JIHADI bride Shamima Begum has shown off her diamante nose stud and Union Jack cushion in her refugee camp tent as she moans how her life “fell apart” when she was stripped of her British citizenship.
And she was yesterday pictured in an al-Roj camp in Northern Syria – saying she thought her case would be treated differently as she had not “done anything wrong” before joining ISIS.
Wearing a pink headscarf and speaking from her tent, she told the American network ABC News: “When my citizenship got rejected, I felt like my whole world fell apart right in front of me.”
She added: “I thought I would be a bit different because I had not done anything wrong before I came to ISIS.”
Shamima said it was extremely hard receiving the news that her citizenship had been revoked – especially because she was told by journalists instead of hearing directly from the government.
She is now sharing her tent – decorated with a Union flag cushion, and a string of fairy lights- with Kimberly Polman, a dual Canadian-US citizen who travelled to Syria in 2015 to marry an Islamic militant she had met online. The 46-year-old has since said she deeply regretted her decision.
Begum and two school friends, all aged 15 and 16 from Bethnal Green Academy in East London, left the UK to join the terror group five years ago.
She married Dutch ISIS convert Yago Riedijk 10 days after arriving in the country, with her pals also reportedly marrying foreign IS fighters.
The teenager was tracked down, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019. Her baby died weeks later, shortly after his birth.
Then Home Secretary Sajid Javid stripped her of her British citizenship, a decision Ms Begum’s lawyers argued was unlawful as it left her stateless.
Shamima’s latest interview comes after a top anti-terror lawyer warned Jihadi brides should be treated as harshly as terrorist husbands.
Jonathan Hall QC said: “Calling all women Jihadi brides by portraying them as passive victims of males in some cases risks underplaying female agency; the law does not quite deal with those who provide important moral but not material support.”