A coalition of medical associations representing more than 13,000 healthcare workers in the United Kingdom called on the British government on Thursday to pause the rollout of proposed NHS workplace rules that would ban political symbols and restrict pro-Palestine advocacy. The demand came in a formal letter submitted to the government alongside a public statement issued in response to a government-commissioned review into antisemitism in the National Health Service.
The review was authored by Lord John Mann, the UK government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, and endorsed last week by the Department of Health and Social Care. It recommends mandatory antisemitism training for all 1.5 million NHS staff members. It also proposes banning employees from displaying political symbols in the workplace and prohibiting them from attending protests while wearing NHS uniforms.
The coalition — which includes associations representing Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian healthcare professionals — argues the proposals were developed without adequate consultation with the communities most affected.
According to Middle East Eye, which received the coalition’s statement exclusively, several medical associations listed in the acknowledgements section of Mann’s review had no involvement in shaping its recommendations. Among them was the British Islamic Medical Association.
The coalition described Mann’s proposed restrictions on political symbols as “chilling” and said they constitute “an encroachment into matters of private conscience and lawful speech that fall outside properly defined professional conduct,” according to Middle East Eye.
A ‘Missed Opportunity,’ Researcher Says
Roger Kline, a research fellow at Middlesex University Business School whom the General Medical Council commissioned in 2018 to examine the disproportionate involvement of ethnic minority staff in fitness-to-practice proceedings, told Middle East Eye he considers the review a “missed opportunity” to address racism across the NHS.
“The review hardly mentions Islamophobia, which is at least as important as antisemitism in the health service — this could create a hierarchy of racism,” Kline said.
He also questioned Lord Mann’s suitability to lead the review. “Lord Mann has been too closely aligned with defending the interests of Israel rather than that of all Jewish people,” he said.
Kline added that he does not regard wearing badges expressing support for Palestine or attending demonstrations as antisemitic, and described the mandatory training proposal as “pointless and counterproductive.” He told Middle East Eye that senior NHS figures share his concerns but are afraid to say so publicly.
NHS data shows that minority ethnic staff consistently report higher rates of workplace racism than their white colleagues.
Doctors Under Investigation
Several doctors are currently being investigated by the General Medical Council over pro-Palestine advocacy, including posts on social media and remarks made at public demonstrations.
Dr. Ranjeet Brar, a vascular surgeon at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London, was suspended by the trust after delivering a speech at a demonstration earlier this year in which he criticised Israel. He was arrested in connection with the remarks but released without charge. The GMC has since opened an investigation into him.
“I’ve been subjected to a long and sustained period of harassment because of my political views,” Brar told Middle East Eye. “I’ve been labelled a racist and an antisemite for speaking out against genocide. I’ve exercised my right to free speech. I’ve been cleared of wrongdoing — why should my principles and beliefs be discarded for my ability to work.”
Mann’s review draws on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, a framework that has been widely debated because it links certain forms of criticism of Israel to antisemitism. Brar has filed a judicial review challenging the NHS’s application of that definition.
Dr. Tamara Ali, a general practitioner in Scotland, faced a formal complaint from a patient last year over a small Palestine flag displayed in her consulting room and a badge on her clothing. She was told by colleagues to remove both items.
“It was the most isolating and anxiety-provoking period of my career. I felt completely unseen,” she told Middle East Eye. “The complaint described the Palestine flag as a terrorist flag and compared it to Nazi symbols, yet none of my colleagues thought this was racist or Islamophobic.”
Ali has filed a legal case against her former GP practice and NHS Education for Scotland, alleging racial and religious discrimination and suppression of freedom of expression. “You can ban pins and political symbols,” she said, “but you can’t ban the moral clarity people have.”
Ali and Brar co-founded the campaign group Healthcare Workers Against Censorship, which is pursuing judicial reviews into the censorship of healthcare workers and into the GMC’s power to appeal decisions made by its own tribunal service.
The GMC’s Appeal Powers Draw Scrutiny
The question of GMC appellate powers sits at the centre of a separate and unresolved dispute involving Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sitta, a British-Palestinian surgeon. The GMC’s tribunal service cleared Abu-Sitta of accusations of antisemitism and glorifying terrorism. The GMC is now asking the High Court to review that decision — a move that healthcare workers’ groups say could allow the regulator to re-investigate and sanction doctors previously cleared of wrongdoing.
Jonathan Fluxman, a retired anti-Zionist Jewish doctor who attends pro-Palestine solidarity events, told Middle East Eye he believes Mann’s review overstates and exceptionalises antisemitism within the NHS.
“This is an example of the British government weaponising antisemitism to clamp down on the pro-Palestine movement, because their foreign policy is to support Israel and the genocide,” Fluxman said. “The hypocrisy and double standards are astonishing — a couple of weeks after 7th October 2023, the Department of Health flew the Israeli flag from its building and tweeted in solidarity with the people of Israel, and they also encouraged staff to show solidarity with Ukraine. They don’t want health workers to speak out about this because we are listened to and trusted by the public.”
Regional and Broader Impact
The dispute extends well beyond workplace dress codes. It touches on how the UK government defines the boundary between professional conduct and political speech for public sector employees, and on whether existing antisemitism frameworks can be applied to NHS disciplinary processes without infringing on protected rights under UK equality and human rights law.
The campaign group Health Workers 4 Palestine said Mann’s review risks suppressing what it described as the NHS’s long tradition of humanitarian advocacy and warned it would consider legal action if the recommendations move forward.
Background
Lord John Mann has served as the UK government’s independent adviser on antisemitism since 2019. The Department of Health and Social Care commissioned his NHS-specific review amid a period of heightened tension over how public institutions respond to staff activism related to the conflict in Gaza. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which Mann’s review applies, has been adopted by the UK government and numerous institutions but has been criticised by legal scholars, Jewish groups, and free-speech advocates who argue it conflates political criticism of the Israeli state with anti-Jewish prejudice. The GMC’s tribunal service operates independently of the regulator, though the GMC retains the ability to seek High Court review of tribunal decisions — a power now under legal scrutiny.
What Happens Next
The coalition’s formal letter has been submitted to the government and is awaiting a response. Dr. Brar’s judicial review challenging the use of the IHRA definition in NHS disciplinary proceedings is proceeding through the courts. Dr. Ali’s discrimination and free-speech case against her former practice and NHS Education for Scotland is also ongoing. The GMC’s application to the High Court to review the tribunal’s decision in Dr. Abu-Sitta’s case remains pending. Healthcare Workers Against Censorship has stated it will continue pursuing judicial reviews into both the censorship of healthcare workers and the GMC’s appellate powers.
