Bringing home ISIS fighters and family

[stui magpie]

Divisive issue potentially and one that has the potential to test the boundaries of whats allowed. I'm not trolling though, this is a legitimate issue/

As I see it, there's basically 4 discrete cohorts that need to be considered and even then, a bit of "each case on it's merits" applies within the cohorts.

The 4, as I see them are:

1. Men who voluntarily went to fight for ISIS
2. Women who voluntarily went to Syria and surrounds to be brides of ISIS fighters
3. Australian born children who were taken into the middle east by parent (s) who wanted to fight for/support ISIS
4. Children born during the conflict to Australians who were ISIS members

Category 1 and 2 I don't have a lot of sympathy for. There's also a high risk of bringing back a radicalised person who still believes in the cause even though the fight was lost.

My default position on these ones is NO, you're not coming back unless there are clearly apparent extenuating or mitigating circumstances or unless they're coming back to go to Gaol here.

Category 3 includes people in this link plus some from category 4 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-15/grandmother-reunited-with-sharrouf-children-in-syria/10996562

Now, these girls were taken there by their parents, had no say in the matter, and the eldest may or may not have had little say in getting pregnant. I'm leaning toward little to no say.

On the negative side, they've seen and experienced a lot of shit and would at minimum require counselling, also high risk of radicalisation via osmosis, just being there.

On the positive side a grandma who appears supportive to them and not radicalised. on a tipping point, I'm inclined to lean toward letting them back subject to psychologists reviews.

Category 4 is potentially the most complex and emotive. These are just little kids. But, we should first consider whether they have family back here, what sort of environment would we be bringing them back to, how old they are and what they've seen and or done while there. A supportive family environment back here can help undo a lot of shit, a few relatives telling them their parents died as martyrs for the cause, not good.

I really hope that some sense prevails here and that each case is considered on merit and evidence based decisions are made, but I'm not holding my breath. I do expect each case to be a rallying cry for those who shout Yes or No about bringing any home with little knowledge of the facts of the matter, because as we all know, facts are irrelevant when emotion gets involved.

Thoughts?

[David]

I tend to think that being in circumstances like that would, if anything, have a deradicalising effect. But the bottom line for me is that they’re people born here who need our help, and I don’t believe in withholding that assistance even if they were criminals themselves (which, in the case of the children, they’re not). Because ultimately, by leaving them in a refugee camp, we’re just making them the problem of another country that clearly doesn’t have the resources to help them much at the moment. Any other national security concerns can surely be adequately dealt with here in Australia (through monitoring and reporting, or whatever).

[stui magpie]

The de-radicalisation is a distinct possibility, again it depends on the person. For some, the experience would have hardened their resolve while for others it could have opened their eyes and destroyed it.

[think positive]

1 and 2 effectively committed treason, so no,

3 the kids had no choice. I guess it depends on their now ages and attitudes, I agree case by case basis. The 17 year old almost mother of three (that’s child abuse in my book right there) unless she’s brain washed, would surely appreciate the assistance she would get back home. Who knows though. Are the parents dead? Otherwise why would they be brought back to Australia without their parents?

4, again, are the parents deceased and do they have family here?

Ifthe parents of 3 and 4 are dead, it’s a probably yes from me.

[David]

I think in the case of the family above, the grandmother who lives here is offering to take care of them.

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

The 3 kids parents who took them there are all dead. I agree it was child abuse, apart from what mental scars the younger 2 have, the eldest has 2 toddlers and is pregnant again, at 17.

At minimum they'll need counselling and a psych assessment. Grandma's heart is clearly in the right place but if the 2 eldest have been radicalised, you're putting her life in danger. The youngest of the 3, the boy, was only 4 when he was taken there, he's a 9 year old who's spent more than half his life in that environment. He's going to need serious therapy.

[David]

^ Which he’ll surely have far better chance of receiving here than in a refugee camp, right?

[stui magpie]

^

yes, but you also have to assess the risk.

Grandma doesn't present as Muslim nut the kids father clearly was an extremist. Does he have other family left in Australia who shared his views and will undermine Grandma's efforts to re-integrate him by brainwashing the kid that his Dad was a martyr who died for the glorious ideal?

What is the environment we're bringing these kids back to, apart from Grandma?

The Australian Government didn't send them there, their extremist parents (or father) did. Their welfare is less important to me than the welfare of the rest of Australians so it boils down to a risk assessment. If the risk is deemed manageable, bring them home.

[Pies4shaw]

I wouldn't have thought these kids are any more likely to be “radicalised” than anyone else in Australia.

[stui magpie]

^

Anyone else in Australia haven't spent the past 5 years living with ISIS