Citizenship stripping of Daesh teenager ‘stain’ on UK government conscience: Labour MP

Shamima Begum was stripped of her citizenship on security grounds last month, leaving her in a detention camp in Syria where her baby died. (File/Reuters)
Updated 09 March 2019
Follow

Citizenship stripping of Daesh teenager ‘stain’ on UK government conscience: Labour MP

  • The opposition Labour party said the move to leave an innocent child in a refugee camp, where infant mortality rates are high, was morally reprehensible
  • A lawmaker in the ruling Conservative party said it smacked of populism over principle

LONDON: Britain’s decision to strip a teenage girl of her citizenship after she joined Daesh in Syria was described as a "stain on the conscience" of the government on Saturday after her three-week old son died.

Shamima Begum was stripped of her citizenship on security grounds last month, leaving her in a detention camp in Syria where her baby died, the third of the 19-year-old's infant children to die since she travelled to Syria in 2015.
The opposition Labour party said the move to leave an innocent child in a refugee camp, where infant mortality rates are high, was morally reprehensible. A lawmaker in the ruling Conservative party said it smacked of populism over principle.
"The tragic death of Shamima Begum's baby, Jarrah, is a stain on the conscience of this government," Diane Abbott, the opposition home affairs spokeswoman said.
"The Home Secretary (interior minister) failed this British child and he has a lot to answer for."

Found in a refugee camp in February, an unrepentant Begum sparked a debate in Britain and other European capitals as to whether a teenager with a terrorist fighter's child should be left in a war zone to fend for herself.
More broadly it has shown the predicament that governments face when weighing the ethical, legal and security ramifications of allowing militants and their families to return.
Begum left London aged 15 with two other schoolgirls to join Daesh. She married Yago Riedijk, a Dutch Daesh fighter who is being held in a Kurdish detention centre in northeastern Syria.
After giving interviews to the media in which she said she did not regret travelling to Syria and had not been fazed by the sight of severed heads, she asked to be able to return to London to bring up her baby.
However Home Secretary Sajid Javid withdrew Begum's citizenship, saying his priority was the safety and security of Britain and the people who lived there.
Polls suggested the move was popular with a majority of Britons but it drew criticism from opposition parties and human rights lawyers, and disquiet among some lawmakers within Prime Minister Theresa May's party who felt that Britain was exporting its own problems.
Phillip Lee, a former justice minister and member of May's party, said he had been deeply concerned by the decision.
"Clearly Shamima Begum holds abhorrent views," he told BBC Radio. "But she was a child. She is a product of our society ... and I think we had a moral responsibility to her and to her baby, Jarrah.
"I was troubled by the decision. It seemed driven by a populism, not by any principle that I recognised."
Two senior members of the government said on Saturday that the death was a tragedy but that the home secretary took the decision on grounds of national security.
"Any baby dying is an absolute tragedy, and that was a British baby," the leader of parliament Andrea Leadsom told Reuters. "But nevertheless the home secretary's core job is to protect the people of the United Kingdom.
"I support his decision."


WHO chief says reasons US gave for withdrawing ‘untrue’

Updated 25 January 2026
Follow

WHO chief says reasons US gave for withdrawing ‘untrue’

  • US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in a joint statement Thursday that Washington had formally withdrawn from the WHO
  • And in a post on X, Tedros added: “Unfortunately, the reasons cited for the US decision to withdraw from WHO are untrue”

GENEVA: The head of the UN’s health agency on Saturday pushed back against Washington’s stated reasons for withdrawing from the World Health Organization, dismissing US criticism of the WHO as “untrue.”
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned that US announcement this week that it had formally withdrawn from the WHO “makes both the US and the world less safe.”
And in a post on X, he added: “Unfortunately, the reasons cited for the US decision to withdraw from WHO are untrue.”
He insisted: “WHO has always engaged with the US, and all Member States, with full respect for their sovereignty.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in a joint statement Thursday that Washington had formally withdrawn from the WHO.
They accused the agency, of numerous “failures during the Covid-19 pandemic” and of acting “repeatedly against the interests of the United States.”
The WHO has not yet confirmed that the US withdrawal has taken effect.

- ‘Trashed and tarnished’ -

The two US officials said the WHO had “trashed and tarnished” the United States, and had compromised its independence.
“The reverse is true,” the WHO said in a statement.
“As we do with every Member State, WHO has always sought to engage with the United States in good faith.”
The agency strenuously rejected the accusation from Rubio and Kennedy that its Covid response had “obstructed the timely and accurate sharing of critical information that could have saved American lives and then concealed those failures.”
Kennedy also suggested in a video posted to X Friday that the WHO was responsible for “the Americans who died alone in nursing homes (and) the small businesses that were destroyed by reckless mandates” to wear masks and get vaccinated.
The US withdrawal, he insisted, was about “protecting American sovereignty, and putting US public health back in the hands of the American people.”
Tedros warned on X that the statement “contains inaccurate information.”
“Throughout the pandemic, WHO acted quickly, shared all information it had rapidly and transparently with the world, and advised Member States on the basis of the best available evidence,” the agency said.
“WHO recommended the use of masks, vaccines and physical distancing, but at no stage recommended mask mandates, vaccine mandates or lockdowns,” it added.
“We supported sovereign governments to make decisions they believed were in the best interests of their people, but the decisions were theirs.”

- Withdrawal ‘raises issues’ -

The row came as Washington struggled to dislodge itself from the WHO, a year after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to that effect.
The one-year withdrawal process reached completion on Thursday, but Kennedy and Rubio regretted in their statement that the UN health agency had “not approved our withdrawal and, in fact, claims that we owe it compensation.”
WHO has highlighted that when Washington joined the organization in 1948, it reserved the right to withdraw, as long as it gave one year’s notice and had met “its financial obligations to the organization in full for the current fiscal year.”
But Washington has not paid its 2024 or 2025 dues, and is behind around $260 million.
“The notification of withdrawal raises issues,” WHO said Saturday, adding that the topic would be examined during WHO’s Executive Board meeting next month and by the annual World Health Assembly meeting in May.
“We hope the US will return to active participation in WHO in the future,” Tedros said Saturday.
“Meanwhile, WHO remains steadfastly committed to working with all countries in pursuit of its core mission and constitutional mandate: the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right for all people.”