This article critically examines SIAC’s discussion of the Shamima Begum case and her swift categorisation as a national security threat, which led to the revocation of her citizenship. It argues that the Secretary of State’s assessment of the level of risk she poses, as well as SIAC’s long discussion about her free will when she joined ISIS, fails to adequately account for the intersection of age, gender, and ethnicity in evaluating her case. An intersectional approach would have facilitated an understanding of the structural and gendered roots of the problem and provided a more effective framework for addressing the radicalisation of young women. Rather than offering new insights into minors joining ISIS, this case strengthens the gender narratives through which Shamima has been constructed, reinforcing simplistic Orientalist binaries which reproduce patriarchal narratives and dehumanise depictions of Muslim women. This, in turn, results in policies that ignore the complexities of young women’s radicalisation and lead to discrimination and human rights violations. Keywords: Shamima Begum, gender and radicalisation, free will/autonomy, risk assessment.
Giorgia Baldi (Fri,) studied this question.