At 15 years old, a young Londoner called Shamima Begum decided to go to Afghanistan to join the extremist group, ISIS.
Now, at 19, she is begging for the UK to let her come back.
Do you think we should let her back into Britain? Why?
Here's my take on the matter.
For
Shamima was only 15 years old when she joined ISIS - for someone so immature, surely her decision was influenced by extremists?
Shamima's lawyer claimed that she was groomed, and blames the UK authorities for not protecting her - but how could such an incompetent government look after one girl? It's not like they knew what was happening; the government have other things to worry about, ahem, like Brexit.
However, although being only 15 years of age, Shamima knew what was happening: she'd seen footage of massacres, and actively made the decision to join the group who were causing so much suffering (unless she was directly manipulated - we don't know for sure).
Anyhow, there is a lack of trust from the UK - if we let her back in, who's to say she won't betray our trust again? For all we know, she could be wanting a return ticket just so she can gather more followers; our government must handle this case very, very carefully, as Shamima has obviously been brainwashed. Who knows what she's capable of?
The child never got to choose its mother, or its life; surely it's unfair to let it grow up in a place of suffering?
But, if we want to save Shamima's child, we're faced with a tricky dilemma - do we take the child away on its own, or let it come with its mother?
In my opinion, it would be unethical to take the child away from its mother, as it would inevitably lead to attachment issues in later life, and maternal deprivation is known, in some cases, to lead to affectionless psychopathy. Thus, I believe that it would be moral to let Shamima and her baby back into Britain, if not for Shamima's sake, then for her child.
If Shamima was a man, would we even consider letting him into the UK?
Some would argue that, no, we wouldn't, because 'men are more dangerous'. Why make an exception for Shamima, just because she's a woman? Is her gender the only reason we are considering her return? Because she has a child? Oh, but this is unfair!
A little counter-argument, here:
If it were the opposite way round; say, if a man were considered to be allowed to do something, whereas a woman wasn't, wouldn't there be an uprising, from women around the world, calling this blatant, horrific sexism?
Yet, in this case, if Shamima were a male, there would be no consideration of his return. He would be left to suffer in silence in a terrorist group, that he no longer wished to be part of, just because we thought he might be dangerous.
Isn't that messed up?
The thing is, when we find these terrorists, we're not hesitant to just lock them up for 10, 20 years - until we think they've learnt their lesson - and then release them back out into the world, no questions asked, so that they can continue to gather more followers. Not ideal, right?
These people need help, and they are not getting it! How are we expecting to stop ISIS if we don't show them that what they're doing is wrong, if we don't alter their psychological patterns of behaviour - are we just going to keep dropping bombs on countries under Islamic State until someone surrenders, or until everyone's dead? Because that's what seems to be happening around the world, and this will continue to happen until someone has the courage to stop, and think about what they are doing.
Dropping bombs is not going to get rid of the problem - in fact, it's just angering more and more ordinary citizens, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what's driving them to join extremist forces, such as ISIS.
Extremists and terrorists are obviously troubled, whether from childhood trauma, or from being victims of abuse, but they won't reach out for help; here is where we can come in.
Talk to them, reach out to them; whether it takes weeks, months, or years, I believe that it is always possible to make even the worst people see good in the world, and I believe that the only way to make such a change is to bring kindness into a place filled with hatred.
Hopefully none of us have had any experience of being manipulated into joining an extreme terrorist group, so we can't fully understand Shamima's situation. Everything we know is from an outsider's perspective, so we are likely wrong in many ways about what we think happened to Shamima - almost everything is an educated guess.
~~~
This is a pretty two-sided debate, and I have no real idea of where I stand - the government take full responsibility for Shamima's situation, so whatever they do, let's pray that they don't make the wrong decision.
What's your opinion on this controversial situation? Should we be hospitable and lenient, or firm and unforgiving?
- R
Now, at 19, she is begging for the UK to let her come back.
Do you think we should let her back into Britain? Why?
Here's my take on the matter.
For
Shamima was only 15 years old when she joined ISIS - for someone so immature, surely her decision was influenced by extremists?
 |
| Source: BBC News |
Shamima's lawyer claimed that she was groomed, and blames the UK authorities for not protecting her - but how could such an incompetent government look after one girl? It's not like they knew what was happening; the government have other things to worry about, ahem, like Brexit.
Against
However, although being only 15 years of age, Shamima knew what was happening: she'd seen footage of massacres, and actively made the decision to join the group who were causing so much suffering (unless she was directly manipulated - we don't know for sure).
Anyhow, there is a lack of trust from the UK - if we let her back in, who's to say she won't betray our trust again? For all we know, she could be wanting a return ticket just so she can gather more followers; our government must handle this case very, very carefully, as Shamima has obviously been brainwashed. Who knows what she's capable of?
For
However, Shamima has a child, which, for some people, changes their perspective on the situation completely: should her child have to grow up in a war zone?The child never got to choose its mother, or its life; surely it's unfair to let it grow up in a place of suffering?
But, if we want to save Shamima's child, we're faced with a tricky dilemma - do we take the child away on its own, or let it come with its mother?
In my opinion, it would be unethical to take the child away from its mother, as it would inevitably lead to attachment issues in later life, and maternal deprivation is known, in some cases, to lead to affectionless psychopathy. Thus, I believe that it would be moral to let Shamima and her baby back into Britain, if not for Shamima's sake, then for her child.
Against
As the fight for gender equality has never been so potent, I present to you a question:If Shamima was a man, would we even consider letting him into the UK?
Some would argue that, no, we wouldn't, because 'men are more dangerous'. Why make an exception for Shamima, just because she's a woman? Is her gender the only reason we are considering her return? Because she has a child? Oh, but this is unfair!
A little counter-argument, here:
If it were the opposite way round; say, if a man were considered to be allowed to do something, whereas a woman wasn't, wouldn't there be an uprising, from women around the world, calling this blatant, horrific sexism?
Yet, in this case, if Shamima were a male, there would be no consideration of his return. He would be left to suffer in silence in a terrorist group, that he no longer wished to be part of, just because we thought he might be dangerous.
Isn't that messed up?
 |
| We always need to see things from another perspective |
For
It would be useful to bring Shamima back to the UK as an example to others, to show them that there is a way out, and that what ISIS is doing is wrong.The thing is, when we find these terrorists, we're not hesitant to just lock them up for 10, 20 years - until we think they've learnt their lesson - and then release them back out into the world, no questions asked, so that they can continue to gather more followers. Not ideal, right?
These people need help, and they are not getting it! How are we expecting to stop ISIS if we don't show them that what they're doing is wrong, if we don't alter their psychological patterns of behaviour - are we just going to keep dropping bombs on countries under Islamic State until someone surrenders, or until everyone's dead? Because that's what seems to be happening around the world, and this will continue to happen until someone has the courage to stop, and think about what they are doing.
Dropping bombs is not going to get rid of the problem - in fact, it's just angering more and more ordinary citizens, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what's driving them to join extremist forces, such as ISIS.
Extremists and terrorists are obviously troubled, whether from childhood trauma, or from being victims of abuse, but they won't reach out for help; here is where we can come in.
Talk to them, reach out to them; whether it takes weeks, months, or years, I believe that it is always possible to make even the worst people see good in the world, and I believe that the only way to make such a change is to bring kindness into a place filled with hatred.
Hopefully none of us have had any experience of being manipulated into joining an extreme terrorist group, so we can't fully understand Shamima's situation. Everything we know is from an outsider's perspective, so we are likely wrong in many ways about what we think happened to Shamima - almost everything is an educated guess.
~~~
This is a pretty two-sided debate, and I have no real idea of where I stand - the government take full responsibility for Shamima's situation, so whatever they do, let's pray that they don't make the wrong decision.
What's your opinion on this controversial situation? Should we be hospitable and lenient, or firm and unforgiving?
- R
Comments
Post a Comment