June 1st 2026 was a momentous day in my professional career. That was the day it ended. I was not sacked from any job: I am retired from UK university work and provided I am not openly critical of China, the Hong Kong University where I work cares not a jot what views I hold or express.

I have voluntarily given up my nursing registration. To mark the day, I received an email from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) which contained the following:

Thank you for letting us know you’re retiring and leaving our register. On behalf of the NMC, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you wholeheartedly for your service to your profession. Your career as a registered professional has made a big difference to the lives of others and we hope you feel proud of the important contribution you’ve made.

I am assuming that they are not thanking me “wholeheartedly” for the time I was reported to them and subject to an investigation for my Covid-sceptical activities and writing. Likewise, while I would like to think I was making a contribution by pointing out to anyone who would listen that COVID-19 was not as fatal as we were being told, that PCR tests were nigh-on useless, that the lockdowns were doing more damage than good, that face masks were completely useless and that the vaccines did not work (and were potentially dangerous), I don’t think they are thanking me for that “important contribution”.

Therefore, it is with both sadness and gladness that I can no longer legally refer to myself as a Registered Nurse. Sadness because – except until the Covid years – I had no regrets about choosing nursing as a career. I have never been unemployed, I have supported eight children, travelled the world and been recognised in several ways for my contribution to nursing across the globe. The gladness comes because – while they never stopped me – I can now say what I want without wondering if I will be investigated again by the NMC.

Moreover, with recent developments under the scope of misconduct, I believe that the NMC – long on a woke, intersectional downward spiral – has finally lost its way. Once concerned with how well nurses could care for their patients, it has become concerned about nurses’ behaviour or communication unrelated to their ability to do their job. Thus, it became concerned about what nurses say on social media and, only last month, what views they hold or express about Islam.

On May 20th this year, the guidance on misconduct was updated to include sections on anti-Jewish hate and anti-Muslim hate. It prefaces these sections, as if to reassure nurses, that it will “always consider our freedom of expression guidance and ensure that our decisions to do not unduly [sic] restrict legitimate freedom of expression”.

The guidance says that:

Everyone enjoys the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression.

This includes:

• the freedom to share and receive information and ideas
• the freedom to express religious, political and philosophical beliefs.

But it then says:

It’s unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their religion or belief or because they do not hold a belief. These are called ‘protected beliefs’.

It is interesting how quickly the NMC statement on misconduct moves from freedom of speech to discrimination, as if they were necessarily causally linked. Surely expressing a view about what someone else believes is not discrimination or, if it is, it is not clear what influence that would have on someone’s ability to practise as a nurse. Unless, of course, he or she did act discriminately by refusing to care for someone or doing someone in their care deliberate harm because they disagreed with their religious or political views. But that would be illegal and we already have laws to deal with that.

Turning to the paragraphs on anti-Jewish hate and anti-Muslim hate, it is interesting to note their length. The former is 356 words and the latter is 674 words, suggesting that the NMC has more to say about Islamophobia than antisemitism; and it does. It is interesting also to consider the sources it refers to for its definitions. The section on anti-Jewish hate refers to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance [IHRA]’s working definition of antisemitism. The section on anti-Muslim hate refers to, the NMC having adopted the UK Government’s definition of anti-Muslim hostility.

I don’t particularly like or agree with either of these statements and, in fact, find the IHRA statement rather more restrictive than the definition of anti-Muslim hate. But they differ in one important respect and that is in their reference to religion. Whereas the IHRA statement does not refer at all to Judaism, the religion of the Jewish people, the UK Government statement refers repeatedly to Islam.

The IHRA is not trying to protect a religion from criticism but a people from the kind of criticism that has, demonstrably, led to their wholesale slaughter in the past. The UK Government definition – created by a group “made up of representatives from Muslim communities” – sets out to protect a religion and its precepts from criticism. In other words, it seeks to outlaw blasphemy against Islam.

These differences are not trivial. Moreover, the UK Government’s definition of anti-Muslim hostility also seeks to protect people who are perceived to be Muslim from criticism. This means that you can be criticised (or worse) for insulting someone who is not Muslim, if you thought he was and insulted him on that basis. I must say that I would be extremely offended if anyone thought I was a Muslim; he or she would already have offended me without saying a word.

The paragraphs on the respective forms of hate are accompanied by two examples each. Interestingly, both examples on anti-Jewish hate are declared not to demonstrate hatred towards Jews, and I agree. But one of the examples under the anti-Muslim hate paragraphs says: “A nurse posts on social media calling for the deportation of ‘anyone who undermines British values and the British way of life’. The post includes an image depicting women with headscarves, men with long beards and a mosque in the background.”

The NMC say it “would be likely to regard this as an example of anti-Muslim hate that would impair fitness to practise”. Just as well I allowed my registration to expire then! The second example, declared not to be an example of anti-Muslim hate is a nurse complaining about finding a parking space somewhere on a Friday because of Friday prayers at a nearby mosque. This example is trite, even in our present woke times, and is clearly not an expression of anti-Muslim hate.

It is not clear what action the NMC would take if anyone expressed anti-Christian hate, but I guess not much. After all, if Jews are protected from accusations that Jewish people killed Jesus – clearly stated in the New Testament – then why are Christians not protected from statements about the Inquisition? If Muslims are protected against accusations about being followers of a religion of the sword – a matter of historical record – then why are Christians not protected against accusations related to the Crusades? I don’t believe that Jews, Muslims or Christians should be protected from being offended by any of these accusations.

As I leave the register, I cannot help feeling that I have escaped just in time. Nursing regulators should concern themselves with nurses who neglect patients, steal drugs, falsify records or practise incompetently. Instead, the NMC appears increasingly interested in monitoring opinions, policing language and deciding which forms of offence are permissible and which are not. That is not professional regulation; it is ideological regulation. The sooner the NMC remembers the difference, the better it will be for nurses, patients and freedom alike.

Professor Roger Watson is Professor of Nursing at Saint Francis University, Hong Kong. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He writes in a personal capacity.