A Palestinian student who had her visa revoked after she made comments about the Israel-Gaza war has won a human rights appeal against the government’s decision.
In technical terms, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) ruled that the Home Office failed to demonstrate that the presence of Dana Abu Qamar, 20, was “not conducive to public good” after her visa was revoked in December 2023.
This is a case about immigration rather than higher education per se – but it does offer important insights on the way the law balances freedom of expression, and restrictions on it elsewhere in the Human Rights Act or related legislation.
It also raises real questions about who we ask to make judgements like this when a Tribunal is not involved.
What happened?
On the 8th October 2023, Sky News had its cameras at a pro-Palestine protest in Manchester. It interviewed Dana Abuqamar – a law student at the University of Manchester who led the Friends of Palestine society and was Media and Diversity officer for the University of Manchester Bar and Advocacy Society.
In the voxpop, Abuqamar–a 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.
She added:
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.
She later told the BBC that 15 of her relatives had been killed after an attack on Gaza, and that her comments were misinterpreted:
…the death of any innocent civilian should not be condoned ever, and we don’t condone it at all.
Nevertheless, the comments spread quickly—for want of a better phrase, a pile-on ensued. The then Policing minister Chris Philp MP took to Twitter to say that he was “appalled” that anyone held “these repugnant views”. A source close to immigration minister Robert Jenrick was reported to have said:
A visa is a privilege, not a right. Those that celebrate terror have no place in our country.
Op-eds and phone-ins followed—using the case to, for example, illustrate “passivity” to anti-semitism. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (a volunteer-led charity dedicated to exposing and countering antisemitism through education and “zero tolerance” law enforcement) both said they had “reported her to the authorities.”
UKLFI also reported her to the university, arguing that any Jewish or Israeli students who saw her “triumphant” comments would be fearful for their safety in her presence. At the time, the university said it was…
…taking appropriate action to investigate this matter. The University has also engaged with appropriate external agencies.
In May of this year, it emerged that her visa had been revoked on 1 December 2023, on the basis that her presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good” after her statements.
And back in September it emerged that a member of Jenrick’s team had written to Home Office officials saying he was interested in “finding out about Dana Abuqamar” and to inquire whether it would be “possible to revoke her student visa.”
Then earlier this year in his “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion” report, Lord Walney said that:
…expressing pride and joy in a terrorist attack in this way is such a clear and strong expression of approval of Hamas’s actions on 7 October 2023 that it risks indirectly encouraging others to emulate such terrorist actions.
When it resolved to revoke the visa, the Home Office determined the national security grounds to justify revoking her visa by referring the case to its Special Cases Unit. It approached the National Community Tensions Team (NCTT), the Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), and the Homeland Security Analysis Insight (HSAI).
RICU said Abuqamar posed no threat, but the NCTT and HSAI claimed she supported Hamas because the Manchester Friends of Palestine group had a “relationship with Friends of Al Aqsa”.
Speaking about her intent to appeal, Abuqamar said:
The Home Office has claimed that my presence in the UK threatens national security. They have said the statements I make support extremist views – keep in mind I am a 19-year-old student who studies and supports social justice campaigns through volunteering or advocating for human rights.
Questions
As I say, this isn’t a case that offers direct reflection on the university, and the Office for Students was not involved either—it was an exercise in state power. There are however real questions about what a university or the Office for Students would have done in the absence of intervention from the state.
And given the role of universities in championing and protecting freedom of speech, there are also questions about the protection that the university did or didn’t offer, the nature of its “engagement” with external agencies, and whether that engagement was compelled legally.
They are questions that arise because Judge Melanie Plimmer said in the judgement that the Home Office had violated Abuqamar’s human rights and her ability to practise freedom of speech by revoking her visa.
The judgement considered three things of interest:
- Abuqamar’s state of mind when she made the statements, and in particular, was she expressing support for Hamas and therefore supporting terrorism, specifically the atrocities committed against Israeli citizens in the course of the 7 October attack?
- If Abuqamar did not know about the involvement of Hamas and the civilian atrocities, when the statements are read objectively, did they express support for the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli citizens?
- If not on either of the above, did that amount to Abuqamar’s presence in the UK not being conducive to public good?
The legal framework for making a call is particularly useful. Both sides accepted the principles of Article 10 of the ECHR, which protects freedom of expression, particularly political speech, allowing restrictions only when necessary for public safety or national security in a democratic society—and the Home Office’s policy in working that out highlights factors like the seriousness of the behaviour, potential impact on the UK, frequency, and individual circumstances.
On the first issue of what we might call intent, Abuqamar’s representatives argued that her background supports her claim of endorsing only lawful resistance, not violence against civilians. The Home Office found that implausible—asserting that Abuqamar likely knew about Hamas’ involvement in the 7 October attacks and the civilian atrocities, which made her statements appear as public support for terrorism.
The Tribunal accepted Abuqamar’s claim that her statements were made in reference to Palestinians breaching the security fence as an act of lawful resistance under International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—and argued that her lack of familiarity with mainstream UK media and the distraction of a visit from her mother contributed to her missing information about Hamas’ involvement in attacks on civilians.
Her “strong, idealistic beliefs” and focus on “legal, non-violent Palestinian resistance” were corroborated by testimony and evidence from her background, activities, and statements, indicating that her view was grounded in legal and moral support for Palestinian rights, not in extremism.
The Tribunal found Abuqamar’s account credible—noting that while her statements could appear reckless or naive, they were “genuinely” based on her understanding of lawful resistance and a lack of awareness about civilian casualties attributed to Hamas.
On the second issue, more of a textual analysis, the Home Office argued that, regardless of Abuqamar’s intent, the statements objectively indicate public support for Hamas. Thus. constituting support for terrorism when considered in the context of ongoing events. Abuqamar’s representatives countered by asserting that, on careful and objective analysis, the statements did not explicitly or implicitly endorse Hamas or the civilian atrocities of 7 October.
The Tribunal found that none of the statements expressly referenced or supported Hamas or civilian atrocities—the term “martyr”, for instance, was meant broadly to include civilian casualties, not individuals committing terrorist acts. Abuqamar’s phrasing around “resistance” and “apartheid” aligned with widely recognized human rights narratives, and the Sky Interview’s statements of “pride” and “joy” were poorly timed but consistent with her belief in lawful resistance without intending support for Hamas.
The Tribunal noted Abuqamar’s lack of explicit distancing from Hamas in the interview but accepted her explanation that, taken aback by the questioning, she re-routed her responses to focus on broader resistance to the blockade rather than Hamas-specific actions. It also found her spontaneous responses and inexperience in media interviews to be plausible explanations for any lack of clarity—noting she promptly clarified her stance on civilian atrocities soon after the interview.
Then on the public good issue, a full assessment of circumstances, including policy factors, had to be conducted to determine if Abuqamar’s presence was against the public good. Abuqamar’s representatives argued that even if her statements were seen as supportive of Hamas and its actions, and she bore some culpability, she had not shown that her presence was harmful to public interest—because support for terrorism was not central to her message, she clarified her intent promptly, and no actual harm to public interest was demonstrated, making the Home Office’s actions disproportionate.
The Tribunal found that Abuqamar made ill-timed statements that blurred the distinction between lawful and unlawful resistance, but she did not intend to support Hamas or terrorist atrocities against Israeli civilians. Her statements were focused on what she perceived as lawful Palestinian resistance, and she promptly clarified her stance when her words were misrepresented—even seeking university pastoral support due to the backlash.
So the tribunal also concluded that, even if the statements could be objectively interpreted as supportive of Hamas, the Home Office did not sufficiently prove that the Appellant’s presence in the UK was against the public good—her messaging intended to support lawful Palestinian resistance, not any proscribed group or unlawful actions.
And so, crucially:
For the avoidance of any doubt, taking account of all of our findings set out above, removal of the Appellant in consequence of the decision to cancel her permission to enter the UK amounts to a disproportionate interference with her protected right to free speech pursuant to Article 10 of the ECHR and is therefore unlawful under s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Implications
There are, in cases like this, important distinctions between whether someone has the right to say something, and whether they should – and if not, who makes that call, and whether discouraging counts as “chilling”.
There are also questions about speech that is in and of itself legal, but which engage questions of context and who comments are aimed at—adopted by OfS’ Arif Ahmed (from the USA) as legitimate “time, place and manner” constraints.
This is also a case whose judgement doesn’t consider harassment or antisemitism per se—although while for many it was clearly unwanted, there’s no evidence that it was repeated. And, I should add, it’s not a case where any of Abuqamar’s protected beliefs came into play—but in a similar case, almost certainly would have.
There are wider questions that concern the making of judgements about conduct—who makes them, the (legal) support they are given to make them, and what pressures or constraints they are under from students, campaign groups, the media, and in some cases, the state. And there are questions about the pressure that students, campaign groups, the media, and in some cases, the state are under themselves when intervening.
The point about counter-terrorism legislation, the Equality Act and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is that outside of cases like these, legislation more often than not dumps those judgement duties on universities as public authorities – and in case of HEFOSA, students’ unions directly.
I can’t say what I’d have done in a situation like this—partly because I wasn’t in a position to investigate. What I can say having been CEO of an SU is that the pressure to be seen to act in a particular way is rarely conducive to making nuanced judgements.
And what the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act unhelpfully does is require a binary—either the conduct was unacceptable and to be punished, or free speech and so to be celebrated and promoted. I think I can argue that whatever else it was, at least the representation of it would have felt intimidating and hostile to others.
The existence of “pressure” from students and campaign groups has tended to be used to justify the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act—imagining that universities or students are cravenly spineless in failing to defend free speech, too quick to cave to “woke” students.
But examples like this reveal a more nuanced truth—that the actual judgements we are asking people in the sector to make are complex, fraught with conflict, and often hard to defend, and both universities and their SUs need help with them, not threats. It reminds us that reports of others’ conduct rather than conduct itself tends to be what causes others to feel unsafe—and “reports” have a distribution and motive content too.
It reminds us that one person’s unacceptable “chilling” effects can always be another person’s desirable reduction in what Prevent guidance calls “permissive environments” for less tolerable activity.
And above all, it reminds us that however sincerely held the beliefs and reactions are to others’ conduct as harassing or oppressive, the law often does not support the expectation of a “safe environment” that universities often promise.
