Hello and welcome to another episode of PTO Extra. On Friday, the UK's Supreme Court ruled against

Alaring Shemima Begham, the young British woman who in 2015 travelled to Syria to join ISIS

to return to the UK to contest the Home Office's removal of her citizenship.

I spoke to Nisha Kapoor about the Supreme Court's decision, the question as to whether the Began was groomed by traffickers, and we also talked about the dangerous precedent that

the normalisation of citizenship revocation represents.

Nisha Kapoor is Associate Professor in Sociology at Warwick University and the author of

Deport-deprive Extradite, 21st Century State Extremism, which we discussed in episode 25.

So on Friday, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the 21-year-old Shemima Begham will not be able to return to the UK to contest the revocation of her citizenship and will instead remain in the Kurdish

held Al-Rogh detention camp in Syria. So before we go into the broader question of the practice

of depriving UK nationals of their citizenship, could you say something specifically on the case

of Shemima Begham and how we arrived at yesterday's ruling.

Yeah, I mean, the act of citizenship deprivation came to sort of public attention

with Shemima Began's case two years ago, but the actual home office, uses of the power

have been in play for some time, like, since 2003.

You know, as many people, I'm sure, know, Shemima Begham traveled as a 15-year-old to Syria

in 2015 and married an ISIS fighter, had children while she was there,

expressed a desire to return when she had her third baby who

subsequently died and was stripped of her citizenship while she was in Syria, as you say,

and the home office at first disallowed an appeal.

There's been an escalation of the litigation process and now the Supreme Court has said

that she's unable to return to the UK in order to appeal the deprivation of her citizenship.

The process of depriving citizenship is a decision that's made by the Home Secretary.

...