Let’s stop pretending this is complicated.

If you come to Britain — or you’re granted the privileges of British citizenship — you don’t get to preach hate, glorify violence, and then hide behind excuses when the public notices. Citizenship isn’t a trophy. It isn’t a loophole. It’s a privilege. And privileges come with standards.

Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s case has now landed right in the middle of that basic truth. The debate isn’t about whether he’s “controversial” or whether people are being “unkind”. The debate is whether Britain is going to tolerate someone whose own words, as reported, show contempt for the West and approval of political violence.

The record: the West in the crosshairs

Let’s deal in facts, not spin. One of the statements attributed to him is this:

“Yes, I consider killing any colonialists and specially zionists heroic, we need to kill more of them.”

That’s not a “misunderstanding”. That’s not “a youthful phase”. That is an endorsement of killing — plain English — aimed at people he labels as “colonialists” and “Zionists”.

And the same reporting describes posts where he referred to British people as “dogs and monkeys.” Again, not nuance — dehumanisation.

This is the sort of language that poisons communities, normalises hatred, and creates permission structures for intimidation and violence. It is the opposite of what any responsible country should tolerate from people enjoying the protections and benefits of living here.

The newest escalation: conspiracy talk

What makes this worse is the pivot that so often follows exposure: the move from “I said it” to “they’re out to get me”.

Recent coverage reports the line being pushed that “Zionists” are out to get him, including the claim that he liked a post suggesting “Zionists against Alaa Abd el-Fattah” were behind a coordinated “campaign” against him.

That should set alarm bells ringing. It’s a familiar, ugly tactic: recast criticism as a conspiracy, and paint an entire group as the hidden hand behind accountability. It doesn’t de-escalate tensions — it inflames them.

Timing isn’t a defence

A lot of noise gets made about when these comments were made. It’s irrelevant – not least because one might rightfully suspect he still believes what he said back then – especially in view of the most recent comments about Zionists being out to get him.

In modern Britain, people have been arrested, charged, and jailed for online remarks that are far less explicit than endorsing killing and dehumanising populations. If the state is willing to pursue ordinary citizens for social media posts, then it cannot simultaneously shrug when the posts come from a high-profile figure who has been granted British status. Two-tier Kier, yet again.

The standard cannot be “one rule for them, another rule for everyone else”. But it is.

What should happen now: act

So here’s the position — clearly, without handwringing.

Revoke his British citizenship. Deport him. Ban re-entry.

And if it goes to court, take it to court. Government exists to take decisions in the national interest and defend them, not to hide behind process and hope a scandal dies down.

Britain has every right to decide who gets to be part of our national family. If someone’s record shows contempt for the country and approval of violence, the answer isn’t another review — it’s removal.

Extend it to family members who praise terror

And no, this doesn’t stop with one individual.

This isn’t guilt by association; it’s about conduct. If close family members living here have publicly praised or justified terrorist violence, they should be treated as part of the same risk picture.

That includes Mona Seif. Reporting attributes to her praise for the October 7 attackers’ “special kind of imagination” (in reference to the paragliders), alongside arguments framing armed violence as “understandable”.

That isn’t “activism”. That is cheering atrocity.

If we are serious, we review immigration status and citizenship entitlements for those who glorify terrorism — and we withdraw them. Same standards. Same consequences.

Conservatives: we own our share of the failure

Now, the uncomfortable truth: Abd el-Fattah obtained British citizenship in 2021, under a Conservative government. That means the system failed on our watch too. We don’t get to pretend we’re innocent bystanders.

So yes — we made a mistake.

But admitting that is not weakness; it’s the first step to restoring credibility. Because the only honest response is to tighten the entire operating model: better vetting, proper escalation, and real ministerial accountability. No more “nobody knew”. If the internet can surface this in minutes, the state has no excuse.

It comes as no surprise that our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary say they weren’t aware of the historic comments because along with the Chancellor, they’ve all made a virtue out of telling porky pies.

The signal Britain must send

This is bigger than one man. It’s a test of whether we still have the confidence to defend our own country.

Britain is not a safe harbour for people who glorify violence, indulge conspiracies, and despise the society they want to benefit from. If you want the privileges of living here — you respect the rules, you respect the public, and you reject political violence.