Pharmacist Receives Formal Warning for Offensive Comments at Public Rally

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist following allegations that he made offensive and potentially anti-Semitic remarks during the Al Quds Day rally in London on 18 June 2017.

The comments made by the pharmacist, using a loudhailer to address the crowd, included:

• Claiming that Zionists have certain “genes” and a “genetic code.”
• Asserting that “Zionists are not Jews.”
• Stating that any “Zionist or Jew supporting Israel” is “not a real Rabbi but an imposter.”
• Blaming “Zionist supporters of the Tory Party” for the Grenfell Tower fire.

Although the pharmacist was not acting in a professional capacity at the time, his identity as a pharmacist was widely known due to social media exposure.

The GPhC’s case was that these comments:

1. Were offensive and inflammatory, bringing the pharmacy profession into disrepute.
2. Were potentially anti-Semitic, based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.
3. Risked undermining public confidence in the profession.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s comments were offensive, and he admitted as much during the hearing. However, he denied that they were anti-Semitic, arguing that:

• His words were aimed at Zionism, not Jewish people.
• His comments were made in the heat of the moment, responding to a counter-protest at the rally.
• He had no previous history of discrimination in his professional practice.
• He had apologized publicly and had not repeated such remarks since.

The committee did not find sufficient evidence to rule definitively that his comments were anti-Semitic, but they were deemed offensive and capable of bringing the profession into disrepute.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The committee found the pharmacist’s fitness to practise impaired, emphasizing:

• Pharmacists must uphold public trust, even outside of work.
• Offensive public remarks, even if made in a personal capacity, can damage the profession’s reputation.
• There was no evidence that he treated Jewish patients unfairly, but his comments risked undermining confidence in his ability to provide non-discriminatory care.

However, the committee also acknowledged mitigating factors:

• The pharmacist had no previous disciplinary history.
• He had expressed genuine remorse and provided testimonials from colleagues and patients.
• He had led subsequent Al Quds rallies without making similar remarks.

Given these considerations, the committee decided against suspension or removal but issued a formal warning.

Sanction:

The pharmacist received a formal warning, with the committee stating:

• The pharmacist must be mindful that public comments can impact professional reputation.
• Any future incidents of offensive or discriminatory remarks may result in more severe action.
• The warning will remain on his record and may be considered in future fitness to practise proceedings.

Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case serves as an important reminder for all pharmacy professionals about public conduct and professional responsibility.

1. Professional Standards Apply Outside of Work:
   • Even when not working, pharmacists must act with professionalism, as their public behavior can reflect on the profession.
2. Offensive Remarks Can Damage Public Confidence:
   • Making divisive statements in public—especially at political rallies—can lead to fitness to practise concerns.
   • The GPhC takes reputational harm to the profession very seriously.
3. Apologizing and Demonstrating Insight Can Mitigate Sanctions:
   • The pharmacist avoided suspension or removal partly because he apologized and showed remorse.
   • Professionals facing allegations should engage fully with the regulatory process and provide evidence of rehabilitation.
4. Warnings Are Serious and Have Long-Term Consequences:
   • While the pharmacist was not suspended, the warning remains on his record.
   • If he makes further offensive comments, the next disciplinary action could result in suspension or erasure.
5. Social Media and Public Statements Carry Professional Risk:
   • Pharmacists must be cautious when making public or social media statements that could be perceived as discriminatory or inflammatory.
   • Even personal opinions can lead to professional consequences.