Muddled messages of Tareena Shakil’s case

So Tareena Shakil has been imprisoned for being radicalised by Islamic State (Report, 2 February), and for subsequently fleeing from Isis when she realised that she had been conned. A just punishment, some might say. But wait a minute. Is it not also a very foolish and self-defeating approach for us to take to returning Isis fighters? Is imprisonment not likely to dissuade others who also want to flee Isis? And is it not a massive propaganda victory for Isis, who will no doubt use it against those who might otherwise want to flee? Do we not want Isis fighters to realise that they have been conned?

Those who have seen the error of their ways, and have dared to flee from Syria, are surely the best people to dissuade others from radicalisation. They are much more likely to understand the attractions of the Isis message, and how it can be countered, than anyone else. People like Shakil, who have been de-radicalised by their experience living under Isis, should be welcomed home. They have seen what Isis is like in practice, and could therefore be among our greatest allies in our fight against Isis terrorism, if only we could be less condemnatory.
Stuart Raymond
Trowbridge, Wiltshire

• Language, used properly, is the only tool we have to influence our understanding of serious issues, so can we please stop using the passive voice when describing how Isis converts become so. Saying that Tareena Shakil and, for that matter, any other Isis terrorist, “was radicalised” and “had been groomed” takes away agency from her murderous intentions and allows her and those close to her to claim victimhood. She is not a child, chose her path and must face the consequences. We must not be complicit in her defence by implying others influenced her against her will through sloppy use of language; she was not “radicalised on the internet”, she freely and deliberately chose to follow a terrorist path and is victim only of her own foolishness; neither is the internet to blame.