In a time when the notion of British identity has become increasingly fraught, the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British-Egyptian activist, has once again thrust the issue of citizenship into the limelight. The Home Office’s decision not to strip Abd el-Fattah of his British citizenship over his “abhorrent” past social media posts has been met with a mix of relief and concern.
The recent Institute for Public Policy Research report, which found that 36% of people now believe one must be born British to be truly British, underscores the growing sentiment that citizenship is a privilege, not a right, for those who do not fit the mold of the “white, UK-born” Briton. This perception is further reinforced by the ongoing debate surrounding figures like Shamima Begum, who remains in a refugee camp despite never having been convicted of a crime, while the fascist nail bomber David Copeland serves his sentence in a UK jail.
The shifting Overton window on this issue, as noted by political commentator Nick Cohen, is being pushed by the Labour Party’s policy change in February 2025, which establishes a blanket presumption against granting citizenship to anyone who previously entered the UK illegally, regardless of how much time has passed. Furthermore, the Deprivation of Citizenship Order (Effect during Appeal) Act 2025, recently rushed through Parliament, represents a fundamental shift in how citizenship deprivation cases are handled during the appeal process.
Under the new system, individuals stripped of their citizenship would remain non-citizens until every legal avenue has been exhausted, even if they successfully appeal against the decision. This change has raised concerns that the perception of citizenship as an absolute right for some and a conditional gift for others will become further entrenched.
The case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, who has been a vocal critic of the Egyptian government and has faced imprisonment for his activism, has become a lightning rod in this debate. While his past social media posts may have been regrettable, as acknowledged by the activist himself, the response from some politicians, such as the shadow home secretary’s repeated use of the term “scumbag,” has been seen by some as unbecoming of a member of the shadow cabinet.
As the country grapples with the complexities of national identity and the boundaries of citizenship, it is crucial that the discourse remains objective and balanced, focusing on the nuances of each case rather than resorting to divisive rhetoric. The path forward, as suggested by commentators like Naomi Klein, lies in judging individuals based on their deeds and actions, rather than on the basis of their ethnicity or place of birth.
