A Typology of Statelessness British people’s lives to go looking for terrorists or former terrorists in a failed state’.110 Additionally, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson added that [a]ny British citizen who does return from taking part in the conflict must be in no doubt they will be questioned investigated and potentially prosecuted. … Whatever the circumstances of an individual case we have to and we will protect the public.111 It should be noted the two statements convey contradictory messages. While the UK Security Minister indicated that Begum may no longer be granted legal recognition by the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman confirmed her domestic legal liability. The Government’s incoherent handling of the case changed four days later, however, when Begum was asked to give a second interview. The media confronted her with a line of argument similar to that used by the UK Security Minister. She was accused of having endorsed and helped an enemy of Britain by joining the ISIL. The media demanded that she condemn and apologise for the Manchester Arena, an action by an extremist suicide bomber that killed 23 people during a concert, which was later claimed by ISIL.112 Begum replied that this attack was a justified act of retaliation for the murder of innocent women and children in Baghuz, although she also felt that it was generally wrong to kill innocent people. In response, the UK Home Secretary publicly announced the Home Office intended to coercively denationalise Begum. He argued that, in accordance with the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (‘1961 Convention’), the coercive denationalisation of Begum was permissible because, under Bangladeshi law, the 19-year-old would have a right to Bangladeshi nationality as she was born to a Bangladeshi parent. However, Bangladeshi officials have contested this argument. Despite this contestation, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (‘Supreme Court’) dismissed Begum’s appeal in February 2021, thereby rendering her de jure stateless. The Supreme Court offered four reasons for its dismissal. At least two of them strongly indicate that legal non-recognition and social non-recognition are closely intertwined. First, the judges argued that ‘there was no evidence before the Court as to whether the national security concerns about Ms Begum could be addressed and managed by her being arrested and charged upon her arrival in the UK’.113 Second, they confirmed that the Home Secretary was rightly ‘not satisfied that depriving Ms Begum of British citizenship would expose her to a real risk of mistreatment within the meaning of his policy’.114 Both justifications create a public image of Begum that makes her seem like a pathologically dangerous monster who cannot be prosecuted legally and is not worthy of any rights. Hence, they suggest that she is not only without legal, but also social, recognition. 110 Amy Walker and Patrick Wintour, ‘UK Will Not Put Officials at Risk to Rescue Isis Britons, 111 112 113 114 Says Minister’, The Guardian (online, 14 February 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2019/feb/14/uk-isis-britons-officials-risk-syria-schoolgirl-shamima-begum>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9G6M-NKBK>. ibid. For a more general discussion of the media asking Muslims to condemn terrorism being a tool of dehumanisation, see Asim Qureshi, I Refuse to Condemn: Resisting Racism in Times of National Security (Manchester University Press 2020). R (Begum) v SIAC; R (Begum) v SSHD; Begum v SSHD [2021] UKSC 7; [2021] AC 765. ibid. 253