· Decision of the Complaints Committee 02741-15 Greer v The Sun
Summary of complaint
1. Jonathan Greer complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sun had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Rescue boats? I’d use
gunships to stop migrants”, published on 17 April 2015.
2. The article was a comment piece, in which the
columnist expressed her lack of sympathy for migrants using boats to cross the
Mediterranean. She said that “the migrants harassing Brit truckers at the port
[Calais] are the same as the vagrants making the perilous trip across the Med”,
and compared migrants to “cockroaches” and the “norovirus”. The columnist
argued that Britain’s approach to immigration should be similar to that of the
Australian government, which she characterised as “threaten[ing] them with
violence until they bugger off, throwing cans of Castlemaine in an Aussie
version of sharia stoning”. The columnist also said that some British towns
were like “festering sores”, “shelling out benefits [to asylum seekers] like
Monopoly money”.
3. The complainant said that the article gave an
inaccurate impression of the migratory patterns of North African refugees, of
Australian immigration policy and of British asylum support policy. He noted
that fewer than 20% of North African refugees go on to seek asylum in the UK,
with the majority claiming asylum in Germany. He denied that the Australian
state threatened migrants in the manner suggested in the article. Furthermore,
he noted that the standard rate of support for a single asylum seeker in the UK
was £36.95 per week, which was below the income support level of at least
£57.90 per week. It was therefore not accurate to suggest that benefits were
being distributed “like Monopoly money”.
4. While the complainant accepted that the Committee
would not be able to consider the complaint under the terms of Clause 12, he
expressed strong objections to the language used in the article. He said that
the piece included numerous prejudicial references to people of North African
origin, those who seek asylum in Europe and migrants in general. He considered
that it dehumanised such migrants, and advocated violence towards them.
5. The newspaper did not accept that the article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It noted that the article was an opinion
piece and that, under the terms of the Code, columnists were free to be
partisan and to use rhetorical devices, including exaggeration, to illustrate a
point.
6. The newspaper did not consider that the article had
stated that the majority of North African refugees who crossed the
Mediterranean by boat went on to seek asylum in the UK. It noted figures from
2014, which indicated that the UK was the final destination for around one in
five such migrants. It said that Australian immigration policy was known to be
very tough, and involved turning back boats forcefully, forcing asylum seekers
into detention centres and guaranteeing that refugees would not be resettled in
Australia. The columnist had used exaggeration to characterise the Australian
policy, and the newspaper maintained that she was entitled to interpret the
firmness of this policy as violence. The newspaper noted that the question of
whether £36.95 was a large sum of money was subjective. Regardless, when this
was added to the cost of other benefits such as accommodation, healthcare, and
food, as well as administrative costs, and multiplied by the number of asylum
seekers in the UK, it was a considerable sum of money.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
8. The article under complaint was a polemic, which
expressed strong and, to many people, abhorrent views of asylum seekers and
migrants generally. The complainant, and many others, had sought to complain to
IPSO that the manner in which the columnist had expressed herself breached
Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
9. The Committee acknowledged the strength of feeling the
column had aroused. It took this opportunity to note publicly that the terms of
Clause 12 specifically prohibit prejudicial or pejorative reference to
individuals; they do not restrict publications’ commentary on groups or
categories of people. In this instance, the references under complaint were not
to any identifiable individuals. As such, Clause 12 was not engaged. The
Committee made clear that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with potential
breaches of the law, but understood that the police were currently
investigating the matter. The complaint was therefore considered solely under
Clause 1 (Accuracy).
10. The article did not suggest that all North African
refugees who crossed the Mediterranean by boat went on to seek asylum in the
UK, but expressed the columnist’s objections to those that do. This reference
was not significantly misleading such that a correction was required.
11. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that
the Australian government did not respond violently to those seeking asylum.
However, the Committee was satisfied that the suggestion that Australian policy
entailed assaulting asylum seekers with containers of alcohol would clearly be
understood by readers as a satirical comment, rather than a genuine explanation
of the policy. This did not breach Clause 1.
12. The question of whether £36.95 per week constituted a
large sum of money was a matter of opinion. While the Committee noted the
complainant’s position that this amount was below the income support level of
at least £57.90 per week, the columnist was entitled to present her view that
the level of support paid to asylum seekers by the British government was too
high.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 18/04/2015
Date decision issued: 20/07/2015