The previous Conservative government did not sufficiently demonstrate that the student visa of a Palestinian student should be revoked after she spoke of her “pride” and “joy” over what had happened in Israel during a Sky News interview just one day after the Hamas attack of October 7th, a UK court has ruled (Guardian, Times Higher, Times of Israel).
In a ruling that has implications for freedom of expression in the UK, the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) found that the Home Office had failed to demonstrate that Dana Abu Qamar’s presence was “not conducive to public good” after the undergraduate law student’s visa was revoked in December 2023.
Abu Qamar, 20, first came to the attention of authorities after statements made at a university demonstration on Gaza’s continued resistance to Israel’s “oppressive regime” and a subsequent interview with Sky News just 24 hours after the Hamas-led October 7th attacks on southern Israel, which led to the murder of over 1,000 mainly Israeli citizens, and the hostage taking of hundreds more.
The dual Jordanian-Canadian citizen of Palestinian origin told Sky News: “For 16 years Gaza has been under blockade, and for the first time they are actively resisting, they are not on the defence, and this is truly a once in a lifetime experience.”
She also said: “And everyone is, we are both in fear, but also in fear of what, how Israel will retaliate and how we’ve seen it retaliate overnight, and the missiles that it’s launched and the attacks, but also we are full of pride. We are really, really full of joy of what happened.”
Speaking to LBC in May 2024, the student defended her comments, saying: “I do not mention Hamas, I do not mention that I condone the killing of any innocent civilians, my words were taken completely out of context.
“No logical person can conclude that I was supporting harm to any innocent civilians based on the context that was given.”
When pressed as to what she was “full of pride” about, Abu Qamar replied: “The breaking of the siege on Gaza, which was put in place on Gaza illegally for over 16 years.”
During the hearing, Abu Qamar, who led the Friends of Palestine society at the University of Manchester, continued to suggest she was misinterpreted and had been seeking to support Palestinian resistance to occupation. She added that she did not condone the use of violence against civilians, and has not expressed support for Hamas.
According to the tribunal ruling, the Home Office decision was a “disproportionate interference with her protected right to free speech” under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It found that her statements could not be taken as support for Hamas or the Hamas-led attacks on October 7th.
The judgment also said Abu Qamar was “not an extremist”, and said her references to Israel as an “apartheid” state were consistent with views expressed by human rights organisations. It added that her language of “actively resisting” and “broke free” would be recognised by informed observers as relating to lawful acts of Palestinian resistance.
“There is a clearly recognised and fundamental distinction between supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting Hamas and their actions,” the judgment said. “Nowhere does the appellant express support for Hamas specifically, or their actions.”
In the immediate aftermath of October 7th, the then immigration minister Robert Jenrick suggested that visitors to the country would be removed if they incited antisemitism, and said that there was a “legal process that must be followed properly” concerning visa-holders whose conduct was being reviewed.
According to emails disclosed as part of the case, a member of Jenrick’s team subsequently wrote to Home Office officials saying that the minister was interested in “finding out about Dana Abu Qamar”, and to inquire whether it would be “possible to revoke her student visa”.
On December 1st, the government revoked her visa on the basis that her presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good”.
Tasnima Uddin of the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), which has been supporting Abu Qamar, said the “landmark legal victory is a powerful reminder” that government measures were often wielded to criminalise dissent, particularly within Palestinian, Muslim and other minority communities.
Uddin went on to warn of the danger of using “vague security terms” to stifle expressions of solidarity with Palestine.
Speaking to the Guardian, Abu Qamar said the judgment set an important precedent. “This ruling validates the right to voice support for human rights for the plight of Palestinians and the right to resist occupation,” she said.
“I’ve always been of the position that I never have or never will condone harm to innocent civilians. It doesn’t align with who I am as a person, with my character and with my views. I’ve made that explicitly clear throughout and I’m glad that the court has seen that.”
