· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00572-15 Trans Media Watch v The Sun
Summary of
complaint
1. Trans Media Watch, acting with the consent of Emily
Brothers, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Sun had breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in columns published on 11 December 2014 and 15
January 2015.
2. Trans Media Watch complained as a representative group
affected by the alleged breach of the Code.
3. The 11 December column reported that Emily Brothers
was standing for election as an MP in the following terms:
Emily Brothers is hoping to become Labour’s first blind
transgendered MP. She’ll be standing at the next election in the constituency
of Sutton and Cheam. Thing is though: being blind, how did she know she was the
wrong sex?
4. The complainant said the comment suggested that there
were limitations to the understanding blind people could have of themselves and
called into question Ms Brothers’ gender identity; it was therefore a
pejorative and prejudicial reference to her disability and gender.
5. The newspaper accepted that the comment was tasteless,
but denied that it was prejudicial or pejorative. It did not accept that the
columnist had criticised Ms Brothers or suggested anything negative or
stereotypical about her blindness or gender identity; rather, it had been a
clumsy attempt to seek humour regarding the existence of those conditions.
6. Nonetheless, it said it regretted any distress the
article had caused her. Following publication of the article, it issued an
apology from the columnist. It also offered her a column – without restrictions
– in which to respond; this was published on 15 December 2014. The Editor also
asked Mr Liddle to apologise in print and the following apology was published
in his 15 January 2015 column and online:
I made a poor joke in bad taste in this column a few
weeks back. Well, ok, I suppose I do that every week. But this one was
particularly lame…a poor joke by any standards even, even if it wasn’t meant
maliciously. So I apologised to Ms Brothers and said that if I lived in Sutton,
where she’s standing, I’d vote for her. And I apologise to her again now, in
this column. I’d also like to add that having found out more about her I
wouldn’t vote for her even if she was standing against Nick Clegg, George
Galloway and [Firstname] Ole Ole Biscuit Barrell from the Silly Party.
7. The newspaper reviewed its editorial processes in
response to the complaint and instituted a new policy that all copy relating to
transgender matters would be approved by its managing editor before
publication. The issues raised by the columnist’s remark had been incorporated
into training sessions.
8. The newspaper argued that any breach of the Code had
been remedied by these measures, and that it would be disproportionate for IPSO
to uphold the complaint.
9. The complainant denied that the apology published was
adequate. It had been made on behalf of the columnist, not the newspaper, and
did not include acceptance that the Code had been breached.
10. The complainant also said that the wording of the
apology had deliberately included reference to Ms Brothers’ former name, by
incorrectly reproducing the name of a candidate from a Monty Python sketch;
instead of “Tarquin” Ole Ole Biscuit Barrell from the Silly Party, Ms Brothers’
former name had been used. The complainant said that it was vanishingly
unlikely that this was a genuine coincidence and as such argued it was a
deliberate attempt to humiliate Ms Brothers. It represented a further breach of
Clause 12 (Discrimination) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code.
11. The newspaper denied that the reference had been
deliberate. It said that it had received an adamant assurance from the
columnist that he had not known Ms Brothers’ former name prior to the complaint
being made; neither had anybody else at the newspaper. The newspaper said it
was unable to find any reference to Ms Brothers’ name online, and the columnist
had referenced the sketch – originally aired in 1970 – without checking it,
because he did not believe it was necessary to do so. It was a silly name, plucked
from a faulty memory. Having become aware of the concern, the newspaper amended
the reference to read “Tarquin Ole Ole Biscuit Barrell of the Silly Party”
online.
Relevant Code Provisions
12. Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative
reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation
or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
Clause 3 (Privacy)
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
Findings of the Committee
13. The first column’s crude suggestion that Ms Brothers
could only have become aware of her gender by seeing its physical
manifestations was plainly wrong. It belittled Ms Brothers, her gender identity
and her disability, mocking her for no reason other than these perceived
“differences” The comment did not contain any specific pejorative term, but its
meaning was pejorative in relation to characteristics specifically protected by
Clause 12.
14. Regardless of the columnist’s intentions, this was
not a matter of taste; it was discriminatory and therefore unacceptable under
the terms of the Code.
15. The Committee welcomed steps the newspaper had
previously taken to engage with members of the transgender community in an
effort to improve editorial standards and the steps it had taken in response to
the complaint, particularly the change in policy it had introduced to ensure
more effective oversight of material relating to transgender issues.
Nonetheless, the complainant was clearly entitled – particularly where the
newspaper had denied any breach of the Editors’ Code – to ask the Committee to
adjudicate on the matter and record its finding that the publication failed to
comply with its obligations under the Code.
16. The Committee did not accept that the apology
published was a genuine attempt to remedy the breach or a sincere expression of
regret; the columnist had used it as an opportunity for a further attempt at
humour at Ms Brothers’ expense. However, the Committee was not satisfied that
it had sufficient evidence to conclude that the inclusion of Ms Brothers’
former first name, which was not uncommon, in the apology, was deliberate. The
further complaints under Clause 12 and Clause 3 on this point were not upheld.
Conclusions
17. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
18. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required. The Committee has the power to require
the publication of a correction and/or adjudication, the nature, extent and
placement of which is to be determined by IPSO. It may also inform the
publication that further remedial action is required to ensure that the
requirements of the Code are met.
19. The Committee required the newspaper to publish the
Committee’s ruling upholding the complaint. The adjudication should be
published in full on the same page as the column in a forthcoming edition, and
on the newspaper’s website, with a link to the adjudication published on its
homepage for a period of no less than 48 hours. The headline should make clear
that IPSO has upheld the complaint, and refer to its subject matter; it must be
agreed in advance.
20. The terms of the adjudication to be published are as
follows:
Following a column published in The Sun on 11 December
2014, Trans Media Watch, acting with the consent of Emily Brothers, complained
to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun had discriminated
against Ms Brothers and breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’
Code of Practice by publishing a prejudicial and pejorative reference to her
disability and gender.
IPSO established a breach of the Code and required The
Sun to publish this decision as a remedy.
Noting that Emily Brothers, who is blind and transgender,
was standing for election as an MP, the columnist asked “being blind, how did
she know she was the wrong sex”.
The complainant said the comment made the discriminatory
suggestion that there were limitations to the understanding blind people could
have of themselves and called into question Ms Brothers’ gender identity.
The newspaper accepted that the comment was tasteless,
but denied that it was prejudicial or pejorative. It did not accept that the columnist
had criticised Ms Brothers or suggested anything negative or stereotypical
about her blindness or gender identity; rather, it had been a clumsy attempt at
humour.
Nonetheless, it regretted any distress the article had
caused Ms Brothers, and published an apology by the columnist. It outlined
changes it had made to its editorial processes in response to the complaint.
IPSO’s Complaints Committee ruled that the column
belittled Ms Brothers, her gender identity and her disability, mocking her for
no other reason than these perceived “differences”. Regardless of the
columnist’s intentions, this was not a matter of taste; it was discriminatory
and unacceptable under the Code.
The apology published by the newspaper did not remedy
this breach of the Code, and IPSO therefore upheld the complaint.
Date complaint received: 05/02/2015
Date decision issued: 05/05/2015