UK declines Malema visa application due to his ‘extremism'
The United Kingdom has refused to grant EFF leader Julius Malema a visa due to his support for Hamas and a statement he made about cutting the throat of whiteness.
The UK's Home Office says Malema's future applications are unlikely to succeed unless he changes his stance.
His presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good, said that country's authorities.
The United Kingdom has refused to grant EFF leader Julius Malema a visa due to his 'extremism', which that country said includes his support for Hamas and a call to 'slaughter white people'.
The UK Home Office secretary said Malema's presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good. This is Malema's second unsuccessful attempt to visit the UK.
The UK's Home Office told the firebrand leader that his application for a visit visa to the United Kingdom had been refused and that future applications were unlikely to succeed.
'Any future UK visa applications you make will be considered on their individual merits, however, you are likely to be refused unless the circumstances of your application change,' said the UK Visas and Immigration Decision Making Centre in a letter dated 17 June 2025 and seen by News24.
'In relation to this decision, there is no right of appeal or right to administrative review.'
READ | Malema sees red after UK visa not approved in time to address students at Cambridge University
The Home Office secretary said while Malema has previously held visas to travel to the UK, after reviewing his latest visa application, the authorities noticed his support for Hamas – an organisation which is considered a terrorist group and is forbidden in the UK – and his call for the slaughter of whiteness.
'I note that you have made statements in support of Hamas, an organisation who are proscribed in the United Kingdom. In an address outside the Israeli Embassy on the 23rd of October 2023, days after the October 7th attack on Israel, you stated that when your political party took over following the 2024 South African elections that you were 'going to arm Hamas and make sure Hamas got the necessary equipment to fight for their freedom',' reads the letter.
'During this same address, you state that Hamas had no option but to fight for their freedom. Additionally, in October 2023 you posted on the EFF's X site in relation to the events on October the 7th that there 'is nothing wrong Hamas (sic) did'.
'In April 2024, the EFF, the political party which you lead, posted on X that the 'Palestinian people have the fullest right to take up arms against apartheid Israel, and that the EFF supports the armed struggle of Hamas and Hezbollah'.'
The Home Office also cited an interview Malema did in October 2024, where he argued that the Hamas attack on Israel was a 'legitimate act of resistance', stating that 'Hamas legitimately resisted Israel's occupation of Palestine on that day. It was not an act of war. It is a battle for the freedom of the Palestinians.'
In addition, the Home Office secretary wrote:
I note that you have made statements calling for the slaughter of white people or hinted that it could be an acceptable option in the future.
'In 2016, you said that your political party was 'not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now'.
'In February 2022 you appeared at the South African Equality Court after previously calling for the slaughter of white people. During this appearance, the presiding judge requested that you never repeat such words in the future. You responded that: 'I cannot guarantee the future. I am not a prophet. I said that if things don't change, there will be a revolution affecting all of us – and that will include me and black people in suburbs. Those rising up from townships will accuse us of abandoning them in squalor and in poverty. We will all be in serious trouble… It may not be me [calling for the slaughter of white people]. But it could be me. What will necessitate such a thing? I can't guarantee I can't or won't call for the slaughter of white people. But why would I make a pledge to say I definitely won't call for that? I won't do it'.'
The Home Office said Malema went on to post on the EFF's X site, 'When the time comes and the conditions on the grounds necessitate that arms must be taken, we will do so without hesitation.'
'I consider that the above statements, in particular the fact that you have justified the actions of a proscribed terrorist organisation and stated your intention to support and arm them, mean your presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. I note that we have not seen any information that indicates that you have spoken out against Hamas or the actions they have undertaken.
Malema has previously stated that 'cutting the throat of whiteness' refers to a system of white supremacy and not white people.
But the Home Office secretary said:
Taking the above into account, your presence in the UK has been assessed as non-conducive to the public good on the grounds of your conduct, character and associations, which makes it undesirable to grant you entry to the UK.
'I consider that the above statements, notably that your political party would arm a proscribed organisation and other statements you made justifying the actions of proscribed terrorist organisations, mean your presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good,' said the letter.
The Home Office advised Malema that there is no right of appeal against its decision or right to its administrative review.
It said any future UK visa applications would likely be refused unless he provided 'compelling new evidence with your next application'.
An application for entry clearance, permission to enter or permission to stay in the UK is refused where the applicant's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good because of their conduct, character, associations or other reasons, including convictions which do not fall within the criminality grounds.
According to the Home Office, a person's presence in the UK may be considered not conducive to the public good if the individual has been involved in unacceptable behaviour, including past or current extremist behaviour. Unacceptable behaviour covers an individual who uses any means or medium to express views which incite, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of beliefs.
The UK government's definition of extremism considers that extremists can incite hatred, erode democratic institutions, social capital and cohesion. It says extremism is the promotion or advance of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that is characterised by behaviour against a group, or members of it, that seeks to negate or destroy their rights to live equally under the law and free of fear, threat, violence and discrimination.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump promised a peacemaker presidency. What happened?
It wasn't a one-off statement from President Donald Trump that he would end wars and bring about world peace during a second White House term. It was a major plank of his presidential campaign. The whole world is blowing up under him. Trump on Biden at CNN's June 2024 presidential debate Trump promised a calmer world during his debate with then-President Joe Biden last June. Biden's poor performance and the perception that Trump would be a stronger leader helped drive Biden from the race. Things have not settled down on the world stage since Trump took office. In fact, there's a new conflict brewing and Trump is actively considering US military strikes against Iran, warning that Iran's nuclear capabilities are more developed than his own intelligence community has assessed. Americans now looking at the real possibility of the US joining Israel's strike at Iran could wonder what happened to the Trump who promised peace on the campaign trail. These are wars that will never end with him. Trump at CNN's June 2024 presidential debate Trump frequently criticized Biden for the fact that Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war between Israel and Hamas both happened on Biden's watch. '(Biden) will drive us into World War III, and we're closer to World War III than anybody can imagine,' Trump said. Trump's openness to using US firepower to help Israel in its offensive against Iran could be interpreted as a complete flip from his repeated promises to be more judicious with American firepower and focus on US interests before everything else. At a National Guard conference in Detroit last August where he was endorsed by Tulsi Gabbard, an anti-war former Democratic member of Congress from Hawaii who is now his director of national intelligence, Trump said Democrats and Independents would vote for him in part because he would end wars. We're uniting forces to end the endless foreign wars. Trump on Gabbard's endorsement 'I am confident that his first task will be to do the work to walk us back from the brink of war,' Gabbard said at the same event, explaining her support for Trump. 'We cannot be prosperous unless we are at peace.' It was seen as an important shift in Republican foreign policy, as Trump veered away from the neoconservative school of thought that led the US into the war in Iraq, and from the post-World War II mindset that the US should help foster democracy around the world. There is now a major rift brewing in the GOP over Iran. One example: Tucker Carlson, a major Trump backer in the conservative online media echo chamber, who opposes US involvement in Israel's attacks, confronted Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, during a combative interview posted to the social media platform X. I will have that war settled between Putin and Zelenskyy. Trump at CNN's June 2024 presidential debate Trump's peace promises have been difficult to achieve. The war in Ukraine would be over, Trump promised at the debate, 'before I take office on January 20th.' The war is still far from over and Trump has expressed frustration at his inability to stop it. Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza also continues, despite Trump's promise to quickly end it. Trump argued at the debate that he would be more effective on the world stage than Biden because world leaders don't respect the Democrat. 'They don't fear him. They have nothing going with this gentleman and he's going to drive us into World War III.' But Trump has been unable to persuade or pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin into ending the war with Ukraine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu struck Iran without Trump's approval — though the administration was aware the move was coming — and now it is Trump moving toward Israel's position rather than the other way around. When I'm back in the White House, we will expel the warmongers, the profiteers … and we will restore world peace. Trump at the 2024 National Guard conference Instead of surrounding himself with people who would take the US into war, Trump promised a new kind of staff to build a much more powerful military that would keep wars from breaking out. 'It will be again peace through strength,' he said at the National Guard conference. Yet his current position on Iran aligns more with old school Republicans who did not shy away from using American military might. I ended wars. Trump at the 2024 National Guard conference in Detroit Trump spoke frequently on the campaign trail about the need to avert World War III, something he said he could achieve. Perhaps joining Israel in its effort against Iran, if that's what Trump ultimately decides to do, will be a step in that direction. But he did not mention such detours during the campaign. 'I could have been in a mess like you have right now,' Trump said alongside Gabbard. 'You have every place, the whole world is blowing up. Yes, World War III if something doesn't happen fast. And that's going to be a world war like no others because of nuclear power and other power that's out there.' Promising peace is something that extended into Trump's inaugural address. 'We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into,' he said. Now Trump is using the language of war, demanding 'unconditional surrender' from Iran in social media posts even though the US and Iran are not technically at war and Trump still says he wants Iran to come to the negotiating table. Iran could still obviously negotiate an end to Israel's attack, which is happening with more and more support from the US. Trump is still weighing whether that support will include military force. For now, he is not acting as a unifier, though that's what he promised Americans in his second inaugural. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. Trump's second inaugural address 'That's what I want to be: a peacemaker and a unifier,' he said. His time in office so far has not, at least not yet, been the era of peace.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Heed General Mattis' Warning, D.C.: Less Diplomacy Means 'More Ammunition'
In his January Inaugural Address, Donald Trump said, 'We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' If that's the president's most crucial foreign policy metric – and it's a good one – then it's hard to understand why Washington is pulling back on investments that have prevented war and promoted peace for decades. Especially when foreign aid accounts for only about one percent of the federal budget, much of it actually spent within the U.S. Every American should hope the White House reconsiders its strategy before it's too late. "If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition" — Former Defense ... More Secretary James Mattis. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch - Pool/Getty Images) In 1947, America did something unique in world history when it launched the Marshall Plan, spending $187 billion in today's dollars to rehabilitate the economies of 17 European countries. Most extraordinary of all, we spent over 20% of those funds on the recovery of our World War II adversaries, Germany and Italy. The plan worked, establishing a stable and prosperous Europe, a network of reliable allies, and a massive market for U.S. companies. Last year, the U.S. exported almost $250 billion of goods alone to Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. This exercise of 'soft power' – which describes the use of foreign aid, diplomacy, and the promotion of American values abroad – turned out to be every bit as consequential to strengthening America and winning the Cold War as our military's 'hard power.' But soft power is on the outs in Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the administration plans to reduce the Department's staff in the U.S. by 15 percent while closing and consolidating more than 100 bureaus worldwide. At the same time, China now has a larger diplomatic presence worldwide than the U.S. and a massive global infrastructure and investment strategy. Its Belt and Road Initiative is the largest infrastructure project in history, involving more than 140 countries and drawing an increasing number of nations into its orbit. China is rapidly filling the void because the U.S. has vacated its historic and influential presence. On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order freezing all foreign aid, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Since its creation in George W. Bush's administration, PEPFAR has saved more than 25 million lives and prevented millions of HIV infections, including those in America, as the AIDS pandemic has been brought under more control. Although the Trump administration subsequently allowed a waiver for the continued distribution of HIV medicine, many other key aspects of the PEPFAR program are in jeopardy. President Trump has also ordered the closure of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which reaches 50 million people each week in places where media freedom doesn't exist. Even Cookie Monster, Oscar, and Elmo are on the chopping block. Less soft power for Elmo: International adaptations of "Sesame Street" have been impacted by cuts in ... More federal funding. Since the early 1970s, Sesame Workshop, the producer of Sesame Street, has collaborated with local broadcasters to develop unique, culturally adapted versions of the show in over 150 countries. These international co-productions often include local languages, characters, and educational priorities, making "Sesame Street" a global neighborhood. Because the Department of Education has cancelled its key grants, Sesame Street has become a dead end in several nations. There's little question that some of the money Washington spent in recent years on foreign aid was wasted or devoted to pet ideological causes. This likely explains why 59% of the public supports reducing foreign aid, even as they vastly overestimate how much America spends on it. (Opinion polls often show Americans believe more than a quarter of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. As stated earlier, the real figure is around 1%.) However, I'd ask my fellow Americans – and our leaders in Washington – to recall something General James Mattis, then commander of the Central Command, said in 2013 about the perils of making reckless cuts to foreign aid and diplomacy. Testifying before Congress, he said, 'If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition. The more that we put into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully, the less we must put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene.' To meet President Trump's goal of ending and avoiding wars, Washington can't just slash budgets. It needs a new framework for soft power that prioritizes America's interests and delivers peace through strength. A great place to start would be the new 'Blueprint for How America Wins in the World' from the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (full disclosure: I am a Vice Chairman at USGLC). I spoke recently to USGLC President Liz Schrayer, one of the sharpest thinkers I know on foreign policy and the exercise of U.S. power. Amid growing threats from China, Russia, and Iran, Liz walked me through several steps America can take to be stronger, safer, and more prosperous, including: Making these soft power investments should appeal to the most hardboiled realists in Washington – and compel the White House to reverse course on some of its proposed aid and diplomacy cuts – because they all make America safer. If we want to stay one step ahead of China, prevent the next pandemic from reaching our shores, keep our borders secure, and grow our economy, America must show up, lead with strength, and make smart investments abroad that deliver on American interests. Otherwise, our service members are going to need more ammunition.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump Says ‘Nobody Knows' His Plans on Iran
News ANalysis Smokes after Israeli airstrikes in Tehran on Tuesday. In Iran, Israel is carrying out the kind of broad and brazen attack that it long threatened but never dared to enact before. For nearly two decades, Israel avoided all-out war with its biggest enemies. It fought contained conflicts with Hamas, but ultimately allowed the group to retain power in Gaza. It maintained an uneasy calm with the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, even as its fighters entrenched themselves in southern Lebanon. And despite planning a major assault on Iran, it limited its attacks to smaller, clandestine operations. Israel's massive, ongoing assault on Iran highlights an extraordinary shift in Israeli military doctrine since Hamas, Iran's Palestinian ally, attacked the country in October 2023. It is a change that has redrawn the power dynamics in the Middle East, unraveled Iran's regional alliance and enshrined Israel as the dominant military force in the region. Having given Hamas years to prepare for the Oct. 7 attack, Israel reversed course afterward to unleash one of the most destructive campaigns in recent warfare. It then assassinated most of Hezbollah's leadership and decimated large parts of southern Lebanon. Now, in Iran, it is carrying out the kind of broad and brazen attack that it long threatened but never dared to enact. 'We are changing the face of the Middle East,' said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel during a press briefing on Monday. 'And this could lead to far-reaching changes within Iran itself,' he added. For now, that second claim remains unproven. The Israeli military campaign has weakened Iran, but it has not yet destroyed the country's nuclear program or collapsed its government, and it may still fall short of both. The war could also devolve into an intractable quagmire with no exit strategy or offramp. Image Iranians lined up at gas stations in Tehran on Monday. Credit... Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times Mr. Netanyahu's broader point is harder to contradict. Hamas is no longer a threat to Israel. Hezbollah's influence over Lebanon — let alone the danger it poses to Israelis — is much diminished. The government in Syria, a pillar of Iran's regional alliance, was overthrown last December, in part because Hezbollah could no longer come to its aid. These tectonic shifts also speak to a vast change within the Israeli psyche and strategic outlook since Hamas's attack in October 2023. For Israel's critics, the attack was the inevitable consequence of the country's blockade of Gaza, occupation of the West Bank, and failure to resolve the Palestinian conflict through diplomatic concessions. Many Israelis have drawn the opposite conclusion: They believe that the October attack — the deadliest in Israeli history — stemmed from Israel's failure to pre-emptively and decisively defeat its enemies. 'In the 20 years before Oct. 7, we allowed threats to develop beyond our borders, trusting that our intelligence would give us prior warnings of any attack,' said Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence. 'The trauma of Oct. 7 completely changed that mind-set and made us willing to take risks that we didn't take in the past,' General Yadlin said. 'We will no longer wait to be attacked, and we will not wait to be surprised.' The approach echoes Israel's strategic outlook in the early decades of its existence, when it often acted more swiftly and decisively to remove threats on its borders, General Yadlin said. The clearest example was in June 1967, when Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt after the Egyptian military moved troops toward the Israeli border. Image Israeli fighter aircraft over the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt in June 1967. Israel's current approach in the Middle East echoes its strategic outlook in the early decades of its existence, when it often acted swiftly and decisively to remove threats on its borders. Credit... Israel Defense Forces, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images 'As Egypt massed troops on our southern border, we did not wait to be surprised,' General Yadlin said. 'Now, we are reviving that doctrine.' Israel's new approach is the culmination of months of re-evaluation, during which the military's confidence — crushed by the failures of Oct. 7 — was gradually restored. While Israel's approach to Hamas was immediately wrathful, the country was initially wary of taking on Hezbollah and Iran. Mr. Netanyahu called off a pre-emptive attack on Hezbollah in the first week of the war in 2023, amid fears that Israel would struggle to maintain a multi-front war against the Iran-led alliance. For nearly a year, Israel fought only a low-level border conflict with Hezbollah. Despite increasing clashes with Tehran in 2024, Israel limited its strikes on Iran to avoid an all-out conflict. Israel's approach began to change last September, when a sequence of unexpected moves allowed Israel to decimate much of Hezbollah's senior leadership. That increased Israel's confidence and prompted its leaders to order a more decisive assault on the group. Troops invaded southern Lebanon and the air force killed Hezbollah's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah. Israel then severely weakened Iran's air defense systems and successfully repelled massive barrages of Iranian missiles, giving Israel greater confidence in its offensive and defensive abilities. More than a year after Oct. 7, Israeli leaders finally concluded that they had a rare window of opportunity to mount a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear program. Image An oil storage west of Tehran was hit by Israeli airstrikes on Sunday. Credit... Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times Though Israel's new approach has undercut Iran's regional influence, it has done little to resolve Israel's oldest and most intractable problem: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Gaza, Israel's retaliation has led to widespread destruction and bloodshed, reinstating a fearsome sense of Israeli might and reducing Hamas's threat for a generation. But the conflict has provided no clear long-term trajectory for either Gaza or the wider Palestinian question. Mr. Netanyahu has consistently ignored opportunities to end the war, balking at the idea of either leaving Hamas's remnants in charge or allowing other Palestinian groups to take over. 'Instead, we are left with only bad options,' said Tzipi Livni, a former Israeli foreign minister. 'Either occupation or chaos, rather than a diplomatic process involving moderate regional and Palestinian stakeholders that could change the reality on the ground for both Palestinians and Israelis.' A similarly aimless dynamic could yet emerge in Iran, analysts said, if the Israeli leadership fails to clearly define its goals there and set an exit strategy. For now, Israeli officials hope the United States will join the attack and help Israel destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. If the United States stays away, and if Iran refuses to stop the enrichment by choice, it is unclear whether Israel's forceful new doctrine will achieve the kind of game-changing outcomes that many Israelis desire. 'One wonders whether effective military performance is matched by a sober political vision,' said Nimrod Novik, a former senior Israeli official and a fellow at Israel Policy Forum, a research group in New York. 'Or, like in Gaza, we are left without an endgame. Time will tell.' Johnatan Reiss and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting.
