Begum Back in Business?

Few cases encapsulate the rot at the heart of Britain quite like that of Shamima Begum. On the surface, she should have been a textbook illustration of the virtues of multiculturalism: a second-generation Bangladeshi, raised in the Muslim enclave of Tower Hamlets in East London. In reality, she embodies everything Britain has gotten wrong since Tony Blair: a thriving fifth column, greedily suckling at the ever-accommodating teat of the progressive state, nursing hatred in lieu of patriotism. 

Begum is the well-documented ‘ISIS bride’ who left Britain at 15 a decade ago to join the Islamic State, married a Dutch jihadist, and—according to credible reports—was an armed enforcer for ISIS’ dreaded ‘hisba’ morality police. Sources claim that, far from a wide-eyed bystander, Begum attempted to recruit other young women to the cause, strutted around with a Kalashnikov, berated women who were improperly dressed, and allegedly sewed bombers into their suicide vests. Despite witnessing beheadings, rapes, and enslavement, Begum showed no remorse in initial interviews—describing life under ISIS as “normal” and claiming the sight of severed heads “didn’t faze me at all.” She even dismissed the Manchester Arena bombing as justifiable “retaliation”. 

British intelligence has been unequivocal in opposition to her repatriation: Begum remains a severe national security threat, capable of radicalising others if ever allowed back. That’s why, in 2019, then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid stripped her of citizenship—a move upheld through multiple British appeals, including the Supreme Court. Despite the predictable outcry from Labour, Javid defended his position in 2021, clearly hinting that there was more to the case than the public were aware: “You certainly haven’t seen what I saw. If you did know what I knew … you would have made exactly the same decision.” Bear in mind, this is “So what?!” Sajid, the same man who once dismissed concerns over the minoritisation of white Brits in their own major cities as inconsequential. One has to suspect, therefore, that the threat posed to Britain by Begum’s return is substantial.  

Would that that were the end of the matter. Here we are in January 2026, however, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is once again meddling in British sovereign affairs. In an outrageous display of supranational overreach, the court has called for an investigation, demanding to know whether Home Office ministers had considered the possibility that Begum was a ‘victim’ and whether the UK had obligations to her. In yet another challenge to the revocation of her British citizenship, Begum is protesting the Supreme Court decision under Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights—specifically, the prohibition of slavery and forced labour. 

The questions posed by Strasbourg are as follows: 

1. For the purposes of the Article 4 complaints made in the application, was the applicant at all material times within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the facts of the case at hand, has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 4 of the Convention by virtue of the decision to deprive her of her citizenship?
3. Did the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision to deprive the applicant of her citizenship engage her rights under Article 4 of the Convention?
4. Did the Secretary of State have a positive obligation, by virtue of Article 4 of the Convention, to consider whether the applicant had been a victim of trafficking, and whether any duties or obligations to her flowed from that fact, before deciding to deprive her of her citizenship?

While any interference from outside, unelected judges is obviously about as welcome as Keir Starmer on the Labour front bench, the ECHR’s track record of siding with criminals over citizens is abysmal. Let us not forget that this is the body which routinely blocks the deportation of rapists and murderers on such spurious grounds as “the right to a family life”, the surprising restrictiveness of prison cells, and their son’s professed aversion to “foreign” chicken nuggets. 

Two aspects of the Begum case are particularly galling for my money. The first is the fact that Begum is a homegrown terrorist, who arguably should never have been here. Naturally, there is no legislating for the ‘Jihadi Jacks’ of this world. But second-generation radicals like Axel Rudakubana (born here to Rwandan parents) and Shamima Begum are a direct consequence of lax immigration policies which consistently endanger the British people for precious little in return, except perhaps the fallacy of multiculturalism—and a rich selection of curry houses. When our own government does nothing to prevent the influx of foreign murderers and rapists, we certainly don’t need any help from the ECHR. 

The second is the breathtaking hypocrisy required to portray Begum as a victim of ‘child grooming.’ This from the establishment which spent decades denying, covering up and even aiding and abetting the systematic rape and slaughter of the nation’s children, because the perpetrators and the victims were the wrong colour. 

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has vowed to “robustly defend” the citizenship revocation against Strasbourg—ironically upholding a Tory policy that Labour once decried as heartless. But the reality of the Starmer administration is a prime minister desperate to reverse record-low approval ratings by cosying up to Brussels and signalling eagerness for “even closer alignment” with the EU single market. If anyone thinks he is going to defy ECHR edicts by a half-hearted Thatcherite rendition of “No, no, no!”, I suggest they have not been paying attention. 

This is Brexit unfulfilled, a national humiliation that demands action. We didn’t vote to swap Brussels for Strasbourg. While the ECHR’s founding mission was undoubtedly well-intentioned, it has since morphed into a tool for undermining democracy. It’s time to withdraw—fully, decisively, and without apology. Nigel Farage, Robert Jenrick, and Ben Wallace are right: Begum must never be allowed back. Public sentiment is with them, as at least three-quarters of the British people are in agreement. 

Britain has defied the ECHR before, both in terms of prisoner voting rights and the controversial Rwanda plan—defiance for which there were no sanctions. Let Begum rot in her Syrian camp; let Strasbourg howl in impotence. Our people have had enough. And really, what’s the worst they can do—expel us from the Council of Europe? We want out anyway.