https://www.councilestatemedia.uk/p/uk-tribunal-supports-the-palestinian
It confirmed that resistance and terrorism are not the same things
Nov 01, 2024

Following recent abuses of power in the UK by counter-terrorism police to silence journalists and influencers who speak out against Israel’s genocide, we had been left wondering what the legal position is. Well, now we have some clarity.

Palestinian student Dana Abu Qamar has won her appeal at a First-tier Tribunal after her student visa was cancelled by the Home Office in December 2023. This is as big a victory as David Miller winning his case against Bristol University for wrongful dismissal. In Miller’s case, the tribunal found that anti-Zionist views are worthy of respect, and in Abu Qamar’s case, the tribunal found that supporting the Palestinian right to resistance is worthy of respect.

Abu Qamar has released the following statement:

After a year-long legal battle against state repression and disregard of human rights, specifically targeted against pro-Palestinians, justice has prevailed.

This case has reinforced Palestinians’ right to resist occupation in the domestic context; that the expression in support of that right cannot be conflated with support for terrorism; that there is no room for abuse of power by ministers and arbitrary decision-making to undermine the rule of law. I hope that this ruling inspires and strengthens supporters of the Palestinian movement to continue advocating against Israel’s flagrant violations of international law.

I am grateful to the ELSC, my legal team, comrades, friends and family for their support throughout the whole process.

Let’s take a moment to reiterate how insane this case was. Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, and prior to October 7th, had been repeatedly found guilty of war crimes. On top of that, it is widely recognised as an apartheid state.

Even prior to the genocide, Palestine’s right to resist was clear and backed by international law, yet the British government decided resisting an illegal occupation counts as “anti-Semitism” and “terrorism”. It decided that anyone who supports Palestinian resistance is an extremist who should not be allowed in the country. It decided that a young woman was not entitled to an education, but thankfully, the decision was overturned. Here is why:

Put simply: the words “resistance” and “terrorism” are not the same. Almost everyone who supports Palestinian resistance supports legal means of resistance. Even posting on social media can count as resistance, but then again, counter-terrorism police have counted social media posts as terrorism! You see the absurdity yet? You see how any attempt to end Israel’s brutal occupation makes you a terrorist in the eyes of our government? Good, now you understand how risky it is to write about this issue!

Then-immigration minister Robert Jenrick (the guy who thinks we should fly Israeli flags at every entry point in the UK) had personally intervened to get Dana Abu Qamar kicked out of the UK for reasons that can only be described as racist.

You would be hard-pressed to find a single Palestinian who doesn’t believe in resistance because Israel keeps murdering their friends and family, and depriving them of basic human rights. Yet Jenrick decided that any Palestinian who expresses perfectly legal and legitimate beliefs is not welcome in the UK. Absurdly, he decided Abu Qamar was a national security threat because she happens to think genocide is wrong. The only way to not be a terrorist in the eyes of our government is to support genocide. That’s where we are.

Abu Qamar has lost 15 relatives in Gaza since October 7th, but our government expected her to not support resistance to the murdering of her family. Can you think of anything more perverse?

Abu Qamar was referred to the Special Cases Unit who were told by the Research, Information and Communications Unit that Abu Qamar posed no threat. However, the National Community Tensions Team and Homeland Security Analysis Insight both advised she must support Hamas because she was part of the Manchester Friends of Palestine group that had a relationship with Friends of Al Aqsa. In other words, Abu Qamar’s visa was revoked due to guilt by association: she was part of a group that had spoken to another group that might have spoken to Hamas. McCarthyism was used by the government to bring down a student!

Whichever way you look at it, this was racism, but anti-Palestinian racism does not count as real racism in the UK. This is because anti-Palestinianism undermines false accusations of the one form of racism that counts: anti-Semitism.

Robert Jenrick’s action was clearly illegal, yet the current home secretary Yvette Cooper refused to reverse his racist decision. This shows you the Labour government is just as racist, and just as opposed to human rights, as the Tory government. Lesser of two evils, my arse.

The tribunal recognised that Abu Qamar’s description of Israel as an “apartheid state” aligns with human rights organisations around the world. It recognised that phrases like “actively resisting” were understood to mean legal acts of resistance. The tribunal found no evidence that Abu Qamar’s statements demonstrated she was an extremist, or that her presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good. All of her words were classed as protected free speech under Article 10 of the ECHR so there was no legal justification to revoke her student visa.

This verdict has come as a huge blow to everyone who wants to label us anti-Semitic for opposing apartheid and genocide, and supporting legal acts of resistance. It significantly undermines claims that anti-Semitic incidents are skyrocketing in the UK. An overly-broad interpretation means the words of people like Abu Qamar are being classed as anti-Semitic. Of course, such words are rising because Israel won’t stop committing genocide. The same strategy that was used to delegitimise Jeremy Corbyn is being used to delegitimise resistance to genocide, but thankfully, we appear to have the law on our side.

The only question now is are counter-terrorism police listening? Or do they intend to continue with an interpretation of the law that classes people as terrorists for posting words they disapprove of online? My guess is that police are not likely to change their behaviour, but at least we know that if we are taken to court, we have a strong chance of winning, even in this backward racist country.