THETALK.NG learnt that a Controversial Australian bride, Shamima Begum, and her children are branded as ISIS.
I don’t give a flying fig about the colour of Shamima Begum’s eyes or skin.
But what I do know is that if I were to stare into her oculus of evil, I would see a despicable ISIS defector who expressed no remorse for the Manchester Arena bombing that killed eight-year-old Saffie-Rose Roussos and 21 other innocents.
I have no doubt Begum is a knowing traitor who fled Bethnal Green willingly in a calculated strategy to act as a member of the Islamic State’s morality police, carrying a Kalashnikov rifle and ensuring women stuck to their barbaric rules while helping to sew suicide vests for the male jihadists.
And, as a result, the 23-year-old ISIS bride must never step foot in our country again.
In fact, she should be held up as the ultimate lesson to any British youngster thinking of joining a death cult that this is not some sort of flight of fancy, but a life sentence.
If Begum has to rot in Al-Roj camp in northeast Syria because Bangladesh, where she can also apply for citizenship, won’t have her either, then so be it.
The Home Office and MI5 long ago concluded she remains a serious security threat and the time has come for the courts to accept that rationale and move on.
But leftie lawyers acting on her behalf this week are attempting to make a new argument to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that Begum was sex trafficked for the purposes of exploitation in 2015, coinciding with a new PR campaign to suggest she was a victim of racism as a child.
In the British broadcast media and political establishment dominated by bleeding heart liberals who believe it’s somehow not appropriate to send back to their country of origin illegal economic migrants arriving via the Channel on small boats operated by people smuggling gangs, a new narrative is emerging about why Begum – who now presents herself as an Avril Lavigne-style western skater girl – must be allowed to return here.
Far left commentator Marina Purkiss told Jeremy Vine this week: ‘If Shamima was a 15-year-old white girl with blue eyes who had been groomed in this way we wouldn’t be having this conversation.’
Of course, not only is that total nonsense, given we also stripped the very white Jihadi Jack Letts of his British citizenship, it’s also doing the PR bidding of Begum who has finally realised she can win over the woke west with woeful stories of victimhood.
That’s why, in a newly released interview that I played on my GB News show last night, Begum told the journalist Andrew Drury that she ‘faced racism’ at primary school, where she claims she experienced a teacher giving ‘favouritism to white kids’ when she was seven or eight-years-old.
Even if we give Begum the benefit of the doubt, the idea that a sole experience of discrimination at an East London school somehow provides an excuse for defecting to ISIS is risible.
Drury has been a faithful part of the Begum PR campaign for the past two years.
But, having heard about her lawyers’ sex trafficking claim, he’s finally turned on Begum, realising she is an accomplished liar.
He told me: ‘I’ve spent hours and hours interviewing her. I’ve investigated her story for years. And in the beginning, yes, I was sucked in by her telling me that she was a victim who had been radicalised.
‘But I’m so shocked about these sex trafficking claims because in all the times I’ve spoken to her she has never once mentioned it. There was no sex trafficking and radicalisation never took place. She sought a life with ISIS. She looked for it.’
Drury believes Begum is being fed information to try and transform her image and public statements, hence the dramatic makeover to suggest she has re-embraced western values.
The reality is that Begum only wants to be considered a victim now that she’s realised the British government is serious about stripping her citizenship and keeping her out for good.
FREE USA, CANADA & UK 🇬🇧 Scholarships, Jobs, Work Visas, Study visas, Exchange programs, and much more. CLICK HERE!
If the caliphate hadn’t failed, it’s likely she would have continued supporting the ISIS campaign of terror against the UK.
When she fled to join the terrorist group, they were already committing abhorrent acts of violence, including filmed beheadings, burnings and drownings, of anyone western.
While I feel desperately sorry for the Begum family, especially her mother Asma whose witness statement revealed the personal hell of Shamima fleeing, the teenage Straight-A student knew exactly what she was doing when she left the country to join ISIS.
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, said she went to Syria ‘with her eyes open’ about the brutality of the terrorist organisation.
The 23-year-old’s legal appeal at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) was told that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, had failed to consider the “serious practical consequences” of removing Begum’s UK citizenship in 2019.
“It is clear that he gave no consideration to the prospect that the deprivation decision would render the appellant de facto stateless,” Dan Squires KC, for Begum, told the hearing.
Begum left her home in east London when she was 15 and travelled to Syria, where she married an Islamic State fighter.
Home Office documents shared with the court showed that Begum’s “de jure statelessness” was confirmed only the day before her citizenship was revoked.
“There is nothing in any of the home secretary’s evidence which suggests that consideration was given – prior to the deprivation decision being taken, or indeed at any time – to matters relating to de facto citizenship,” Squires said in submissions.
These matters included whether Begum would be recognised by Bangladesh as a citizen and provided with any protection or practical support, he said.
“The home secretary has not responded to the allegation that the decision-maker neither directed his mind to this issue, nor took steps such as contacting the Bangladeshi authorities to find out their position regarding the appellant,” Squires said.
Had such inquiries been carried out, “the Bangladesh authorities would have confirmed that the appellant would be hanged if she entered the country,” Squires said.
He added: “This was their stark position in respect of the appellant as set out in the public statements of the Bangladeshi authorities immediately after the decision was taken.”
In May 2019, Bangladesh’s foreign minister confirmed Begum could face the death penalty for involvement in terrorism if she went to Bangladesh.
Begum’s lawyers said: “It is clear that, had the home secretary made inquiries as to the practical effect of depriving the appellant of her citizenship, he would likely have understood that the appellant could be left without the protection of any state.”
“It was, or ought to have been, known to the home secretary, that even where deprivation does not result in de jure statelessness, it may render a person de facto stateless, with extremely serious practical consequences.”
The Home Office lawyers said that the argument “appears to amount to an assertion that the secretary of state is under a duty to seek the views of foreign governments before he decides whether to deprive one of their nationals of their British citizenship.
“Such an argument, were Siac to accept it, would have very serious consequences – indeed, it would likely render the entire deprivation regime inoperable.”
The lawyers said it would be “relatively straightforward” for a foreign government to disavow that an individual either is a national or state that they would not be treated as one, even where that had no basis in the nationality laws of that state.