Shamima Begum has the right to challenge the government’s decision to deprive her of British citizenship. But she can not exercise it until the Minister of Household says she can do it, even if it is never so. This appears to be at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision to give the Home Office a victory over its decision to enter the ‘jihadi bride’ on ‘security grounds’.
Beyond the legal issues lie deeper political and moral questions. Denying access to Begum is not just about keeping her out of Britain. It is also about forcing another state or organization to take responsibility for her.
Begum’s parents are from Bangladesh. This makes her, in the eyes of the Home Office, a citizen of Bangladesh (though Bangladesh denies it and insists it will deny her access). Why should moral responsibility for someone born and bred in Britain be transferred to another country just because her parents come from there?
Begum is in an al-Hawl camp, run by the largely Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that helped destroy the Islamic State (Isis). Why should Britain expect the SDF to take responsibility for a British citizen who helped his monstrous enemy?
And then there is the issue of two-tier citizenship. For any Briton whose parents were born in this country and who do not have dual citizenship, their citizenship is unconditional. For those whose parents were born abroad or have another citizenship (even in a country in which they have never set foot), their citizenship is conditional. It cannot be morally right.
Begum must, of course, fulfill its moral responsibilities to join Isis. She can do it in a trial. But no matter how monstrous her actions were, she remains someone to whom Britain has legal and moral obligations.
The debate over Shamima Begum is not just about Begum itself. It is about the nature of citizenship and the meaning of moral responsibility. It is also about how far we are willing to sacrifice moral obligations on the altar of political service.
• Kenan Malik is a columnist for Observer