There’s a two-faced game being played out by Islamists and the British Left Wing that is intent on playing on the heart strings of decent people in the UK, and the game is to victimise terrorists, while pretending to care about prosecuting them.
We see it in the rhetoric or journalists and politicians. It’s on display here in the piece by Maya Foa.
The claim is often made that Begum was no more than a child, at 15-1/2 – but there are a couple of issues with that:
- She was only months away from being what many ‘left wing progressives’ consider to be a valid voting age of 16.
- She is above the threshold of 15 that Criminologist Professor Phil Scraton, from Queen’s University in Belfast, thinks is suitable for criminal prosecution.
The selective victimisation and removal of personal responsibility is common even when it comes to adults – progressives are keen to make excuses for the most abhorrent of criminals. We see it with the ‘racism of low expectations’ that often results in criminals from other cultures being let off lightly. But when it comes to teenagers, their emotions get the better of them.
For decades in Gaza, young children have been groomed from an early age to be terrorist that want nothing more than to kill Jews and become Martyrs for Islam, They became the adults that perpetrated the horrific acts on 7 October.
Muslim Palestinian TV has childrens programmes encouraging children to stab Jews.
But the British press rarely point this out. Some would much prefer to blame Israel for anything that the ‘resistance’ does.
These Jihadi Brides, and the terrorists of Gaza, are turned into victims, and their acts ignored.
Don’t be fooled by the “bring her back to face British justice“. That is nothing more than a headline meant to appease those that think ‘justice’ would be possible. I get the feeling that if it were to be strong justice, Foa would be right there opposing the British justice she assumes Begum would come back to face.
There is a case to be made about whether children should be criminalised for their acts. These are the words of Criminologist Professor Phil Scraton, from Queen’s University in Belfast, regarding the criminalisation of children, as reported here, in reference to the young killers of James Bulger:
“What I am surprised at is after all these years and so many studies on children and young people we still see it as appropriate to prosecute and criminalise children and young people and to put children and young people into custody.
“The impact on a child of having a criminal record at a very young age is immense. That goes with them into schools and where ever they go. The label stays with them and is internalised.”
He suggested that the age of criminal responsibility here should be 15 or 16.
“Ten to 15-year-olds would not be prosecuted and instead would go through a welfare supported process,” he suggested.
“They would not be let off the offence but we would support their troubled behaviour and attempt to understand it and put it in context.
“We need to remove the criminal label from children so that can develop as a human being to his or her full potential.
“Early intervention programmes should not be about selecting a child on the basis of clear indicators of who might be at risk. We assume that all children might be in that category and put in place appropriate education, welfare, social support for all children.
“This would be a model which would not single out and demonise individual children and their behaviour.”
The problem here is that the ages he chooses are somewhat arbitrary, as if they were road speed limits or the voting age. Notice the imprecision of his age ranges – 15 is included in both the criminalised and non-criminalised ranges.
Many 30mph roads would be safe at 35mph, or even higher, and many are not safe at 30mph – though drivers are expected to adjust their speed down to suit the road and conditions. But it would be rediculous to have continuously variable legal speed limits on every road, so we accept national standards: 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 being arbitrary but convient limits.
There are left wing calls to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. Again, the ages are somewhat arbitrary. But in the context of indoctrination we know that teenagers are naturally rebellious are are more likely to be captured byt the more extreme ideologies – and yes, Begum and ISIS are evidence of that.
However, when it comes to horrendous criminal acts we have to be sure we are protecting the public. And, in terminal cases of murder, the risk to the public is greater than the risk to the wellbeing of the perpetrator. And, there are aspects of personality that can mean an individual is never fit to be free.
Add to that the many cases of Islamic terrorists being released, or on security watch lists, that have then gone on to kill, and it is clear there are many innocent deaths that are due to the far too lenient assessments of the danger terrorists pose.
This report shows that terrorst recidivism is relatively low:
Re-Offending by Released Terrorist Prisoners: Separating Hype from Reality
However, that’s no concession to subsequent victims and families of released terrorists that go on to kill – and on the whole we are lucky that a relased terrorist hasn’t committed a massive terrorist act like Manchester Arena or 7/7.
Incidentally, there is no shortage of Muslim and other political opinion, particularly the ‘nice progressive’ people of the far left, that that thinks ‘far right terrorists’ should be locked up for life. From their rhetoric you’d think Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage were on a par with Anjem Choudary – and look how much damage he has been able to do before finally being locked up for life.
So, what of ‘victim’ Begum? was she groomed? Sure – all Islamic terrorists are, for who would choose to kill innocents other than for bezarre ideological reasons.
Is she still being groomed? damned right she is. This transition from Jihadi terrorist bride, to nice British Muslim girl with Union Jack cushion, to cool liberated Western Asian teen is not convincing. I’d be curious to know if she dresses just for the photo shoots. Are we still being played.
It is possible to deradicalise. I’ve seen moving stories, such as the one from Manwar Ali, a former radicalised Muslim. But radicalisation of chilren is easier, and deradicalisation is far more difficult.
Begum and friends wanted to joined the wonderful Islamic Caliphate being constructed by ISIS. Any indoctrination that invokes that desire cannot escape the features of the Caliphate that the readicals are only too pleased to tell us about: death for inocuous ‘crimes’, enslavement .. the beheadings of the Kaffir.
And, even later in the camps, age 19, before her re-styling, Begum was unrepenting of her extremist beliefs. She’s still in Islamic Syria. Why would she want to come home to the terrible West?
Ramblings 