UK Politics : Groundhog May

[john]

18 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.

True, I meant more that the extent of any crimes she committed is negligible. It’s illegal to travel to join ISIS but mostly that crime is used to stop people at ports when they’re wanted for other offences or are on a watchlist. And how do you prosecute her for being a housewife while her husband fights?

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

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

Well, it’s a line you have to draw, like anything else. A teenager that only recently started practicing Islam is surely a good example of someone who is less responsible for their radicalisation.

[SeanF]

14 minutes 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.

That is a possible interpretation.  Another is that the Home Secretary has information that she would pose a threat to the public if she returned to this country and has acted lawfully in accordance with existing legislation.  We'll find out, when the case comes to Court.

[Knight Of Winter]

13 hours ago, A wilding said:

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.

I agree here completely, and think you've hit the nail on the head with this. Whatever decision UK makes, it should be in the interests of justice.

And quite reasonably, you call in judicial elements of justice into this: courts of law, lawyers, due process etc. Which is fair and square, but IMO not the best way to look at this situation. Courts are less about abstract concept of justice (which, I concur with you, is hell of a lot important), and more about upholding the law. And this distinction matters, for Begum maybe hasn't broken and laws at all. She traveled to ISIS teritory - she was free to do so. She married a terrorist - she's free to marry whoever she likes. She has radical islamic beliefs - well, law punishes you for your actions, not your beliefs.

However, if you look at justice from conceptual pint of view, that's where things start to get awry for Begum. Most people would equate justice with things like reciprocity, fairness, equality, avoiding harm etc. and her position leaves a lot to be desired here.

What she's basically saying to the UK is this: Yes, I still hold many ISIS beliefs. I support ISIS knowing that this organization has been downright dangerous for your safety. And I want you all to invest time, money and effort to take me back in. In fact, I'm asking for the benefits of the British state (healthcare for myself and my son, education, fair process before the court of law...) while supporting terrorist organization based on murder, slavery and misogyny - in short, everything that Britain is fighting against.

How is that fair? How is that just?

 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

but that you simply don't care about them, and that is not the same thing. 

 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

instead, like you, they've either assumed it exists, or taken advantage of its lack. 

First off, let's dispense with all the personal stuff. You don't hold a monopoly on morality, empathy or correct opinions, and I'd appreciate it if you would respond to my post, not your perceived lack of empathy on my part. Thank you.

 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

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. 

1. as of now, Begum is an adult. Which means, in the eyes of law and society - she's responsible for whatever she says and does. If she, as an adult, has been brainwashed by ISIS - well, it's on her. It was her responsibility to decide who to trust and when. And even if we make allowances for the fact that she was a minor when they recruited her (which I'd be inclined to do), the fact is that now, at 19/20 - she still hold the same beliefs. At some point it is time to owe what one does and stop blaming others. Our society has arbitrarily decided that that point is 18 years old.

2. but let's roll with your argument for a little bit, the premise of which is that Begum has no agency. Where exactly does her agency start and stop? For example, should we comply with her wish to return home, or should we disregard it because someone obviously manipulated her into wanting to go back home? If she gets back to Britain, should government restrict her voting rights - for she has no agency and forms her beliefs in accordance to others' manipulation? Should she be allowed to buy whatever clothes or food she likes - or not, because her choices won't be the product of her agency.

Where does it stop? How come her decision to still uphold ISIS beliefs is not the product of her agency, and her wish to return to Britain is? The point is, our entire society is deeply based on the concept of person's agency (which extend from democratic system and choocing a job all the way to consumer decision) - and it's not something we can partially disregard just because it's u inconvenient for our argument.

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Ethics

Quite correct, ethics is (or should be) quite important to journalists. But what constitutes an ethical behavior for a journalist?

And the answer, in my opinion, is not "to hold the best interest of the interviewee at heart". it is "to find the truth and present it to the public". I want my journalists to be intelligent, to have a curious mind, to seek the truth about the matter and write an article about it. Article which will be truthful and courageous, and from which I'll learn something new and interesting. I don't what them to play advocates for the person they're interviewing - they have themselves, their family and friends and finally their actual advocates to do that.

And, as it turns out, British journalists did just that. They asked the right questions and found out that Begum is still largely sympathetic about ISIS. This is indeed very inconvenient for Begum herself, but not journalists' problem.
 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

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. 

Begum is, for the large part, terrorist supporter mostly unrepentant of her ways, who is demanding quite a lot from UK and is offering nothing in return. If her interests collide with interests of British society, latter takes precedence every day and twice on Sunday.

 

59 minutes ago, SeanF said:

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

Both, of course.

[mormont]

50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That is a possible interpretation.  Another is that the Home Secretary has information that she would pose a threat to the public if she returned to this country and has acted lawfully in accordance with existing legislation.  We'll find out, when the case comes to Court.

This is the second time you've made this suggestion and unless I've missed something in the coverage of this case, there is no reason to suppose that this is or even may be true, other than a desire to believe that the Home Secretary's decision was not entirely capricious and self-serving. He himself has given no indication that his decision was based on any such information: nobody else has suggested it, either*.

It also wouldn't be enough for the decision to be lawful, because he has also made a tenuous claim about her eligibility for another nationality which, if incorrect, would make the decision unlawful.

And even if that claim were also proven to be correct, that would still not address my point at all. Because my point wasn't about it being 'lawful' to do this. Something can be lawful, and also be spineless, politically motivated bullying. 

This law should not exist. It is immoral and wrong. I said so at the time it was passed and it continues to be true. 

*(I know, I know, maybe he can't publicly say this for security reasons: let's make more suppositions to justify the first supposition, that's not a great line of argument.)

35 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

First off, let's dispense with all the personal stuff. You don't hold a monopoly on morality, empathy or correct opinions, and I'd appreciate it if you would respond to my post, not your perceived lack of empathy on my part. Thank you.

I don't, and never claimed to: so that's a straw man, I'm afraid. 

However, I'm afraid that I can scarcely see any other way to interpret the claim that Begum's interests are 'unimportant' in her own case. Taken in any other way, that's a completely nonsensical thing to say. The only interpretation that makes any sense on the face of it is that you consider them unimportant because you don't particularly care about them. 

35 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

1. as of now, Begum is an adult. Which means, in the eyes of law and society - she's responsible for whatever she says and does. If she, as an adult, has been brainwashed by ISIS - well, it's on her.

If your only argument is victim-blaming, you really don't have any arguments. 

It would be better, perhaps, to go away and try to do some basic reading on what grooming is and how it works. This statement is simply (and I apologise for repeating myself) nonsensical on the face of it. 

35 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

2. but let's roll with your argument for a little bit, the premise of which is that Begum has no agency.

To be clear, that she has been deprived of her agency. 

35 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Quite correct, ethics is (or should be) quite important to journalists. But what constitutes an ethical behavior for a journalist? [snip]

You're setting up a false dilemma here, based on your own question-begging assumption about what the 'truth' of the case is. Simply put, journalists can and should get to the truth without compromising their ethics. 

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

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

 

1 hour 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.

He’s an independent independent

It seems the main reason he hasn’t become a TIGger is because he’s against a People’s Vote.

[Heartofice]

I thought that was a great post by Knight of Winter, and it's a shame it was so spectacularly dodged just then. I'll wait for KoW to reply but I'm still interested in statements like this:

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

To be clear, that she has been deprived of her agency. 

What level of agency do you believe she has in any of this? It appears to be that you view her as a pure victim, incapable of decision or choice at any stage. If she had gone on to kill people, perhaps taken part in the beheadings she has no problem with, would she still have zero agency? 

I'm just interested in how far you take this argument, that because she was supposedly groomed, she doesn't have to take responsibility for her actions. Does the same apply to all other terrorists, because almost to a man they were groomed in some way. 
 

[SeanF]

56 minutes ago, mormont said:

This is the second time you've made this suggestion and unless I've missed something in the coverage of this case, there is no reason to suppose that this is or even may be true, other than a desire to believe that the Home Secretary's decision was not entirely capricious and self-serving. He himself has given no indication that his decision was based on any such information: nobody else has suggested it, either*.

It also wouldn't be enough for the decision to be lawful, because he has also made a tenuous claim about her eligibility for another nationality which, if incorrect, would make the decision unlawful.

And even if that claim were also proven to be correct, that would still not address my point at all. Because my point wasn't about it being 'lawful' to do this. Something can be lawful, and also be spineless, politically motivated bullying. 

This law should not exist. It is immoral and wrong. I said so at the time it was passed and it continues to be true. 

 

I don't know what his reasons for so acting were, and nor do you.  The Home Secretary would know that his decision would likely to be challenged in Court, and would be unlikely to act in this way unless he thought he had an arguable case.  We'll find out when the case comes to Court.

There's nothing inherently wrong about revoking citizenship, when merited, provided that the person is not left stateless.

[ljkeane]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don't know what his reasons for so acting were, and nor do you.  The Home Secretary would know that his decision would likely to be challenged in Court, and would be unlikely to act in this way unless he thought he had an arguable case.  We'll find out when the case comes to Court.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for Begum, she may not have been a fully mature adult when she left the UK but I'd expect 15 year olds to be fully capable of recognising that joining an organisation engaged in terrorism, genocide, slavery and various other war crimes and human rights violations isn't ok. Having said that I think it's fairly unlikely she's particularly dangerous amongst British former members of ISIS trying to return to the UK (unlike, say, the guys who were executing hostages) so that she's singled out for special attention from the Home Office strikes me as a response to the publicity surrounding her rather than a well thought out assessment of her threat level. 

[Knight Of Winter]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

If your only argument is victim-blaming, you really don't have any arguments. 

It would be better, perhaps, to go away and try to do some basic reading on what grooming is and how it works. This statement is simply (and I apologise for repeating myself) nonsensical on the face of it. 

The only thing that's nonsensical are your continuous attempts to paint her as victim. She's a person who chose her own fate of her own free will and is now suffering the negative consequences.

People killed by ISIS are victims - they suffered through no fault of their own. Begum's newborn son is a victim - poor kid has been dealt a terrible hand right from the start. Her family can be seen as victims - they undoubtedly went through immense emotional pain after she went over to ISIS. But Begum herself is not. Deal with it.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

To be clear, that she has been deprived of her agency. 

What's that? Her morals, her inner sense of right and wrong, her compassion, her loves, fears, fantasies, alturism and everything else that makes her agency magically disappeared when she decided to join ISIS?

Begum's agency is her own, and noone else's. It's not her parents', it's not her goverment's and it's not her friends'; and it's most certainly not ISIS's to take. If she was deprived of it, then it's because she chose to deprive herself. And continues to do so.
 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

You're setting up a false dilemma here, based on your own question-begging assumption about what the 'truth' of the case is. Simply put, journalists can and should get to the truth without compromising their ethics. 

What's question begging at all? The truth is, as Begum herself stated, that she has many sympathies for the ISIS and has even stated that she holds no regrets. That's the truth, and journalists uncovered it. Now, if the truth was different - it she was remorseful, guilt-ridden, doubtful or something along the lines - then the journalists job would have been to uncover that.  I see nothing unethical about that.

All in all, mormont, your posts all seem to be based on one premise and one premise only: blaming everyone other than Begum for Begum's failure. ISIS is guilty because they recruited her; British are guilty because they are racist and islamophobic (coupled with arbitrary assertion that media would have covered it differently in case she was white); journalists are guilty because they manipulated her into revealing her genuine feelings and sentiments... Meanwhile, Begum herself is hapless, innocent victim, devoid of any blame and and agency; apparently incapable of making her own decisions and moral judgements.  How convenient.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I don't know what his reasons for so acting were, and nor do you.

Perhaps not, but my conclusions are based on things we actually know for sure: that the case has drawn a lot of negative coverage in the right-wing press, and that Conservative Home Secretaries with ambitions for the top job tend to react to such publicity. 

Quote

The Home Secretary would know that his decision would likely to be challenged in Court, and would be unlikely to act in this way unless he thought he had an arguable case.

Past experience shows this isn't true. 

Quote

There's nothing inherently wrong about revoking citizenship, when merited, provided that the person is not left stateless.

Oh, there very much is.

For a start, it's inherently wrong in that it is a punishment applied only to one class of citizens - those with or eligible for another nationality. It can't be used on me. But it can be used on Ms Begum, or her parents and other family. De facto, they have a different, lesser type of citizenship with different, lesser rights than I do (but the same responsibilities). Doesn't that seem inherently wrong to you?

For a second thing, it's inherently wrong that this law is used as an extrajudicial punishment by a politician. 

And finally, it's inherently wrong for the UK to simply dump problems on other countries instead of taking responsibility for the actions of our citizens. 

As for the extent of Ms Begum's culpability and the mitigating factor of her being groomed, I'm happy for that to be determined by a court of law, after appropriate input from experts on the subject of grooming - rather than by journalists, commentators and politicians based on a newspaper interview or two. People are free to take a different view on that, of course. But I take the view that even if you don't like Ms Begum or are upset by some of the things she's said, it's in the interests of all of us that people not be stripped of their rights on the basis of a trial by media. 

[SeanF]

It's being rumoured that Margaret Hodge will jump ship, over weekend.

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's being rumoured that Margaret Hodge will jump ship, over weekend.

Surprised she's still there after comparing Labour to the Nazi party.

[john]

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

What she's basically saying to the UK is this: Yes, I still hold many ISIS beliefs. I support ISIS knowing that this organization has been downright dangerous for your safety. And I want you all to invest time, money and effort to take me back in. In fact, I'm asking for the benefits of the British state (healthcare for myself and my son, education, fair process before the court of law...) while supporting terrorist organization based on murder, slavery and misogyny - in short, everything that Britain is fighting against.

How is that fair? How is that just?

Because she’s British. The British state is not a reasonable person in the street with moderate ideas on fairness and justice.  It’s an enormous apparatus of interconnecting rights and responsibilities between its citizens.  There are ways to deal with criminals, to deal with those espousing hate, to deal with problem teenagers.  The only reason not to do so for apparent reasons of national security, is for political expediency.  Arguably the state has already failed in its responsibility to her, lets not continue to do so.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I'm just interested in how far you take this argument, that because she was supposedly groomed, she doesn't have to take responsibility for her actions. Does the same apply to all other terrorists, because almost to a man they were groomed in some way. 

If you take it to extremes why shouldn’t it apply to all ideology?  We’re all groomed to accept freedom and democracy.

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, john said:

If you take it to extremes why shouldn’t it apply to all ideology?  We’re all groomed to accept freedom and democracy.

Well this is my question. Mormont appears to be taking this to an extreme (hard to say as he's been quite evasive on what he really thinks) and seems to be suggesting she cannot be held responsible for her actions or thoughts.

But if the sheer fact she has been groomed negates any of her responsibilities in this case, does the same apply to other cases? What is it about her that makes her different? Is it just because she was 15, or was it because she is a girl and somehow seen as having less agency? I'm just trying to figure out where the line is on this, because anyone could claim to have been brainwashed or groomed.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I don't think mormont's position is really that difficult to understand.

Begum is a British citizen, so she should be allowed to return there. Then she should stand trial in Britain, where she can be properly judged. Properly also involves expert witnesses who determine how much culpability is there on her part.

I don't think that is really controversial stuff.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 2/21/2019 at 10:24 AM, mormont said:

Of course, he meant other Western states. Not the US.

Obviously. It's not like he has a large track record of being a hypocrite or something. But that does not really negate the fact, that he is right on principle on this one, and that western states have to take their Terror Tourists back.

[john]

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

 if the sheer fact she has been groomed negates any of her responsibilities in this case, does the same apply to other cases? What is it about her that makes her different? Is it just because she was 15, or was it because she is a girl and somehow seen as having less agency? I'm just trying to figure out where the line is on this, because anyone could claim to have been brainwashed or groomed.

There’s legal tests for where it’s a criminal matter, obviously. Outside of that, just for general argument, I dunno, just use your judgement I suppose. It doesn’t actually matter unless you’re trying to sell newspapers or get elected.  I can’t really believe you don’t automatically see a difference between Begum and a jihadist seeking to kill all the infidel.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, john said:

There’s legal tests for where it’s a criminal matter, obviously. Outside of that, just for general argument, I dunno, just use your judgement I suppose. It doesn’t actually matter unless you’re trying to sell newspapers or get elected.  I can’t really believe you don’t automatically see a difference between Begum and a jihadist seeking to kill all the infidel.

I do see a difference, but then I'm not attempting to absolve someone of all agency. 

[john]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I do see a difference, but then I'm not attempting to absolve someone of all agency. 

Why would Begum being absolved of all blame (I don’t think that is mormont’s position but I’ll let him speak for himself) mean that there isn’t other degrees of blameworthiness in other situations?

[Werthead]

Theresa May has been told by senior cabinet ministers that she has to fuck off in three months.