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

[NotSoBigCrocodile]

With all the recent threads about the protests, I wonder what everyone thinks about the U.K. Government revoking the visa of 19 year old law student Dana Abuqamar. She said that:

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, but it seems to not apply to ethnic minorities, particularly Muslims and Palestinians like myself.”

She is challenging the decision and has accused the U.K. of hypocrisy. These are her comments, which she said have been taken out of context:

https://x.com/australianwoma1/status/1791064513321795956

I always see written on Mumsnet that “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.”

Do you think the Government’s decision is the correct one?

“she expressed pride & joy at Oct 7…”

The court ruled that this didn’t happen.
the ruling said, "nowhere does the appellant express support for Hamas specifically, or their actions".
"There is a clearly recognised and fundamental distinction between supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting Hamas and their actions," the judgment added.

But the 'resistance' she was referring to was the attack on 7 October. Though at that stage we did not know the full horror of the rapes, torture & mutilation we knew it was an attack on innocent civilians at a music festival & kibbutzim.

The court was satisfied that she wasn’t expressing support for Hamas or terrorism.

So she's got to stay. She's not really endeared the cause to the average British heart in the process.

Did they explain what resistance she was referring to? Did they basically rule that she was not all that bright or hadn't bothered to actually listen to the news? Its an odd one, don't you think?

So what the fuck was she talking about when she said on 8th October that she was full of pride that they were fighting back and on the offensive?

I think there is something very odd happening in our judiciary system at the moment.

It feels like the judicial system is gaslighting us. We all know what she said, we all heard it. But apparently she didn't say it.

I certainly does seem odd.

What other act of resistance happened on October 7th apart from Hamas killing, raping and kidnapping civilians?
If she wasn’t referring to what Hamas did, what was she referring to?

https://x.com/habibi_uk/status/1852057049095639237

And here she is doubling down on celebrating 'the breaking of the seige' while pretending that it somehow has nothing to do with the carnage that followed. What a disgraceful judgement.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.’

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.

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

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”.

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