Gross Domestic Product

One of the main objections to leaving Shamima Begum in the hands of the Syrian security forces is that she is a British citizen and deserves the full protections of the UK government. What few people are asking is how we’ve ended up with teenage jihadis being British citizens in the first place.

The simple answer is that she was born in London to presumably British passport holders. We don’t know much about Begum’s parents, but we do know this about Hussen Abase, the father of another teenager who ran away with Begum to join ISIS:

Mr Abase, who came to Britain as a refugee from Ethiopia in 1999, and now lives in Stepney, east London, where he works as a security guard, added: “I’m very happy the British government gave me refuge here. I hope they will let my daughter back in if she is still alive. It’s been very hard these past few years without her.”

But questions remain over Mr Abase’s own role in his daughter’s radicalisation.

After Amira disappeared it emerged he had attended a protest outside the Saudi embassy in London, in 2013, said to have been organised by the Islamic extremist group Al-Muhajiroun, founded by the extremist cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed.

Mr Abase also admitted having taken her to a demonstration outside the US Embassy, at the age of 12, at which an American flag was burnt.

Also at the rally were the jailed extremist preacher Anjem Choudary and Michael Adebowale, one of the killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby.

The truth is, the Home Office has for decades been allowing foreigners to settle in the UK who are either radical Islamists when they arrive or become radical Islamists later. This has been going on so long we now have a generation of straight-up, homegrown British citizens who are violent jihadists and we don’t know what to do with them. This isn’t surprising: the foundations of modern, liberal societies were built by people who could never have imagined future generations would run an experiment by which violent foreigners are gifted passports and encouraged to raise families who hate the society which hosts them. The reason western countries are now facing this uniquely difficult moral question is because they were uniquely stupid in allowing it to arise.

It’s tempting to blame Begum, her family, and those who encouraged her on this path to jihad, but what did the British government do to discourage her? The authorities bend over backwards to accommodate every whim of militant Islam, they brand anyone who asks simple questions a racist and threaten them with criminal charges, they encourage unfettered immigration while advertising there is no need to integrate while half the country is working overtime to destroy whatever is left of our society because they clearly detest it. As I’ve asked before:

If our leadership – and I use that term loosely – lacks the conviction to uphold the principles which supposedly define the West, why the hell should we expect Muslims to come out in support of them?  I suspect for many, faced with a choice between leaning towards Islamic principles and Western principles, many moderate Muslims are choosing the former because they are unconvinced that the latter even exist.  Hell, I’m not convinced they exist in any meaningful sense any more, so why should somebody who comes from a culture where they have been historically absent?

If you were a young Muslim living in Britain over the last few years, which way would you lean?  Which way is the wind blowing?  When you have elected officials condemning the publication of blasphemous cartoons, and newspaper columnists suggesting Charlie Hebdo was probably at fault, would you stick your head above the parapet and argue that insulting the Prophet is a fundamental right?  When any atrocity is immediately followed by politicians mumbling vague approximations of supposed bedrock principles which they contradict in the very same sentence through use of the word “but”, and fall over themselves to assure you – a Muslim – that this is nothing to do with your own principles and faith, and then an utter headcase is invited for an interview on the state-owned TV channel where he defends the bloodshed and nobody says a peep: which way are you going to jump?

And let’s be honest: the British people voted overwhelmingly for this. The hand-wringing self-hatred may not have been invented by New Labour but it accelerated tenfold under Blair and was happily continued by Cameron. Both prime ministers delighted the middle classes, and if it weren’t for the Iraq War people would be weeping tears of sadness as they stood before twin statues of Blair and Mandela. Had a political candidate stepped forward and proposed taking a much tougher line with immigrants from certain countries and making it a lot harder for them to gain citizenship, the wails of anguish on the streets of British cities would have drowned out the calls to prayer in Whitechapel.

And it’s not like the lesson has been learned, has it? Even now, nobody dare propose any form of robust immigration control for fear of being branded racist. Even today, when we know the consequences, those who the country elects to high office go on TV and broadcast that unverified, undocumented refugees are welcome. Sorry aggregate British voters, but the likes of Shamima Begum are the direct result of your politics and your cowardice in the face of tough choices. If and when you finally decide to get serious, you’ll find the solutions were there all along.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

30 thoughts on “Gross Domestic Product

  1. Tempting fate and looking for a night-time knock on the front door. Or you would be if you lived in Blighty.

    I second your post.

  2. Basically, while the IRA and their various splinter groups were running around blowing stuff up while being materially supported by the Sovblok, islamist terrorists were tolerated in the UK since they were not seen as a threat.

    Now the ra have basically bogged off and we’re left with the outcome of that policy of relative tolerance. Plus we’ve got the additional hamstringing of political correctness. Nobody ever questioned the use of the term “Irish Republican Terrorism” as racist…

  3. Remember Jack Straw the Immigration Czar, boy did he set the major immigration reforms in place that we now see flourishing around us, state funded immigration lawyers, welfare, housing, non-deportation, student visas, immigrant babies, the whole box and dice.

  4. Surely Pakistani or Bangladeshi law would entitle her to citizenship based on the birthplace of her parents or grandparents, just as British law does. So to describe her as stateless if her British citizenship is revoked is erroneous.

  5. I wouldn’t go along with your opinion “the British people voted overwhelmingly for this.” It was never on the ballot paper. Actually, I can recall robust opposition to it. But all the avenues of dissent had been highjacked by a certain section of the intellectual middle class & the wider middle class were indifferent because it was never going to be a problem for them, was it? So who listens to the gammon racist white van man?

    Of course, of enormous amusement now when it’s come & bitten the middle classes in the throat. Enjoy!

  6. I’ve suggested that Shamima Begum was, because of where her family lives, immersed in Muslim culture with negligible prevalence of alternative worldviews; and part of an ethnic group that experiences high rates of unemployment and material deprivation there, so adding a sense of economic exclusion to the existing feeling of being a stranger in a strange land.

    https://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/2019/02/i-was-teenage-jihadi-bride.html

    And that’s before we get to arguments about blowback for our violent interference in Eastern countries.

  7. She is a British citizen who has facilitated if not committed serious crimes against humanity – in Syria. In the UK she looks only to have committed much more minor offences – if any at all.
    So… she needs to be prosecuted in Syria and accept Syrian justice. A stoning maybe?

  8. Tim, you wrote: “And let’s be honest: the British people voted overwhelmingly for this.”

    What choice did they have? These days the Conservative and Labour parties are about as different as Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. Inter alia, they’re both gung-ho for immigration. But in Britain voting for a third party candidate usually results in electing someone from the Big Two by default. Look at the 2015 general election: UKIP got four million votes, about 14% of the total, but just one MP.

  9. What choice did they have?

    Enough. Every time a candidate – IDS, William Hague, David Davis – said something vaguely, marginally right wing, everyone howled as if he’d just pulled on jackboots and started goosestepping around the place. Only when that nice man Cameron turned up did people vote Conservative. I see no point in denying that the only sort of politician capable of winning an election in the UK is a wet centrist who changes direction like a weather vane.

    Look at the 2015 general election: UKIP got four million votes, about 14% of the total, but just one MP.

    Yeah, the system sucks but 4m is hardly a groundswell of popular uprising. We saw with Brexit that people can vote for something if they really believe in it: why didn’t 17.4m people vote for UKIP on the grounds they would halt immigration?

  10. But all the avenues of dissent had been highjacked by a certain section of the intellectual middle class & the wider middle class were indifferent because it was never going to be a problem for them, was it?

    Then why didn’t they vote UKIP? Did they ever have more than 1 MP?

  11. You’re quite right that ultimately we are to blame. However, cowing us has been a long-term project: remember that Enoch Powell had overwhelming public support (80% IIRC) and yet he was neutralised with consummate ease. I don’t see a happy outcome. I had hoped to live to see us at least go out with a bang, but I suspect we’re too pathetic to even whimper.

  12. @bloke in spain on February 19, 2019 at 3:12 pm
    @Patrick on February 19, 2019 at 3:55 pm
    @thud on February 19, 2019 at 5:30 pm

    +1 yes

  13. A number of points :

    why didn’t 17.4m people vote for UKIP on the grounds they would halt immigration?

    This is a circular argument – that a majority want to leave the EU and confirmed in a referendum merely means that the British people will be given what the politicians want. QED.

    Politicians are quite happy with the rate of replacement of the British population. I will point out Gordon Browns open microphone mistake after a lady asked him about immigration before the election he lost and while he made sympathetic noises to her face, in the car he declared her a bigot. They will lie to your face and promise anything to get elected, then once they are elected, you get what you are given. They fudge the immigration figures by only quoting NET immigration. For example, if 5 million white British people emigrate in a given year and 5,000,001 Muslims, Africans and others immigrate invade (whether legally or illegally) then that is only NET immigration of one per year so nothing to worry about, eh?

    I would argue that she is NOT British – she neither adheres to British values and principles or has loyalty to Britain. Indeed, the argument that she was born in Britain is irrelevant. She is no more British than someone born in India to British parents while serving as a civil servant when India was still governed from the UK is Indian. She was brought up in a Bangladeshi family in a Bangladeshi colony and enclave, educated in a Bangladeshi school with Bangladeshi pupils, likely speaking Bangladeshi at home and at school and having little to do with Britain except to pick up benefits. Her father attended demonstrations by hard line Muslim preachers and took her along. Hardly the “butter wouldn’t melt” character she is being portrayed as, or for that matter, her family. No, she is a dyed in the wool fanatic.

    As Richard Littlejohn pointed out “she claims she is no longer the naive 15 year old who travelled to Syria”. Indeed not. She is a hardened veteran of a barbaric regime, the character of which she was well aware of from many sources before she travelled. She has expressed no remorse and declared that she isn’t bothered by seeing severed heads in bins after ISIS executions. She has named her new born son after a 7th Century warlord infamous for mass slaughter of infidels – since the child is two days old, then she can hardly claim that it was a name chosen under duress or a long time ago. All the signs are that she wants to escape rightful retribution for her deeds and has zero repentance.

    As for being stateless, then as her parents are Bangladeshi, she can claim citizenship from that country, though the benefits, council housing and health care may be slightly lower than the same in the UK. There is the Nansen Passport, or at least its modern successor which will allow her to travel to a country more amenable to her beliefs so she will not be “stateless” and unable to travel without a passport.

    Her family are, of course, free to join her.

  14. Referendum question:
    Should a drone strike (cost: couple of hundred thousand quid) be carried out on her location?

    I’ve a feeling if the population won’t be polled on that question, for fear of what the response may be.

  15. Interesting snippit from the Nansen Passport wiki:

    It is estimated that about 800,000 Russian refugees had become stateless when Lenin revoked citizenship for all Russian expatriates in 1921.

    Sounds rather…. extremely nationalist for a man always portrayed by the lefties as a non-nationalist….

  16. …although I’m sure there’s an ex post facto reasoning in Soviet theology as to why it’s different when Lenin does it…

  17. This is a circular argument – that a majority want to leave the EU and confirmed in a referendum merely means that the British people will be given what the politicians want.

    My point was that 17.4m people voted for Brexit, a referendum driven by very real Tory fears that UKIP will cost them seats. As soon as the referendum was won, UKIP collapsed even though they were still banging on about immigration and other right-wing stuff. To me, this showed that while people were highly motivated to leave the EU, they weren’t particularly motivated in halting immigration from non-EU countries.

    I would argue that she is NOT British

    Indeed.

  18. post-WW2 it was (politically) decided that William Joyce was British in a really not-very-clear-cut case, just so he could be hanged for treason.

    Yes, that was very dodgy. With Begum, it seems she was not born British but became so later. I am probably in a minority in thinking there should be two tiers of citizenship: those who were born citizens, and those who later became citizens. I don’t have much problem with citizenship of the latter being revoked under certain circumstances.

  19. In an ideal world, non-white foreigners would be asked to leave and move out by force if they didn’t. In the real world, the populations of what are white nations today will eventually flee to places like eastern Europe and whatever other nations might be chosen as destinations for the remnants of civilisation to start again. Western European culture as it was is dead, it will take a century for the slow witted to notice but we’re on a path that only a mass slaughter will change.

  20. Mr Black, Tim is talking about culture, not race. He’s got a point. You’re just an arsehole.

    In an ideal world, non-white foreigners would be asked to leave and move out by force

    I hope you’re not talking about my half Filipino wife, or her extended family here in Australia. None of whom are any threat, except possibly to your waistline – try turning down food from a Filipino mother in law – go on, try it, it’s not easy 🙂

    Tim says

    The truth is, the Home Office has for decades been allowing foreigners to settle in the UK who are either radical Islamists when they arrive or become radical Islamists later.

    This is the point. In case you missed it. No mention of non whiteness, just culture.

  21. Where the two main parties agree on some things, such as membership of the EU and the benefits of mass immigration, but disagree on others- say economic policy, voters who disagree with any of the agreed positions have a choice to make.
    In 2015 I had to choose between voting for the one party that might get us out of the EU or voting for the party that offered the least bad economic policy- it being a given that UKIP would not be able to form a government.
    Roughly 4m decided to take a chance on the next government and vote UKIP. It proved to be enough to bring about the referendum.
    For the issue of immigration to be tackled we need a similar number of people willing to take a chance on who forms the next government and vote for a party that credibly promises to deal with the issue.
    UKIP are still there, have been growing the last year, and are increasingly interested in immigration.
    They will succeed when a sufficient number decide that a radical overhaul of immigration law is more important than who forms the next government.

  22. “My point was that 17.4m people voted for Brexit, a referendum driven by very real Tory fears that UKIP will cost them seats. As soon as the referendum was won, UKIP collapsed even though they were still banging on about immigration and other right-wing stuff. To me, this showed that while people were highly motivated to leave the EU, they weren’t particularly motivated in halting immigration from non-EU countries.”

    A couple of points, Tim. Being right wing, racist & anti-immigration were the tar the media & the three main parties were trying to paint UKIP with to marginalise them. UKIP was trying to distance itself from those positions.
    Being anti third world immigration & being against freedom of movement of EU nationals to the UK are actually two entirely separate issues. If I’d have voted, I’d have voted leave. But I wouldn’t have been voting against freedom of movement. Why would I? I’ve moved to Spain. I’ve a lot of friends in London are Europeans, have moved the other way. I’ve never seen it as much of a problem, although the Brits could be a little more stingy in handing out benefits & free stuff. As stingy as the rest of the EU countries would be a good idea. Immigration by third-worlders is a UK not EU matter. Apart from when the ECHR has stuck its oar in.
    So it’s entirely possible to be both a Leaver & pro immigration. Or a Remainer & anti- immigration. A Brexit vote doesn’t reveal which.

  23. Yes Ltw, I am talking about them. They are a threat in their millions because where ever they settle becomes less Australian and more filipino, or chinese or indian or african. The idea that you can separate racial heritage from culture is one of those fake-right lies meant to keep us asleep while white nations are turned into brown shitholes.

  24. How to deal with Shamima Begum

    She betrayed her fellow citizens. We should decide what happens next.

    First, we should update and reform the law of treason to place the public at the heart of how these issues are resolved. Sentencing criminals is usually done by a judge, using precedent. Here there is no precedent. A judge has no greater moral ability to determine Begum’s fate than anyone else. We need, at least, for the tribunal that tries Begum to be formed by a jury with the power both to convict and sentence her. This would be a new kind of court, but these are new kinds of adjudications…

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *