Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s citizenship isn’t Nigel Farage’s to cancel when outrage suits him

This week’s row over British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah is the kind of Westminster psychodrama that makes politics feel like a group chat.

Keir Starmer welcomed him back. Then el-Fattah’s old tweets resurfaced, including violent and antisemitic language. 

Now Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage are treating ‘deport him’ like an appropriate mantra. As though citizenship is something you rent by the month and can be repossessed the minute a headline turns sour. 

Let’s be clear, nobody (or at least nobody sensible) is defending racism or calls to violence, no matter how old.

Abd el-Fattah has apologized for posts that he accepts were ‘shocking and hurtful’, and it is entirely legitimate for Jewish organisations and others to demand reassurance about what he believes now.

And if there is a case for more formal investigation, then so be it. 

But the grown-up question is not whether those tweets were disgusting – it’s what Britain thinks citizenship is.

If we decide that British citizenship is conditional on good behavior, we should be honest that we are building a state that can banish people based on past comments. 

By that logic, I suspect there may be a few more people who should be heading for the chopping block, starting with the very politicians who are currently calling for it.

Either citizenship means something, or it doesn’t. Either standards apply to everyone, or they are utterly meaningless.

This is where the opportunism in parliament is arguably kicking in. 

The Conservatives who are acting aghast should remember their own paperwork. Abd el-Fattah was granted British citizenship in 2021 under a Conservative government. 

Successive Tory ministers also pushed for his release from Egypt.

It is only now, after a welcome from Starmer, that the same political ecosystem is in uproar. 

I’m not here to defend labor. But this isn’t only their responsibility.

Then there is, of course, Nigel Farage, always ready to capitalise on a headline with a foreign name. He says ‘anyone who possesses racist and anti-British views’ should not be allowed into the UK, and has called for Abd el-Fattah’s deportation.

But then it needs to be a proper standard, not a slogan for when it suits politicians, but as a rule that applies to all. 

You cannot just ‘deport’ a British citizen in the way Farage implies, and for good reason. 

The Home Secretary can strip someone of their citizenship, but it exists for serious grounds – such as terrorism and war crimes. It is not a political ejector seat, or for when it suits a party’s cause. 

So before Farage starts handing out moral purity tests and imposing a Britain where belonging is conditional on immaculate conduct, he might want to look at his own record.

This year, there have been constant, ongoing allegations against him about racist and antisemitic behavior at school, including claims of antisemitic chanting aimed at Jewish classmates.

Even setting aside the playground allegations, Farage’s record is hardly a masterclass in British values.

We are a country that opened our arms to desperate refugees fleeing Hitler’s persecution and Putin’s invasion. He is the man who fronted the infamous ‘Breaking Point’ poster that stoked fear, racialised migration and demonised refugees.

If citizenship becomes a moral purity badge you only hand out to people you like and rip away from those you don’t, then the question surely arises about who and what defines ‘British values’. 

I suspect it is whoever shouts loudest.

Starmer now faces a classic trap, the opposition wants him either to look weak by refusing the ‘deport him’ chant, or to look vindictive by reaching for the nuclear option: using citizenship deprivation powers as a political fix, so el-Fattah can be kicked out without a court ever weighing the evidence.

I argue that it is a grubby pincer move, and the Right are fighting over who gets to tighten it first.

The answer is to respond in proportion and through due process: treat him as what he is – a British citizen – meaning he is subject to British law, British courts, and the same standards as everyone else.

That may well mean police assess whether he has committed an offense, and prosecutors decide whether to charge. Then, and only then, courts decide guilt, not politicians or headlines.

If there is evidence Abd el-Fattah currently incites violence, breaks the law, or poses a genuine threat, then investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute. Britain has criminal law for that.

But do not confuse disgust with governance. 

‘I don’t like what you once said online’ is not a constitutional principle.

If it is, I’ve got a few people lined up for scrutiny, starting with the loudest man in the room.

Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing Ross.Mccafferty@usnewsrank.com. 

Share your views in the comments below.