UK Politics : Groundhog May

[Fez]

4 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Here's a story you won't see on BBC News today.

Over 200 Jewish members and supporters of the Labour party sign a letter urging that anyone seeking an end to bigotry and racism should back Labour and Corbyn

 

You should probably look a little closer at the names on that list. It includes, among other lovely folks, Elleanne Green, the holocaust-denier, and Jonathan Rosenhead who claims that "the Zionists" prevented hundreds of thousands of Jews from escaping the holocaust. Similar views can be found among some of the other 200 as well.

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

You should probably look a little closer at the names on that list. It includes, among other lovely folks, Elleanne Green, the holocaust-denier, and Jonathan Rosenhead who claims that "the Zionists" prevented hundreds of thousands of Jews from escaping the holocaust. Similar views can be found among some of the other 200 as well.

You got any quotes from Green, denying the holocaust took place? Or is she a holocaust denier because she hosted a facebook group with thousands of users, some of which posted that nonsense?

[A wilding]

6 hours ago, john said:

However, I do agree that she handled her press badly if she wanted to come home. She comes across as a dummy more than an evil person.

She is clearly a naive and foolish woman who obviously has no one supporting or advising her.

That means that to me there is something very unedifying in the behaviour of the journalists who have been interviewing her. It seems to me that they have basically been manipulating her into incriminating herself, just for the sake of getting a good story out of it, when her own best interest would have been to put a better spin on her reasons for wanting to come back to the UK, or perhaps to just keep quiet.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, A wilding said:

She is clearly a naive and foolish woman who obviously has no one supporting or advising her.

That means that to me there is something very unedifying in the behaviour of the journalists who have been interviewing her. It seems to me that they have basically been manipulating her into incriminating herself, just for the sake of getting a good story out of it, when her own best interest would have been to put a better spin on her reasons for wanting to come back to the UK, or perhaps to just keep quiet.

To be fair I think in the Sky interview he gave her ample opportunity to save herself, he asked her if she regretted going.. and she said no.

Possibly she was quite naive and didn't really consider how her words came across, but at the same time if she was truly repentant she could easily expressed those feelings, or hinted at them. The Sky interview really did her no favours at all.
 

[Knight Of Winter]

2 hours ago, A wilding said:

She is clearly a naive and foolish woman who obviously has no one supporting or advising her.

That means that to me there is something very unedifying in the behaviour of the journalists who have been interviewing her. It seems to me that they have basically been manipulating her into incriminating herself, just for the sake of getting a good story out of it, when her own best interest would have been to put a better spin on her reasons for wanting to come back to the UK, or perhaps to just keep quiet.

ISIS manipulated Begum into joining them and staying with them for 4 years; and also into believing their murderous ideology, journalists manipulated her into incriminating herself... Where exactly is her agency there? At what point does she become responsible for what she does and says? And also, where does this notion that journalists have to care about interviewee's interest at all come from?

Her own interest is largely unimportant in this case, what matters more is British society/country/citizens' interest. And I'd wager that their interest is to hear Begum's clear, unadulterated and genuine opinion - without people "supporting or advising her" who would coach her what things to say. If her feeling was one of remorse, it would have been seen in the interviews. If it was one of regret and guilt, it would have been visible. Well, it turns out the story is different than that - for Begum still seems much in agreement with ISIS ideology. It is against her interest that now everyone knows her sentiments, but I'd argue it's very much in the interest of British, who now know exactly what is it they're dealing with.

 

[A wilding]

Agreed, her interests are relatively unimportant here. However, I don't think that the interest of the UK (in the security sense) has been much affected, as given her obvious naivety she would not have been able to conceal her attitudes for very long.

If there is any interest I am concerned for here it is that of abstract justice. Someone who has committed a crime is entitled to fair process, which includes legal representation, and allows their representation to spin the facts in their favour. If someone commits a crime, without perhaps fully understanding its seriousness, and is then led into a public confession of it without due process, one that causes a Home Secretary to intervene personally against them to pander to his right wing supporters, well it makes me uneasy.

I don't care much about her, but I do care about justice. It is one of the things that makes us better than ISIS.

[Werthead]

12 hours ago, Heartofice said:

There is almost always a general lack of sympathy in the press for terrorists. It plays well with the public. Also I think your sympathy for her is based on how you view her situation, depending on how much she is a victim of grooming, how much her decisions were her own or how much personal responsibility she has for her actions. 

As a 18 year old woman she has to now accept that some of the things she has done are  wrong. Unfortunately right now she has not repented for anything. Her only regret is having stayed in Syria as long as she did, but she stated she doesn't regret going, nor does she really seem to have an issue with beheadings or many of the atrocities of ISIS. She would garner a lot more sympathy had she said she was tricked into believing a bunch of lies, but now sees the error of her ways. Her entire approach to her return has been pretty naive and badly played, and the reaction the press is giving her is precisely due to that.

Irrelevant and incoherent reasoning.

First off, she is not a "terrorist". She is not a murder and she has not taken part in direct combat operations against Western military forces. If she had, she could be tried on that basis.

Did she "join" a murderous overseas death cult? Inarguably yes, and she should face the punishment for that criminal act. Here in the UK. Her child, howvever, is innocent of her crimes and should not be held accountable for the sins of the mother and father. Collective punishment went the way of the dodo at the end of WWII.

[Heartofice]

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

Irrelevant and incoherent reasoning.

I'm guessing you simply didn't read what I wrote. In response to her treatment in the press, her behaviour and what she says has been highly relevant to why there has been such a backlash to her (as opposed to blindly crying racism because it fits your worldview) 

She went and joined a terrorist organisation abroad to help fight a war that involved atrocities in the name of religion and she seemingly has no regrets. Just because she didn't kill anyone herself doesn't mean she could expect to be welcomed back with open arms. 

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

Did she "join" a murderous overseas death cult? Inarguably yes, and she should face the punishment for that criminal act. Here in the UK. Her child, howvever, is innocent of her crimes and should not be held accountable for the sins of the mother and father. Collective punishment went the way of the dodo at the end of WWII.

I agree with you here, this isn't the point I'm making.

[mormont]

11 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

ISIS manipulated Begum into joining them and staying with them for 4 years; and also into believing their murderous ideology, journalists manipulated her into incriminating herself... Where exactly is her agency there?

I mean, this is a good point. But you seem to mean something completely different by it, which is unfortunate.

You seem to be using this phrase to ask 'doesn't she have some responsibility here?', based on the assumption that she had agency. But of course, the entire point is that she didn't have any agency. That's what the process of grooming does: that's what it is. Removing a person's agency. Replacing it with a set of beliefs that the person has to reflexively assume in order to survive.

Those journalists have not done anything to restore Begum's agency: instead, like you, they've either assumed it exists, or taken advantage of its lack. 

11 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

And also, where does this notion that journalists have to care about interviewee's interest at all come from?

Ethics.

11 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Her own interest is largely unimportant in this case, what matters more is British society/country/citizens' interest.

No, her interests are quite important in the case, as it is her case. The interests of the UK as a whole must be balanced against her interests, agreed, but to write off her interests in such a casual way suggests not that they are actually unimportant, but that you simply don't care about them, and that is not the same thing. 

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

You seem to be using this phrase to ask 'doesn't she have some responsibility here?', based on the assumption that she had agency. But of course, the entire point is that she didn't have any agency. That's what the process of grooming does: that's what it is. Removing a person's agency. Replacing it with a set of beliefs that the person has to reflexively assume in order to survive.

So do you believe she has no responsibility for her actions?

[SeanF]

Ian Austin, MP for Dudley North, has resigned from Labour.

[Derfel Cadarn]

We're truly in a race to the bottom

[SeanF]

13 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

ISIS manipulated Begum into joining them and staying with them for 4 years; and also into believing their murderous ideology, journalists manipulated her into incriminating herself... Where exactly is her agency there? At what point does she become responsible for what she does and says? And also, where does this notion that journalists have to care about interviewee's interest at all come from?

 

Did they manipulate her, or did she join of her own free will, or perhaps a bit of both?

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Did they manipulate her, or did she join of her own free will, or perhaps a bit of both?

Of course its a bit of both. Believing she is entirely unaccountable for her actions is as useless an idea as believing she is pure evil. 

[john]

I like how we’re getting to the root now, Austen doesn’t want to join the independent group.  He just dislikes Labour.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

So do you believe she has no responsibility for her actions?

It’s hard to see how she has any legally.  And morally, well she was radicalised by a system that did exactly what it was supposed to do.  Hard to blame a victim of such a system either.  Of course, national security doesn’t pay much mind to legal protections anyway.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, john said:

I like how we’re getting to the root now, Austen doesn’t want to join the independent group.  He just dislikes Labour.

It’s hard to see how she has any legally.  And morally, well she was radicalised by a system that did exactly what it was supposed to do.  Hard to blame a victim of such a system either.  Of course, national security doesn’t pay much mind to legal protections anyway.

Generally, teenagers who break the law are held responsible for their actions, although age will be a mitigating factor in terms of the punishment which they receive.

[maarsen]

We have a similar case here in Canada. Omar Khadr was taken to Afghanistan by his father, at age15, so he could become a jihadi. Apparently while near death, buried under rubble and unconscious, he managed to kill a CIA agent. He was taken to Guantanamo, tortured into confessing and jaile. Then he was transferred to serve his sentence in Canada, where he is now appealing his conviction while out on bail. 

If the British 15 year old is guilty of anything it is of being trafficked. Deal with her and her problems in Britain. 

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Generally, teenagers who break the law are held responsible for their actions, although age will be a mitigating factor in terms of the punishment which they receive.

This is a moot point, since the teenager in question hasn't been formally charged with breaking the law, hasn't appeared in court, and so hasn't had any mitigation considered, still less her degree of responsibility. No consideration has been given in any formal way to whether she is guilty of any crime or whether that guilt merits the punishment that has been handed out, which itself is likely illegal under international law. What's happened is that a politician has decided it's good for his career to publicly bully a teenager using the power of the state. And if that doesn't strike anyone here as deeply, deeply concerning, it really should.

[Heartofice]

18 minutes ago, john said:

It’s hard to see how she has any legally.  And morally, well she was radicalised by a system that did exactly what it was supposed to do.  Hard to blame a victim of such a system either. 

But then surely all terrorists are radicalised in some form? Are they all simply victims? How far do you extend that train of though.

[A True Kaniggit]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

This is a moot point, since the teenager in question hasn't been formally charged with breaking the law, hasn't appeared in court, and so hasn't had any mitigation considered, still less her degree of responsibility. No consideration has been given in any formal way to whether she is guilty of any crime or whether that guilt merits the punishment that has been handed out, which itself is likely illegal under international law. What's happened is that a politician has decided it's good for his career to publicly bully a teenager using the power of the state. And if that doesn't strike anyone here as deeply, deeply concerning, it really should.

See, this is why I usually wait at least 20 minutes before commenting on something. I can usually rely on someone here giving a far better response than I could.