Pulse investigates the media coverage of an alleged antisemitism incident at last year’s BMA annual conference to see what actually happened behind the scenes
Last summer, there was a lot of coverage around antisemitism at the BMA’s annual representatives meeting (ARM). This culminated when a doctor was heckled by two other doctors with cries of ‘shame’ when she mentioned she was Jewish – an incident she took to disciplinary proceedings at the BMA. With the disciplinary process now completed, the case provides a useful lesson in sensitive reporting – which was severely lacking throughout.
Pre-conference: Motions submitted on Gaza
Around 10% of the motions submitted by delegates to the ARM in Belfast last June referred to Gaza, with the words ‘Israel’ or ‘Israeli’ appearing 75 times in the motions put forward. The night before the conference, the Jewish Medical Association (JMA) expressed concerns about a ‘hostile atmosphere’ due to the number of motions about Israel, and warned Jewish attendees they should ‘expect to encounter a mix of overt antisemitism, bullying, harassment and flag-waving activism’. It also added that the conference could become a ‘vehicle for Jew hatred’.
With the ARM, not all motions that are submitted are debated at conference. An ‘Agenda Committee’ decides what motions are debated, and these form ‘Part 1’ of the agenda. In this case, only one motion on Gaza was chosen – which did not mention Israel. Conference delegates can also see all the motions that the Agenda Committee rejected – on ‘Part 2’ of the agenda – and can vote to choose some of these to be debated at one of the final sessions of the conference.
Prefacing Part 2 of the agenda was a letter from the chair of the ARM, Dr Latifa Patel, which gave feedback about how motions had been selected and prioritised. She wrote that concerns had been raised by some Agenda Committee members regarding the ‘accuracy’ of a few motions – those on the conflict between Israel and Gaza. Dr Patel sought legal advice and was told that none of the motions that mentioned ‘Israel’ or ‘Israeli’ were individually discriminatory or defamatory. However, the number of them (75 mentions in 34 motions) could be perceived as antisemitic.
Dr Patel went on to say that she was then asked to remove the motions on Israel-Palestine by some members of the Agenda Committee – which was within her powers as chair. She decided against this, given that the motions were not individually discriminatory or defamatory.
This was explained in a letter to ARM representatives – including the fact some committee members wanted these motions removed from Part 2 as they could be perceived as being antisemitic. However, the detailing of the committee members’ opposition to these motions led to outrage from a number of delegates. As a result, an emergency motion was proposed, accusing the Agenda Committee of trying to ‘override the democratic processes of the BMA’ and calling for a declaration of ‘no confidence’.
At the conference: a doctor is heckled for saying she is Jewish
The ARM opened with this last-minute motion. An emergency doctor – who is Jewish herself – stood up as the proposer and gave a speech in favour of allowing the motions on Israel-Palestine to remain available for delegates to vote on for debating, and criticising the discussions to remove them. She referenced ‘Machloket l’Shem Shamayim’; a value of Judaism she defined as ‘valuing disagreements for the sake of a bigger cause’.
When she said she was a ‘practising Jew’, two doctors in the crowd yelled ‘shame’ at her. The emergency doctor was understandably startled and given an extra 15 seconds to finish her speech. At the end of the debate, the BMA deputy chair of council said: ‘I want to say that it is completely unacceptable to shout “shame” at somebody who has just said that they are a practising Jewish woman’. The emergency doctor spent time in a welfare room following the heckling.
Dr Patel asked that the two hecklers make themselves known to her, which they did. They were a GP and secondary care doctor – both Jewish themselves and self-declared supporters of Israel.
Post-conference press coverage
With such a sensitive subject, equally sensitive reporting would seem of paramount importance. Yet many publications fell short of this.
The Daily Mail, Telegraph, GB News, and the Jerusalem Post all reported on the emergency doctor being heckled at the time, with headlines leading on the Jewish Medical Association’s accusation that the BMA was becoming a ‘vehicle for Jew hatred’. These were two separate stories – with the JMA’s statement referencing pro-Palestinian demonstrators, but the heckling being done by self-declared pro-Israel delegates.
Regardless of your views of the conflict, on reading these headlines, a reader would be left with little doubt that the hecklers were pro-Palestine. At no point in any of these stories was it mentioned that the hecklers were Jewish or self-declared supporters of Israel.
The Daily Mail quoted a spokesperson from the Community Security Trust – a UK charity protecting Jewish people from antisemitism: ‘The rise of anti-Jewish hate incidents in the medical profession has been particularly disturbing, mirroring an overall increase of antisemitic incidents in the UK since 7 October… It’s especially alarming to see such incidents occur as this is one part of society where we would expect everyone to behave with utmost professionalism.’
The BMJ and the Jewish Chronicle also reported this incident contemporaneously as part of a story on the JMA letter but, unlike the other media, it said that they understood the hecklers to be Jewish.
The aftermath: Investigation and Resolution Panel
The emergency doctor was made aware of the hecklers’ identities and told they were willing to apologise. This was around the same time that the media coverage of the incident was doing the rounds – all of which named her but not the two hecklers.
She submitted a complaint to the BMA soon after, saying that the heckling had made her feel ‘afraid and distressed’. She was clear that she perceived the incident to be antisemitic, given the timing of their shouts – regardless of their faiths. The incident led to her resigning from her BMA position, stating she no longer felt safe in BMA spaces.
The doctors said they regretted their actions. However, they did not accept the accusations of antisemitism and found them ‘upsetting’. They said that by citing scripture and her Jewish faith, the emergency doctor was purporting to represent the whole Jewish community.
A BMA Resolution Panel found that their behaviour breached the Code of Conduct. However, coming to a conclusion on whether their actions were antisemitic was more difficult. Firstly, the GP and secondary care doctor found this accusation offensive. Secondly, ‘antisemitism’ is not a term defined in the Equality Act of 2010 (neither are Islamophobia, homophobia nor transphobia).
The Panel was advised that harassment, under the Equality Act, is defined as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, with the intention of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating and hostile atmosphere. Shouting ‘shame’ when someone described themselves as a practising Jew was considered by the Panel to be ‘unwanted conduct’ and related to a protected characteristic – being Jewish.
It then had to deliberate on whether the behaviour had the purpose or effect of violating the emergency doctor’s dignity or creating a hostile environment for her. It was evident that the effect was to create an intimidating environment – she had to spend several hours in a welfare room following the incident. The Panel did take into account that tensions were heightened at the ARM as there were pro-Palestinian protests outside the event.
However, it ultimately decided that the conduct of the respondents amounted to harassment related to the emergency doctor’s religion – but stopped short of calling it antisemitism, although it is unclear why.
It was decided by the panel that the GP and secondary care doctor: should provide a written apology addressed to the emergency doctor and the chair of the ARM; be suspended from any and all BMA offices they hold for 12 months; and be suspended from attending any national or regional BMA events or conferences for 12 months. An appeal is ongoing.
In the same way that we are highlighting insensitive reporting, it would be irresponsible to make a declaration around whether the heckles were antisemitic and the wider question of whether anyone can be racist or prejudiced against members of their own race or religion in the same way an outsider can.
But in the reporting of the heckling incident, especially when it was unequivocally framed as antisemitism, the fact the hecklers were themselves Jewish was an essential part of the story – but one missed out entirely by several publications. Such insensitive reporting at a time of such heightened tensions inevitably harms all the communities involved.
