Palestinian student stripped of UK visa after Gaza remarks wins human rights appeal
Date: 2024-10-30
Palestinian student stripped of UK visa after Gaza remarks wins human rights appeal
Home Office failed to show presence of Dana Abu Qamar ‘not conducive to public good’, according to tribunal ruling
A Palestinian student who was stripped of her student visa after remarks she made about the Israel-Gaza war has won a human rights appeal against the Home Office’s decision.
The Home Office failed to demonstrate that the presence of Dana Abu Qamar, 20, was “not conducive to public good” after the law student’s visa was revoked in December 2023, according to a tribunal ruling.
She came to the attention of authorities after statements made at a university demonstration on Gaza’s historical resistance to Israel’s “oppressive regime” and a subsequent interview with Sky News.
The dual Jordanian-Canadian citizen of Palestinian origin said: “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.”
Should academic institutions boycott Israel? Two scholars debate | Flora Cassen and Ilan Pappé
Read more
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.”
Abu Qamar, who led the Friends of Palestine society at the University of Manchester, said she was misinterpreted and that she was seeking to support Palestinian resistance to occupation and does not condone the use of violence against civilians, nor has she expressed support for Hamas.
The tribunal said the Home Office decision was a “disproportionate interference with her protected right to free speech” under the European convention on human rights. It found that her statements could not be taken as support for Hamas or the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October.
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.
Why have student protests against Israel’s war in Gaza gone global?
Read more
“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.”
Abu Qamar told the Guardian 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 on Wednesday.
“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.”
The 20-year-old has lost 22 relatives in Israel’s war on Gaza and her paternal grandparents were displaced by the 1948 Nakba. She said her relatives trapped in the Gaza, where at least 43,000 Palestinian people have been killed by Israeli airstrikes, are in “hell on Earth”.
Abu Qamar said she was shocked to learn of Jenrick’s intervention, which she said indicates a wider problem within the system of a politicised approach to immigration and security decisions. The interference, she said, “sends a chilling message to activists”.
“They were just so brutal in the crackdown,” she said of the government’s decision. “I felt like I was losing everything in one second. And for what? For supporting my people’s right to resist a brutal occupation.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “It is longstanding government policy that we do not routinely comment on individual cases.”
