Ali also said: “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 for the Board of Deputies, is not a Rabbi, he’s an imposter.”
His comments were reported to the Metropolitan Police who launched an investigation. The case was then passed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), but they declined to prosecute.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) then attempted to launch a private prosecution in the High Court. But the CPS intervened just a week before the case was due to go to trial, saying it did not believe a prosecution would succeed and shut it down.
Complaints were then made to regulator The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), whose Fitness to Practise Committee undertook a fitness to practise hearing.
The hearing ruled the comments were not antisemitic, but the High Court overruled the decision and directed the GPhC committee to consider the “cumulative impact” of Ali's words.
After a rehearing of the case, the GPhC committee gave Ali a warning but still ruled his comments were not antisemitic.
Grenfell Tower (Photo: Getty)
However, the High Court quashed the GPhC’s 2020 ruling after a referral by the Patient Standards Authority (PSA), who were approached by the CAA and several other organisations.
Ali subsequently sought leave to appeal the High Court’s ruling in the Court of the Appeal, but permission to appeal was refused.
This allowed the case to be reassessed by the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee to redetermine whether Ali’s comments had been antisemitic.
A hearing took place last Thursday, August 31.
On the Grenfell comment, the GPhC committee concluded a “reasonable person would consider the use of the term Zionist in this instance to be a synonym for ‘Jew’ because the events at Grenfell had no connection with Zionism, which is defined as, the development and protection of the State of Israel.
"Accordingly, it concluded the use of the word Zionism in this instance would be heard by the ‘reasonable person’ as an instance of the antisemitic trope of there being a world Jewish conspiracy and of the trope that Jews controlled the UK government or other societal institutions.
"It concluded also that the ‘reasonable person’ would consider this an instance of the antisemitic trope."
The committee also concluded the comment referencing the Board of Deputies was antisemitic.
Issuing Ali with a warning, the GPhC said: “The Registrant, for all the reasons set out in the committee’s decision, is hereby given a warning that his future behaviour and comments that he makes must at all times avoid undermining the reputation of the profession, or the reputation of the regulator and must uphold the required standards of the pharmacy profession.
“He is reminded in particular that behaving professionally is not limited to the working day, or face to face interactions.
“The privilege of being a pharmacist and the importance of maintaining confidence in the profession calls for appropriate behaviour at all times.”
The Board of Deputies described the decision as "totally irresponsible" and a "serious failure to protect the public against hate speech."
Amanda Bowman, vice president of the Board, added: “The Board of Deputies is steadfast in its work to combat hate speech and antisemitism in all parts of society including in the pharmaceutical profession.
“We believe that this case raises important questions about the standards and values upheld by the GPhC and its Fitness to Practise Committee.”
A spokesperson for the Campaign Against Antisemitism told the JC: "With this ruling and sanction, the GPhC is saying in effect that there is no substantive penalty for a proven antisemitic pharmacist, and that it is appropriate for such a person to serve the general public, including Jewish people.
"This is an absurd conclusion that makes a mockery of the regulatory system."
