After six years, GPhC finally admits pharmacist Nazim Ali’s comments at pro-Hizballah rally were antisemitic, but still lets him off with just a warning

Following six years of dogged action by Campaign Against Antisemitism, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has finally admitted that comments by the pharmacist Nazim Ali were antisemitic, but has still let him off with just a warning.

The GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee ruled that Mr Ali’s conduct while leading the pro-Hizballah ‘Al Quds Day’ march in London in 2017 brought his profession into disrepute due to comments made over a public address system that the Committee found to be antisemitic.

Today’s hearing comes after a previous decision by the GPhC to let Mr Ali off with a warning was quashed following action by Campaign Against Antisemitism, which, along with others, took the matter to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA). Campaign Against Antisemitism has also brought a private prosecution, launched a judicial review, and submitted the initial complaint to the GPhC, in our efforts to secure justice.

Ultimately those efforts have succeeded today, much as the final sanction is unacceptably weak.

At the hearing in London today, two of the four comments made by Mr Ali at the ‘Al Quds Day’ march in London on 18th June 2017 were found to have been antisemitic, based on how a “reasonable person” would have understood the comments.

The two comments, made before a crowd holding Hizballah flags and placards proclaiming “We are all Hizballah” were: “Any Zionist, any Jew coming into your centre supporting Israel, any Jew coming into your centre who is a Zionist, any Jew coming into your centre who is a member of the Board of Deputies, is not a Rabbi, he is an imposter”; and “They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party,” referring to the tragic fire in which seventy-two people had perished four days prior to the march. The Committee found that it was “proved” that the comments were antisemitic.

The Committee made reference to the International Definition of Antisemitism, and determined that a reasonable person could find that the first comment “conveyed [that] there are certain categories of persons who are not [a] proper representation” of Jews, and that the use of the word “imposter” was antisemitic because it “displayed hostility to the Jewish people”.

With regard to the second comment, the Committee found that, given that Zionism had nothing to do with the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, a reasonable person could view “Zionist” in this comment as a synonym for Jews, and that this engaged the Definition, according to which “Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews” is an example of antisemitism. The Committee found that, in this instance, “‘Zionist’ connoted antisemitic tropes.”

The sanction of a warning was considered suitable by the Committee even though it found that Mr Ali’s remarks were given greater “salience” by the fact that he led the rally, rather than merely participating in it, and that his claims about the Grenfell Tower tragedy were made soon after the fire when emotions would have been at their “rawest”. Despite these findings, the next level of sanction — suspension — was not even sought by the GPhC’s counsel.

Disappointingly and inexplicably, an additional two comments, “It’s in their genes. Zionists are here to occupy Regent Street. It’s in their genes. It’s in their genetic code”; and “European alleged Jews. Remember brothers and sisters, Zionists are not Jews,” were “not proved” to be antisemitic. Regarding the first comment, in this case “Zionists” was not deemed to be synonymous with ‘Jews’, and the second comment about Zionists not being Jews was supposedly ambiguous, and the Committee understood it to mean simply that ‘Zionists are not the same as Jews,’ and concluded that that was not an antisemitic comment.

Nevertheless, the Committee deemed that the “nature of what was said amounted to serious misconduct” and that it constituted an impairment to practise “on public interest grounds”, and that it was “entirely likely he would be identified as a pharmacist,” and indeed Campaign Against Antisemitism did identify him as such. It was found that he “did not lead by example,” as is required by all in the pharmaceutical profession, and his “comments brought the [pharmaceutical] profession into disrepute.”

While the Committee did not feel that Mr Ali posed a risk to patients, and even though he did not repeat his comments in subsequent years, the Committee concluded that he had brought the profession into disrepute with his comments, and that his words “had caused damage to the public’s confidence in the pharmaceutical profession.”

Despite the damage to the profession that the Committee found that Mr Ali’s comments caused, the Committee nonetheless decided to issue Mr Ali with only a warning, a weak sanction that a reasonable person would interpret as indicative of an unseriousness toward racist conduct as it pertains to Jews.

In 2020, the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found that Mr Ali had brought the pharmaceutical profession into disrepute. Although the Fitness to Practise Committee had found that Mr Ali’s words were offensive, it did not find that the words had been antisemitic, and the panel let him off with only a formal warning.

Following the GPhC’s ruling, Campaign Against Antisemitism and others made representations to the PSA, which oversees disciplinary decisions made by the GPhC. We asked the PSA to use its statutory power to appeal the GPhC’s decision to the High Court under the National Health Service Reform and Healthcare Professionals Act 2002, on the grounds that the decision made by the GPhC panel was insufficient to protect the public because it was “irrational and perverse”.

In particular, we asked the PSA to review the GPhC’s ruling that Mr Ali’s statements were not antisemitic, including by attempting to distinguish between “antisemitism” and “antisemitic”. We asked the PSA to consider the International Definition of Antisemitism, which has been adopted by the British Government, and the Guidance to all Judiciary in England and Wales produced by the Judicial College that makes clear that the word “Zionist” or “Zio” as a term of abuse has no place in a civilised society.

The PSA made the referral that we requested, opening the way for the High Court to decide whether to quash the GPhC panel’s decision. Subsequently, the GPhC itself also agreed with Campaign Against Antisemitism and declared that it would not oppose the appeal at the High Court, leaving Mr Ali to do so himself. The High Court allowed the PSA’s appeal, ruling that the case was to be remitted to the Fitness to Practise Committee to redetermine whether Mr Ali’s comments had been antisemitic. Mr Ali subsequently sought leave to appeal the High Court’s ruling in the Court of the Appeal, but permission to appeal was refused.

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “Today’s ruling marks the culmination of more than six years of work by Campaign Against Antisemitism to secure justice against the leader of the infamous 2017 pro-Hizballah ‘Al Quds Day’ march. It has finally been ruled that Nazim Ali’s address to the crowd contained antisemitic invective, an obvious conclusion that has been resisted for years.

“Despite this admission at long last by the GPhC, Mr Ali has only been given a warning, a slap-on-the-wrist sanction that shows a disturbing lack of seriousness toward racist conduct as it pertains to Jews.

“The road to justice in this case has proved long and winding, but we always said that we would not allow this injustice to stand and we are pleased that this ruling that the comments were antisemitic has at long last vindicated our efforts, even as the sanction shows that enforcement remains unacceptably weak in many cases. British Jews can be assured that we will always be unrelenting in pursuit of justice, and we will be meeting with the GPhC about its approach to antisemitic hate.”

UPDATE: On 14th March 2024, the High Court dismissed the case against the decision of the GPhC, noting that Mr Ali apologised for his rhetoric and the chastening impact of years of legal proceedings, which reduces the likelihood of his repeating his past conduct. The High Court did consider that the GPhC’s warning to Mr Ali could have been worded more clearly to clarify that two of his statements were found to be antisemitic (not just offensive), but the Court declined to order that the wording be substituted, given that the fact that Mr Ali made antisemitic comments has been made clear in a public judgment in the High Court.