
Narinder Singh: Liberal ‘defenders’ shouldn’t presume to speak for me on the Begum ruling
There’s a difference between skiving school with your friends and travelling to Syria to pledge your allegiance to a death cult.
There’s a difference between skiving school with your friends and travelling to Syria to pledge your allegiance to a death cult.
Ministers believe that the present legal framework isn’t fit for purpose if prosecutions of returning terrorists are to be successful.
The Court of Appeal’s judgement in the Begum case is a reminder of wider issues – and the pledge in last December’s manifesto.
A general election is rolling down the tracks. And he is the man best placed to see off Corbyn and Farage.
We were curious to know how big the proportion of objectors would be, to which the answer is: a fifth.
The Home Secretary is afloat on a sargasso sea of returning jihadis, human rights laws, bewildering intelligence, gaps in the law – and a shrieking media.
She could give us invaluable insights into jihadi recruitment techniques, and if deradicalised become a valuable asset.
One thinks of the need for such as a measure as justice-related and security-related. But it would also send a powerful signal.
Postmodernism strips the likes of Shamima Begum of personal responsibility and judges her solely by ethnicity, religion and class.
“It’s also important that we treat them fairly…with justice tempered with a bit of mercy.”
A key moral from the case of Shamima Begum is that we need better information both to protect and prosecute.