LONDON: A Palestinian student has won an appeal against the UK government after her student visa was revoked in 2023 due to statements on the Gaza situation that the Home Office deemed “not conducive to the public good.”

The Home Office had stripped Dana Abu Qamar, a dual Jordanian-Canadian citizen of Palestinian origin and University of Manchester student, of her visa after concluding that her remarks on Gaza’s resistance to Israel posed a risk to public safety.

However, a tribunal overturned the ruling on Wednesday, declaring that her comments did not constitute extremism.

Court documents show that her visa was revoked after the then-immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, intervened in the case. Qamar, who leads the Friends of Palestine society at the university, stated that his involvement “sends a chilling message to activists,” calling it part of a “brutal crackdown.”

The tribunal’s judgment also concluded that Abu Qamar’s reference to Israel as an “apartheid” state aligned with views held by multiple human rights organizations and found her language around “actively resisting” and “breaking free” to be consistent with lawful expressions of Palestinian resistance. The court also determined she was “not an extremist.”

Commenting on her legal victory, Qamar said “justice has prevailed” and that she was happy with the result.

“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.

Her statements, which initially attracted government scrutiny, came during a speech at a pro-Palestine rally in Manchester, in which she remarked, “We are full of pride, we are really, full of joy at what has happened,” referencing the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel.

Later, in a BBC interview, she clarified her stance, saying: “The death of any innocent civilian should not be condoned ever, and we don’t condone it at all.”

Abu Qamar, who has lost 22 relatives in Gaza during Israel’s ongoing campaign and whose paternal grandparents were displaced by the 1948 Nakba, reiterated her opposition to harm against civilians, adding: “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.”