[ad_1]
When I was a child from a minority background, of all the racist abuse I had to endure on the streets of London, the one that affected me the most was probably the derogatory command: “Go back to where you came from.”
Considering that I was born and raised in this city, I have not forgotten the absurdity of this statement. Nevertheless, it instilled a clear and unmistakable sense of “other” in me, and despite my best efforts to get rid of it, it still reappears occasionally to this day.
Many years later, a form of one-off, grassroots confrontation at that time seems to have become the official position of the government.
The cancellation of Shamima Begum’s British citizenship in 2019 clearly shows: Just as some roles of George Orwell in animal farms are more equal than others, in the eyes of the country, some Britons are more British than others.
According to international law, the cancellation of citizenship is only allowed if the individual does not become stateless. Shamima left her home in East London for Syria at the age of 15 in 2015. She never had a second citizenship, so the decision to cancel her British citizenship-making her stateless-is undoubtedly illegal.
Then, the Secretary of the Interior Sajid Javid-ironically, he was also an immigrant-tried to legitimize the move by pointing out Shamima’s Bangladeshi descent and claiming that she could return to her The country of origin of the parents.
Javid knew that Shamima had never set foot in the country and never had a Bangladeshi passport, so he made this statement. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the country clearly asserted that Shamima “is not a citizen of Bangladesh, he still tried to pressure her. She was a British citizen at birth and never applied for dual citizenship with Bangladesh… She was allowed There is no doubt about entering Bangladesh.”
Javid also tried to defend his controversial decision by citing unspecified “security issues.” Considering that Shamimar will undoubtedly be subject to the strictest restrictions as soon as she enters the UK, it is difficult to see what kind of security risks she will bring to her country. In the past few years, hundreds of former ISIL fighters and supporters have returned to the UK. Presumably, any measures to keep them consistent also apply to Shamimar.
The broader implication of Javid’s decision is that for anyone with an immigrant background-frankly, this applies to a large extent to people of color-it is conditional to become a British. These conditions may only manifest themselves in extreme circumstances—in the case where Shamima was accused of joining a “terrorist organization”—but they are still conditions.
Now, some people may cite the case of Jack Letts or “Jihadi Jack” by refuting this argument. In other words, those who have even heard of him, because he received fewer media reports than Shamimar. Remind ourselves that Jack is a white middle-class Muslim convert who was born in Oxford. He had traveled to Syria and was accused of joining ISIL. He only holds a British passport, but is eligible for Canadian citizenship through his father. Javid deprived him of his British citizenship at the end of 2019.
On the surface, Shamima and Jack’s situation seems very similar. But looking at the timeline of events raises some interesting questions. Jack traveled to Syria in 2014-a year earlier than Shamimar. In February 2019, Shamima’s citizenship was revoked just one day after her first television interview in a Syrian refugee camp. Six months later, Jack’s citizenship was taken away. Therefore, it is forgivable for people to conclude that actions taken against Jack are just as important as sloppy consistency; almost like an afterthought. If Javid can make a swift decision to Shamima, why can’t he make the same decision to Jack?
Chris Daw, a British barrister and author of the book “Justice in Trial”, said that he believed that Shamima’s decision was motivated by public anger after the interview. In the interview, she seemed to be uncomfortable with her behavior. repentance.
“The reality here is that this is Sajid Javid’s political decision,” he said. “This is to gain public opinion. However, this kind of populist approach, that is, decisions are not made based on any basic fairness principle, or there is actually no idea about how racist the decision is, which is very problematic. It shows that those politicians are only interested in doing well in the media, getting positive media coverage, and getting people knocking on tables in bars across the country.”
But this is not just confined to the muttering in the dusty drinking hole of a small English town. Harmful judgments against Shamima come from all levels of British society, including educated city dwellers and even the highest national institutions, most of which are staged on mainstream and social media. This is an almost unanimous judgment, and its ferocity is shocking. When British journalist Piers Morgan tweeted that Shaminma should “rot in hell,” his emotions were shocking.
In the media circus that has swept Shamima, there seems to be little room to allow the fact that in the eyes of the law, she is a minor victim of online beauty, and as a result, her actions may have almost no agency rights.
“A 15-year-old girl who was trained online deserves our protection,” Daw said. “In fact, she was trained and manipulated so successfully, went to the war zone and gave birth to multiple children at a very young age, but unfortunately passed away. Leaving made her situation worse. She is clearly a victim of the most unusual and worst form of human trafficking, and we should do everything we can to get her home and support her.”
The public’s response to Shamimar’s experience is in stark contrast to the collective sympathy for other teenage beauty victims. Someone wants to know, what could be the reason for this?
“It’s just because she has brown skin and she has some distant relatives with Bangladesh. This is a country that she hasn’t even been to. Shamima is treated differently,” Daw said. “A 15-year-old girl who happens to be of Bangladeshi descent should be treated exactly like any other British-born girl.”
“Regarding the issue of plastic surgery gangs, white girls have always been at the forefront and center as victims, but there is no discussion about brown girls who are also victims,” British social commentator Sunny Hundal agreed. “I think there must be racism in this.”
But Hundal also admitted that in her first interview, her provocative and unapologetic attitude towards Shamima concealed any sympathy for her.
“I don’t believe that Shamima’s story is a clear case of Islamophobia or racism,” he said. “We were talking about a terrorist organization, which was the biggest story in the world at the time. At first, Shamima gave the impression that she was unapologetic. She seemed to believe that she had made no mistakes in joining ISIS. Over time, she changed her ’S story, so you can understand the controversy about whether you see her as the victim or the perpetrator.”
In fact, few people are shocked by Shamima’s stubborn assertions about the atrocities committed by ISIL, including countless deadly attacks and countless beheadings around the world.
However, suggesting that Shamima is still worthy of proper legal procedures does not discredit the victims of these attacks. Admitting that Shamima was trafficked and that she lost three children when she was 22 years old does not exonerate her from the crime she was accused of.
As a TV reporter, I covered the war extensively from inside Syria. I have seen the suffering of the people there at the hands of armed groups such as ISIL, let alone the Bashar al-Assad regime itself. I have witnessed the residual pain on their faces, the sadness that permeates the depths of everyone who has experienced torture, fear, and death of their loved ones.
This is why, as a global society, we must acknowledge their suffering and the suffering of those affected by ISIL terrorist attacks in the UK and other parts of the world. They all deserve justice, and few disagree that the perpetrators of these attacks should be held accountable. If these perpetrators are minors, they must also bear criminal responsibility within the legal framework that suits their status.
However, unceremoniously depriving Shamima of her citizenship, refusing to give her a fair trial, and subjecting her to merciless and vicious insults will weaken our own humanity. It is a rough treatment of social structures that separate civilized society from barbaric lawlessness in which groups such as ISIL thrive.
In 1993, two young British boys were accused of torturing and murdering a two-year-old boy named Jamie Burg. Their actions shook the whole country. However, both boys were given a fair trial, and then justice was served. What is the logical reason why Shamima cannot access the same process?
In a recent television interview, Sajid Javid stated that he saw damn information about Shamima’s activities in Syria. If this is the case, he should provide evidence to the court instead of telling us that he knows something we don’t know, and at the same time nudges and winks in the manner of a cunning backstreet police officer.
Like Shamima, I also have Bengali ancestry. Just as I can’t “go back to where I came from”, neither can she. Britain is where we belong. We have nowhere to go. But her treatment told me that I was also affected by conditions that other British people did not have. Only after the restoration of Shamima’s citizenship can we restore confidence in our country of birth.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
[ad_2]
Source link