Doctors, political speech and antisemitism

In the autumn of 2025 two interim orders tribunals reached different decisions about the same doctor's social media posts within nine weeks of each other. In October 2025 the then Health Secretary asked Lord Mann to review how the NHS and its regulators deal with antisemitism and other forms of racism, and the government is now consulting on new powers over interim decisions. For any doctor who posts about a contested political subject, the episode raises two questions. What does antisemitism mean when a regulator applies the word, and where does protected political expression end?

This guide reports what tribunals and courts have said. It takes no position on Israel, Palestine or the conflict. Nor does it express any view on whether the allegations against any doctor named here are true. Where criminal proceedings are active, it records the procedural history and nothing more. Our guide to social media and the GMC covers the rest of the GMC's guidance.

The Aladwan case in outline

Dr Rahmeh Aladwan is a trainee doctor whose posts on X the GMC is investigating. On 25 September 2025 an interim orders tribunal of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) decided that no order on her registration was necessary. The GMC referred her again in October 2025, and on 26 November 2025 a second tribunal suspended her registration for 15 months on an interim basis, with a review due within six months. An interim order makes no findings of fact. Her lawyers have described her posts as legitimate political speech, and she denies making racist or hate speech.

On 26 March 2026 police charged her with four offences under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which concerns inviting support for a proscribed organisation, and with two offences under the Public Order Act 1986. In August 2026 she pleaded not guilty to all six charges at the Central Criminal Court, and her trial is listed at Bristol Crown Court from 15 March 2027. Those proceedings are active, so this guide says nothing about the posts, the evidence or the merits. We have found no published report of a review of the interim order, and the GMC's online register shows her current status.

What an interim orders tribunal decides

Two different decisions nine weeks apart are easier to understand once you recall what an interim orders tribunal does. It does not decide whether allegations are true. Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983 lets it suspend a doctor or impose conditions for up to 18 months. It may do so where an order is necessary to protect members of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the doctor's own interests. It assesses risk on the information in front of it, and that information changes. Our guide to interim orders tribunals explains the test.

Speech cases carry one further rule. In White v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3286 (Admin), a tribunal had imposed conditions that stopped a GP from sharing his views on the Covid 19 pandemic on social media. The High Court revoked them. It held that section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 applied. Before it restrains expression ahead of a final hearing, a tribunal must be satisfied that the GMC is likely to establish at that hearing that publication should not be allowed, which normally means more likely than not. The MPTS circular on the case (A09/23) adds that any such condition must be proportionate and will usually need to name the views the doctor may not express.

The rules may change. The government consulted from 24 March to 21 July 2026 on a draft General Medical Council Order 2026. It would give the GMC and the Professional Standards Authority new powers to challenge interim decisions of the MPTS. The consultation acts on the first of Lord Mann's recommendations, and his full report of 4 June 2026 asks for a right of appeal to the High Court against interim decisions.

What antisemitism means in a tribunal

No statute defines antisemitism for professional regulation. Tribunals most often cite the working definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). It describes antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews". The UK government adopted it on 12 December 2016 as legally non binding. Eleven contemporary examples accompany it, and several concern speech about the State of Israel.

The fullest judicial guidance comes from Chamberlain J in Husain v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin). On 14 May 2025 he dismissed a solicitor's appeal against being struck off over tweets the tribunal had found antisemitic and offensive. He accepted the definition itself. At paragraph 102 he called most of the examples "both unobjectionable and useful", read as examples of speech that may be antisemitic depending on context. A match with an example does not of itself prove antisemitism.

The judge then set limits. Speech critical of the conduct of the State of Israel in principle attracts the highest protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Advocating a one state solution is not presumptively antisemitic (paragraph 104). The examples "were not intended to set the parameters of legitimate political debate for all time" (paragraph 107). His test at paragraph 114 asks how the statement would strike an observer with a reasonable understanding of the main historical and cultural manifestations of antisemitism. That observer recognises coded tropes an ordinary reader might miss.

The same judge decided an earlier pharmacist's case, Professional Standards Authority v General Pharmaceutical Council and Ali [2024] EWHC 577 (Admin). There he called conspiracy theories about Jewish power "expressions and instruments of racism" (paragraph 57). He also warned that accusations of antisemitism can be used to discredit legitimate criticism of Israel, and that regulatory frameworks, like criminal ones, must be applied so as to avoid chilling legitimate political speech (paragraph 62). Lord Mann's review calls the definition "not legally binding, but a point of reference". It adds that attacking the actions or policies of the Israeli government or state does not of itself constitute antisemitism, and that every statement must be read in its overall context.

Where the line falls for doctors

The GMC's guidance Using social media as a medical professional recognises your rights to freedom of belief, privacy and expression at paragraph 7. You must balance them against the possible impact on other people's rights and interests. Paragraph 14 sets the limit: you must not use social media to abuse, discriminate against, bully, harass or deliberately target any individual or group. Good medical practice forbids abuse, discrimination, bullying and harassment based on anyone's personal characteristics, race and religion among them, at paragraph 56. Paragraph 81 requires your conduct to justify the public's trust in the profession.

The courts protect contested opinion and act on conduct. In Adil v General Medical Council [2023] EWHC 797 (Admin) the High Court upheld the suspension of a surgeon who had called the virus behind Covid 19 a hoax on YouTube, and the Court of Appeal agreed in [2023] EWCA Civ 1261. Swift J still warned at paragraph 32 that holding or expressing an outlying opinion on a matter of professional practice should not lead to punishment without clear justification, such as evidence of harm to patients or public health. In R (Ngole) v University of Sheffield [2019] EWCA Civ 1127 the Court of Appeal considered a student's religious views posted on Facebook. It held that they did not of themselves show that he would discriminate, and that a blanket ban on expressing them was disproportionate.

Final hearings have gone both ways. In January 2026 a tribunal erased Dr Asif Munaf from the register. Press reports of its findings say that posts he had made or reposted on X over 21 months were antisemitic, racist or seriously offensive. He did not attend the hearing and was not represented, and we have found no report of an appeal. On 9 January 2026 another tribunal found no misconduct by Professor Ghassan Abu-Sittah. That complaint concerned an article and two reposts said to support violence, terrorism or antisemitism, and the tribunal found that none of them did. The GMC has appealed to the High Court, and we have found no report of a decision.

Nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other professionals

For nurses and midwives, the NMC's social media guidance lists inciting hatred or discrimination among conduct that puts registration at risk. The GDC's Standards for the Dental Team remain in force while the GDC considers the replacement framework it consulted on in 2026. Standard 9.1 requires your conduct in your personal life to justify the public's trust, and guidance 9.1.3 applies that to anything you publish in public media, social media included. The GPhC's guidance on professionalism online tells pharmacy professionals not to unlawfully discriminate. In Ali the High Court upheld the warning a GPhC committee gave a pharmacist over his speech at a rally. The HCPC's guidance applies standard 1.6 on discrimination to personal accounts and to historic posts. See our pages for nurses and midwives, dentists, pharmacists and HCPC registrants.

Practical advice for doctors of every view

These rules apply whichever side you take. Criticism of a government, its policies and its conduct sits within protected debate. Hostile generalisations about Jews, Muslims, Israelis or Palestinians as peoples do not. Nor do conspiracy tropes or praise for violence against civilians. Inviting support for a proscribed organisation is an offence under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and since 2019 so is expressing an opinion supportive of one while reckless as to whether it encourages others.

Treat a repost as your own words. The Munaf findings covered posts he had reposted as well as written.
Assume that a private group or an anonymous account will become public, as paragraph 9 of the GMC's guidance warns.
Never name, tag or target a colleague who has complained about you.
Remember that a tribunal weighs the risk of repetition, so anything you post after a complaint becomes evidence.
Tell the GMC if you are charged with an offence. Our guide to what you must tell the GMC explains when.

If the GMC writes to you about a post, keep a copy of it and the thread around it. Stop posting on the subject, and take advice before you reply. Evidence of reflection carries more weight than a defence repeated online.

Eloquia acts for doctors in GMC investigations and interim orders hearings on fixed fees by stage, each stated plus VAT. Each Eloquia fee includes a specialist barrister. Experts' fees are extra, and we quote them for your approval before anyone incurs them. Our page on GMC investigations explains each stage, and our fees and funding page sets out what each one costs.

Political speech, antisemitism and the GMC

The Aladwan case in outline

What an interim orders tribunal decides

What antisemitism means in a tribunal

Where the line falls for doctors

Nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other professionals

Practical advice for doctors of every view

Sources

Arrange a confidential conversation

The Aladwan case in outline

What an interim orders tribunal decides

What antisemitism means in a tribunal

Where the line falls for doctors

Nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other professionals

Practical advice for doctors of every view

Sources

Related articles

Social media and the GMC

Interim orders tribunals: what they decide, how often they suspend and how to prepare

Criminal convictions and cautions: what you must tell the GMC

Arrange a confidential conversation