The High Court has thrown out a witchhunt, driven by pro-Israel groups, against a pharmacist over chants he made during a pro-Palestine march in 2017.

Pharmacist Nazim Ali was handed a warning last year by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) for statements he had made against Zionists during the annual al-Quds Day rally.

That case had been instigated by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) which alleged that he had insulted Zionists, Zionist rabbis and those associated with the Jewish Board of Deputies at the rally in London.

The CAA’s primary role is to defend the state of Israel by stigmatising as anti-Semitic anyone who supports Palestine and opposes Zionism.

The first warning was insufficient for the CAA and other pro-Israel lobbyists who wanted Ali struck off from his profession. In 2021 they prevailed upon the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) to appeal the measure against Ali. They were successful leading to a second GPhC hearing in 2023, where Ali was issued a second warning. The PSA appealed the second decision as well, which has now been dismissed by the High Court which found that the sanction imposed against Ali was correct.

The decision marks a major setback for Zionist activists who weaponise anti-Semitism and use the low-threshold International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism to target professionals in order to silence them from speaking out in support of the Palestinians.

Had they won the appeal and succeeded in having Mr Ali struck off, it would have set an even more chilling precedent for other professionals who campaign against Zionism and for Palestine.

For more information or comment please contact the Press Office on (+44) 208 904 0222 or (+44) 7958 522196 or email media@ihrc.org [ENDS]

Notes to editors: Timeline of the Nazim Ali case:

• In 2018 the Director of Public Prosecutions judged that the comments were anti-Zionist following a complaint from the pro-Israel group Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA).
• His decision was affirmed by the High Court in December the same year which dismissed a challenge brought by the CAA.
• After the High Court decision, a GPhC caseworker reviewed the complaint made by the CAA and held that Mr Ali’s comments were not racist or ant-Semitic.
• Her decision was reviewed by two GPhC professional regulations managers and a GPhC regional manager, who all stated that the decision was correct.
• In December 2018 lawyers acting for Mr Ali were informed that the case was closed. However, in the summer of 2019, the GPhC reopened the case justifying its decision on the basis that it had to evaluate Mr Ali’s comments on the basis of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. Like many organisations, the GPhC has never adopted the problematic definition.
• In November 2020, following a 10-day hearing it finally decided that Mr. Ali had not been anti-Semitic. Pro-Israel organisations once again complained, this time to the PSA, which regulates the GPhC. The PSA decided to refer the GPhC decision to the High Court. The GPhC concurred with the PSA and abandoned the decision of its own tribunal.
• In 2023 the Fitness to Practice Committee of the GPhC found that of the four statements made by Ali during the 2018 Al-Quds Day Rally in London, two were objectively anti-Semitic. They issued Mr. Ali with a warning.