Judith Woods’ article in the Telegraph on Shamima Begum (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/01/britain-should-bring-shamima-begum-home-to-face-justice/) is wrapped in the language of principle — “rule of law”, “justice”, “our national conscience” — but underneath it is something far simpler: a demand that Britain carries the risk so the author can feel morally tidy.

Let’s start with the bit I actually agree with: Begum left the UK at 15. That is young. It raises serious questions about grooming, trafficking, safeguarding failures, and whether adults in her orbit — online and offline — committed crimes in Britain that were never properly pursued. Strasbourg is now pressing the UK on exactly that kind of duty-of-care question under Article 4 (trafficking/forced labour).  Fine. Ask hard questions. Learn lessons. Put daylight on how this happened.

But Woods then makes a leap that does not follow: because the state may have duties to a child, Britain must therefore bring her “home” and restore the practical benefits of citizenship as if citizenship were a permanent entitlement, immune to conduct.

That is precisely the mindset I reject.

British citizenship is not merely a passport; it’s a bond of allegiance. It comes with rights, yes — but it also comes with duties. When someone aligns with an organisation like Islamic State, they are not making a youthful mistake like bunking off school. They are choosing a side in a conflict in which British citizens were murdered, maimed, and terrorised. It is entirely reasonable — and frankly overdue — to say: if you knowingly join an enemy force, you have voided the deal. That lesson must be learned.

It’s this inconvenient fact Woods skates past: this isn’t “rough justice” imposed by tabloid mob rule. UK courts have already scrutinised the deprivation decision repeatedly and the latest domestic route was shut down when the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal.  You can dislike that outcome — but you don’t get to pretend it didn’t happen.

Now, on the ECHR “intervention”. The breathless commentary implies Strasbourg is about to bundle Begum onto a plane to Heathrow. That’s not what’s happening. The ECHR is questioning whether the UK properly considered trafficking-related obligations before depriving citizenship — in other words, a process challenge.  Even the UK government line is that it will robustly defend the decision. 

So let’s talk practical governance — because this is where the article really falls apart.

Woods acts as if the only way to uphold the rule of law is to bring Begum back and run a courtroom drama. But government is not theatre. It’s risk management. And importing a high-risk individual into the UK in order to satisfy a columnist’s sense of purity is a bad operating model.

If we have admissible evidence for offences, we should pursue justice through available legal mechanisms and international cooperation. If we don’t, we should stop pretending that “bring her back” is a magic wand. The state’s job is not to perform symbolic penance; it’s to protect the public while dismantling the pipeline that led three schoolgirls from Bethnal Green to Syria in the first place.

That means: go after recruiters and facilitators in the UK relentlessly. Fix safeguarding and intelligence seams that failed to stop the departures. Support allies on the ground who are carrying the detention burden. Stop letting Strasbourg become the default appeals board for decisions our own courts have already examined – it beggars belief that this is even a possibility.

And finally, the core point — the one Woods tries to portray as “murky waters”. There is nothing murky about it.

A nation is allowed to say: citizenship is a privilege. It is precious. It is not a costume you can throw off when you join a hostile cause, then put back on when it suits you. If that sounds “hard”, good. Hard lines are exactly how you protect a society that’s already been stretched thin by people who believe our rules are optional.

Justice isn’t just about what one individual wants. It’s about what the public can reasonably be asked to carry. And on Begum, I’m with the public: no.