British surgeon launches legal challenge over NHS use of IHRA definition

A British surgeon is taking the National Health Service (NHS) and the UK government to court, arguing that the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism has been used to restrict political speech and silence pro-Palestine expression.

Ranjeet Brar was suspended from his role at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust following a speech he gave on 6 April 2026 outside the US embassy in London commemorating the victims of a reported US-Israeli attack on a school in the Iranian city of Minab.

In his speech, Brar said that Israel, which he described as a “genocidal settler colonial entity”, “has no right to existence” and “needs to be wiped off the map and replaced with the word ‘Palestine’”.

Footage of the speech was later circulated online by right-wing and pro-Israel social media accounts, including GB News and Julie Hartley-Brewer.

Brar said the Trust sent him a letter on 8 April informing him of his immediate suspension pending investigation, citing complainants’ concerns that his speech could be interpreted as antisemitic.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

On 9 April, Brar was arrested in relation to the comments but released without charge.

According to Brar, the letter stated that his exclusion was not a disciplinary measure but a “neutral act”.

He said the Trust also referenced a letter sent by UK Lawyers for Israel and an anonymised complaint from a patient dated 8 April.

“The hospital has a legal duty to oppose genocide,” Brar told Middle East Eye.

“All the pressure on me is illegal, and by imposing that pressure, the hospital is aligning itself with genocide and imposing anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism and political censorship.”

The hospital did not initiate formal disciplinary proceedings against Brar but warned that it may do so if further complaints arise.

Lawyers representing Brar have since launched a judicial review claim at the High Court against the Trust and the Secretary of State, arguing that the use of the IHRA definition in his suspension amounts to a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

MEE approached King’s College Hospital for comment, but the Trust said it does not comment on matters relating to individual members of staff.

Limiting free speech

The legal challenge also argues that the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is discriminatory in its application, particularly when compared with other hate speech frameworks such as guidance on anti-Muslim hatred, which involved extended consultation and includes explicit free expression safeguards.

Brar’s case argues that the IHRA framework does not contain comparable protections for criticism of Israel, and that this disparity amounts to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Amer Rahman, the lawyer representing Brar, said the case “raises issues of constitutional importance".

“Public authorities must act consistently, proportionately, and with proper regard to fundamental rights. This case seeks to ensure that freedom of expression is not only protected in principle, but applied equally in practice,” he said.

Rahman added: “There are many doctors who are pro-Palestine, many nurses who are pro-Palestine, and the use of the IHRA definition risks creating a framework in which support for Palestinian rights is mischaracterised as racism, potentially chilling legitimate speech and participation in public debate.”

Brar's case was followed by another judicial review claim against the constested definition filed in June by Bea Foster, a Methodist preacher. Foster was removed from her role as a trustee for 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 formulated in 2004 as a non-legally binding tool to assist in monitoring antisemitism. Examples appended to it include “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” which critics say can blur the line between antisemitism and political criticism of Israel.

Its author, Kenneth Stern, has warned against its use as a disciplinary or legal instrument, arguing that such use may risk restricting legitimate political expression.

While not legally binding, critics say the definition has increasingly been applied in institutional settings as if it carries legal force.

In 2018, rights expert Geoffrey Robertson QC issued a legal opinion stating that the definition is “likely in practice to chill free speech” by encouraging complaints against legitimate criticism of Israel.

He recommended that institutions applying the definition clarify that criticism of the Israeli government, absent antisemitic intent, is not in itself antisemitic.

A 2023 report by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) found that the definition has had a disproportionate impact on some workers and activists, including people of colour and Jewish supporters of Palestine, and has been associated in some cases with disciplinary action and job losses.

NHS England adopted the IHRA definition in October 2025 following a request from then-health secretary Wes Streeting.

Professional fallout

Brar is among a growing number of British doctors who have faced investigation or suspension by hospital trusts over public criticism of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Social Care endorsed 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 relies on the IHRA definition and recommends mandatory antisemitism training for NHS staff, alongside restrictions on political expression in clinical settings, including limits on the display of political symbols and participation in protests in uniform.

Shortly afterwards, the British Medical Association voted to reject the IHRA definition, citing concerns that it may have a chilling effect on free speech in the workplace and could restrict lawful political expression.

The motion also called for an assessment of the definition’s impact on professional speech, particularly in relation to Israel and Palestine, and affirmed the right of healthcare workers to engage in policy debate on human rights issues.

Its adoption allows BMA members to lobby government and NHS bodies for changes to how the definition is used in workplace policy.

middleeasteye.net