UK revokes visa of law student who addressed pro-Palestine protest

Personally I think she's dangerous because she's a foolish child.
What was the average age of Islamists who have carried out attacks in Europe and America? The average age of UK citizens who went to Isis as fighters & brides? What was the average age of the over enthusiastic jihadis on 7/10?
We live in interesting times.

Thanks. Foolish child. Hopefully, they are correct.

Yes. Afaik, the Home Office doesn’t intend to take it to the U.K. Supreme Court.

Above the U.K. Supreme Court would be the ECHR as the case falls under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights- freedom of expression.

It would be millions of pounds of taxpayer money for the Home Office to risk an appeal to this. She is a Canadian Jordanian law student who will head back home soon enough to countries that are both allies of the U.K.

My understanding is....supreme court is the highest authority, the appeal court has decided she's a bit of a foolish child ( in her own words 'a 19 year old law student) and are probably wary of giving her too much importance and creating a figurehead.
She'll finish her course and toddle off home presumably.

Each article in the HRA and therefore the ECHR, has a derogation, ( eg public good or national security). If she was important it would be used I hope, nevertheless she may be considered one to watch. UK society is famously complacent and the government would like to keep it that way as it makes us easier to manage.

It was an appeal tribunal which requires three senior, specialist judges to sit on the hearing and make the ruling.

I would be interested to hear her views about the existence of the state of Israel and the possibility of a two state solution.
She's a law student, she should know about the careful meaning of words.

I’m not the one pretending! The appeal court ruled that what she said was perfectly legal and not supporting terrorism, Hamas or any of their actions.

You seem hell bent on pretending she was saying something illegal, in my opinion due to misreporting by the Daily Fail and other news outlets who falsely claimed she had.

It’s a type of propaganda that you have accepted. As a Jewish person, I am all too familiar with how racism towards a religious minority affects the way stories are published in outlets like the Daily Fail.

Freedom of speech (or rather freedom of expression in the UK) is not without limitations.
It is illegal to show support for a proscribed organisation in this country, and this is what Hamas is.
But sure, go ahead and pretend that someone expressing pride and joy at “Palestinian resistance” a day after October 7th is definitely not referring to the Hamas attack.

Judges aren't infallible. Mistakes made can be costly if others feel 'resistance' as seen on October 7th is ok or feel pride at 'resistance ' a d follow that path.

You sound awfully invested in what you have inferred, an inference that the court has found to be entirely unsupported. We don’t convict people on the basis of what might be inferred but on what they actually say. You understand what freedom of speech is?

Yeah, I'm sure the judge is some sucker, not a highly educated member of society that knows the law better than most

🤣 goodness some people really do suck.up the 'it's not what I meant whilst supporting terrorists ' hopefully she will be closely watched.

Not were. Are. Present tense. If she had been referring to the day before, she would have used ‘were.’

Nonsense. And I’m pretty sure you know it.
Why would she have used “were” instead of “are”, they were clearly still full of pride and joy when she was being interviewed.
Furthermore, she said “what has happened”, not even “what is happening”, so I really don’t think she was primarily referring to the “peaceful protests, including the one she was one”.

I agree with the court of appeal. Perhaps you need to read the full statement and not take bits and bobs out of context?

Yes and in the film she makes no mention of Oct 7th or Hamas, nor does she express any support for either. But several media outlets misreported that she had expressed support for Oct 7th and Hamas. Like the Daily Fail’s headlineStudent who praised Oct 7 Hamas attack wins appeal against Home Office
This is the ruling of the court of appeal- she never praised the Oct 7 Hamas attack.

Again, she referred directly to the 16yr blockade and the pride and joy was because ‘they are actively resisting’.

Lots of protests and strikes were going on during Oct 8th that fall under peaceful resistance, including the protest she was attending.

Not were. Are. Present tense. If she had been referring to the day before, she would have used ‘were.’

She is there on film, nothing to do with newspaper reporting. What is she referring to when she refers to resistance and breaking the seige in the two film clips?

What breaking of a "siege" was she referring to then? The timing was certainly unfortunate.

Again, when she said: "We are full of pride, we are really, full of joy at what has happened”, what do you think she was referring to?

At the end of the day the court decided that she did nothing wrong. You can go all conspiracy theorist and talk about gaslighting if you like. The judge ruled that she was not an extremist and that she is as entitled to free speech as everyone else is. The law is the law.

I read the transcript to the court of her words verbatim. I think the ruling is consistent, given the dog whistles that certain public figures get away with weekly.

I think the media is responsible for sensationalising things by jumping to the conclusion she was referring to Hamas and Oct 7th, and reporting it as if she had, when she did not.

She never expressed any support for Hamas, or any of their actions (including Oct 7th), but newspapers decided to misreport things because click bait and that sells.

The court ruling is based on the words she said, not what newspapers misreported in order to stir people up.

She did not say “fighting back” or “on the offensive” 😣

She said the 16yr blockade. She didn’t mention October 7th or Hamas at all.

Not the average person. However here on Mumsnet, we're already seeing these things excusing her.

Sick.

Yet gaslighting my the court to say nothing to see here. People who suggest that resistance of the nature that was hamas attacks on 7th October are terrorist supporters. We don't want student visas given to terrorist supporters