**TLDR - By stripping Shamima Begum of her citizenship, the UK has set dangerous precedent, in which it can leave it's citizens stateless, and forgo any responsibility and duty for justice it has towards all UK citizens** I don't think there are many people who would defend Shamima Begum's actions. In 2015, at the age of 15, she and her 2 friends traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She was then later discovered in a Syrian Refugee camp in 2019, 9 months pregnant, and when she was found her citizenship was cancelled under security concerns. Her attitude this whole time has clearly been one of arrogance and a lack of remorse, and this is sure to anger a lot of people, myself included. She has made claims of being unfazed upon seeing a beheaded man as he was an 'enemy of Islam'. [2] And yet, she is still a UK citizen (or was). She is our responsibility to prosecute, and our responsibility to rehabilitate. She was groomed on our soil, to the point of leaving to join a terrorist group at age 15. This was a failure of the UK, not other countries, therefore her prosecution needs to happen in the UK. The decision was made on the basis that she is a a citizen of Bangladesh by descent on her mother's side, but Bangladesh has denied this. She has never applied for dual citizenship, and as such her sole citizenship is the UK. [3] We have a responsibility to give every UK citizen a fair trial, no matter how heinous their crimes, or how despicable their attitude. It simply does not matter whether or not they are remorseful, we are a democracy and a move like this undermines that fact. REFERENCES [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-bring-me-home-says-bethnal-green-girl-who-fled-to-join-isis-hgvqw765d [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47312207

**TL;DR Stripping Shamima Begum of her citizenship should not facilitate wider application of the decision in future** As of 26th February, Shamima Begum will not be allowed to return to the UK to contest the February 2019 revocation of her citizenship. (1) This wasn’t the first of last a British citizenship has been revoked in this context. In August of the same year Jack Letts was one the circa 150 people since 2010 to have faced this ruling. (2) Then Home Secretary Sajid Javid said of the decision: “…in some circumstances, the only reasonable way left to protect this country is to make sure someone cannot re-enter it”. (3) The decision has been contested from the outset on the grounds that it would have made Begum stateless; which is prohibited by the 1981 British Nationality act- the counter argument being that Begum was entitled to Bangladesh citizenship through her parents and would therefore not be stateless. (4) However; the Bangladeshi authorities assert that Begum, who was born and raised in the UK, is not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. (5) In a 2019 interview with the Today programme, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Anderson commented: “She’s got no real connection to the country to which the home secretary is saying she now exclusively belongs.”(2) ¬ On one level; it can be argued that the decision impedes her right to a free trial as outlined by the Human Rights Act and that although restrictions can apply with regards to extradition, the decision is ethically contrary to its underlying principles. (6) Lawyer Rosie Brighouse of advocacy group Liberty states: “The right to a fair trial is not something democratic Governments should take away on a whim, and nor is someone’s British citizenship. If a Government is allowed to wield extreme powers like banishment without the basic safeguards of a fair trial it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.”(7) Further criticisms can be made of the attempt to shift responsibility for Shamima Begum and her case to Bangladesh. Former shadow home secretary Diane Abbott describes this as: “…a failure to meet our security obligations to the international community.”(2)¬ Responsibility is perhaps the key to the case. The government’s responsibility to its citizens; to the international community- and the responsibility of the individual in committing acts of sedition. There are allegations of her active engagement in policing morality (8) which remain unverified, but her agency should not be dismissed. The case is complex and multi-faceted; issues of human rights, national security, the international community and personal agency are all factors which make definite judgements difficult. The stripping of citizenship remains a dire consequence. Shamima Begum’s case should not set a precedent for it to be a decision taken without consideration of the government’s responsibility to balance the upholding of right to fair trial; regardless of remorse, affect or crime, alongside national and international security. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/jack-letts-stripped-british-citizenship-isis-canada 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shamima-begum-uk-citizenship-stripped-home-office-sajid-javid-a8788301.html 3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shamima-begum-isis-bride-citizenship-revoked-uk-sajid-javid-home-office-a8789906.html 4. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61 5. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47312207 6. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial 7. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/misuse-of-extreme-powers-latest-threat-to-rule-of-law-says-liberty-in-shamima-begum-case/ 8. https://www.businessinsider.com/isis-bride-shamima-begum-allegedly-enforcer-in-morality-police-2019-4?r=US&IR=T

The revocation of Begum's citizenship sets a dangerous precedent for the UK allowing an individual to become de jure stateless. Ad hoc denationalisation undermines the spirit of international law and constitutes a dereliction of duty to deal with home-grown terrorism. When denationalisation leaves an individual de jure stateless, citizenship should be an unconditional status unless an individual consents to surrendering it, even if that individual has acted in ways seriously prejudicial to UK interests (as Begum is British by birth-right, without dual citizenship). It should be noted that this issue is bound up with public sentiment considerations -- citizens tend to imagine citizenship as denser than a mere legal obligation for the state, comprising broader notions of loyalty and allegiance, and terrorism obviously elicits an emotional response. However, there is very limited instrumental value in denationalisation with regards to national security, and it weakens the status of citizenship by making it contingent upon citizens' behavioural performance. Further, dealing with transnational terrorist networks requires extensive coordination between various states and governance systems -- dumping responsibility for Begum on Bangladesh's lap through a legal loophole is not conducive to international cooperation. Any actions that abandon this commitment serve to undermine the fight against Daesh in the long-term. A policy of repatriation and prosecution with due process should be invoked if Begum is found to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. After she has served her time, the process of rehabilitation and deradicalisation can then begin on UK soil. This would not allow Begum to evade accountability for her actions in Syria, and would fulfil the UK government's obligations under international law.