Utolsó frissítés: 2026.07.14. — Szerző: Anti-Propaganda News Blog
A doctor suspended for a pro-Palestinian speech argues that the NHS's application of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism led to an unlawful restriction on political expression.
Written by: Katherine Hearst
A British surgeon is suing the National Health Service (NHS) and the UK government, arguing that the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism is being used to restrict political speech and silence pro-Palestinian voices.
Ranjeet Brar was suspended from his position at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust following a speech he gave outside the US Embassy in London on 6 April 2026, commemorating the victims of the alleged US-Israeli attack on a school in the Iranian city of Minab.
In his speech, Brar said that Israel, which he called a „genocidal settler colonial entity,” „has no right to exist” and „should be erased from the map and replaced with the word ‘Palestine.’”.
A recording of the speech was later distributed by right-wing and pro-Israel social media accounts, including GB News and Julie Hartley-Brewer.
Brar said the hospital foundation informed him of his immediate suspension pending an investigation in a letter dated April 8, citing the complainants' concerns that his speech could be interpreted in an anti-Semitic manner.
On April 9, Brar was arrested in connection with his comments, but released without charge.
Brar said the letter stated that his suspension was not a disciplinary measure but a "neutral action.".
He said the hospital foundation referred to a letter sent by UK Lawyers for Israel, as well as an anonymous patient complaint dated April 8.
„The hospital has a legal obligation to act against genocide,” Brar told Middle East Eye.
„All the pressure being placed on me is illegal, and by putting this pressure on me, the hospital is aligning itself with genocide, as well as practicing anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism and political censorship.”
The hospital has not initiated formal disciplinary proceedings against Brar, but has warned that it may do so if further complaints arise.
Lawyers representing Brar have since filed a judicial review application in the High Court against the foundation and the Secretary of State for Health, arguing that the use of the IHRA definition in his suspension constitutes a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
MEE has contacted King's College Hospital for comment, but the foundation said it does not comment on matters relating to individual employees.
Restriction on expression of opinion
The legal challenge also claims that the application of the IHRA definition is discriminatory, particularly compared to other hate speech frameworks, such as the guidance on anti-Muslim hatred, which required extensive consultation and contains express protections for freedom of expression.
Brar's case argues that the IHRA framework does not contain comparable protections against criticism of Israel, and that this deviation constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Amer Rahman, Brar's legal representative, said the case "raises issues of constitutional significance.".
„Public authorities must act consistently, proportionately and with due regard for fundamental rights. This case seeks to ensure that freedom of expression is not only protected in principle, but also equally enforced in practice,” he said.
Rahman added: „Many doctors and nurses are pro-Palestinian, and using the IHRA definition risks creating a framework in which support for Palestinian rights is framed as racism, which could stifle legitimate expression and participation in public debate.”
Brar's case was followed by another judicial review application against the controversial definition, filed in June by Methodist preacher Bea Foster, who was removed from a trusteeship of a charity over a Facebook post in which she described Israel as an apartheid state.
What is the IHRA definition?
The IHRA definition was originally drafted in 2004 as a non-legally binding tool to help monitor anti-Semitism. Among the examples included is „the statement that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” which critics say could blur the line between anti-Semitism and political criticism of Israel.
Its author, Kenneth Stern, warned against its use as a disciplinary or legal tool, arguing that such use could jeopardize legitimate political expression.
Although not legally binding, critics say the definition is increasingly being used in institutional settings as if it had legal force.
In 2018, legal expert Geoffrey Robertson QC issued a legal opinion stating that the definition was „likely in practice to stifle freedom of expression” by encouraging complaints against legitimate criticism of Israel.
He recommended that institutions applying the definition clarify that criticism of the Israeli government – as long as it is not motivated by anti-Semitic intent – is not anti-Semitic in itself.
According to a 2023 report by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), the definition had a disproportionate impact on some workers and activists – including people of colour and Jewish supporters of the Palestinians – and in some cases was linked to disciplinary action and job loss.
NHS England adopted the IHRA definition in October 2025, at the request of the then Health Secretary, Wes Streeting.
Professional consequences
Brar is one of a growing number of British doctors who have faced investigation or suspension from hospital trusts for publicly criticizing Israel's military campaign in Gaza.
Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Social Care supported a review into antisemitism and other forms of racism in the NHS, led by the UK government's independent adviser on antisemitism, Lord John Mann.
The review draws on the IHRA definition and recommends mandatory anti-Semitism training for NHS staff, alongside restrictions on political expression in clinical settings, including restrictions on the display of political symbols and participation in demonstrations in uniform.
Shortly afterwards, the British Medical Association (BMA) voted to reject the IHRA definition, expressing concerns that it could have a stifling impact on freedom of expression in the workplace and restrict legitimate political expression.
The proposal also called for an assessment of the impact of the definition on professional discourse, particularly in relation to Israel and Palestine, and affirmed the right of health workers to participate in political debates on human rights issues.
The adoption of the resolution will allow BMA members to lobby the government and NHS bodies to change the way the definition is used in workplace policy.
