javid, who was born in Lancashire to Pakistani parents) is less British than someone whose family has lived here for many generations.
Picture the following scenario. An Islamist hate preacher arrives in Britain and is later arrested under the terrorism act after urging his followers to join IS. The Home Office begins making arrangements for his deportation, however, his native country suddenly revokes his citizenship, leaving him stranded on our shores. Now imagine the sheer fury of the right-wing commentariat that would surely follow. How dare they use our country as a dumping ground for their fanatics? Should they not take responsibility? Yet this is precisely what the British government has done to Begum and to Syria.
The hypocrisy is impossible to ignore. We constantly insist upon our right as a nation to deport criminals whenever we see fit, yet were perfectly comfortable with leaving a war-torn country without an effective government to decide what happens to Begum and her week-old child (who, it needs to be said, is legally a Briton).
Two weeks following this article’s original publication, Begum’s son had died of pneumonia. Sajid Javid did not even get to be Prime Minister.
The government’s decision represented a complete dereliction of responsibility. It was in total contradiction even with its own counter-terrorism strategy and its attempts to delegate the matter to a country Begum has never even been to are as desperate as they are pathetic. Shamima Begum is British, and if she has committed crimes against this country she has a right to be tried in a British court. Anything else would be completely beneath a liberal democracy with respect for the rule of law that we still claim to be.
