Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01731-22 Rahman v thetimes.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Mizanur
Rahman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
thetimes.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Cabinet Office
anti-racism trainer Mizanur Rahman wished death on ‘Zionists’”, published on
26th November 2021.
2. The
article reported that a Labour Party member – the complainant – had been
“banned from [the] party’s list of potential council candidates”. It stated
that the complainant had “been accused of antisemitism after it emerged that he
compared Israel to ‘white supremacy’ during an anti-racism lesson for civil
servants and claimed the country was ‘perpetuating a holocaust’ against the
Palestinian people”. The article included a number of Tweets from the
complainant’s Twitter account, and said that another newspaper had uncovered
the posts on the account “including the tweet ‘Israel = white supremacy’”.
3. It
went on to state that “[a]ccording to the [other] newspaper, Rahman attended a
march in London in 2018 at which one speaker called for Israel to be ‘wiped off
the map’”. It also stated that “[i]n 2014 he replied to a message about a
soldier in the Israel Defence Force (IDF) who lost his hands in a Hamas attack.
He said: ‘Hopefully he, and all IDF soldiers and Zionists, will lose more than
just their limbs . . . their lives!!!!’” The article concluded by stating that
after being asked if he still believed all Zionists should die, Mr Rahman had
tweeted: “The answer to that is no. I personally would like a peaceful solution
to the conflict. With that said, the Palestinians are living under an
occupation and so therefore . . . Palestinians have a legal right to an armed
struggle.”
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1
(Accuracy) in its claim that “he compared Israel to ‘white supremacy’ during an
anti-racism lesson for civil servants”. He said this was the case as this
actually referred to a tweet that had been written in 2014, and that he had not
made such comments during the anti-racism lesson.
5. The
complainant went on to state that the article was inaccurate to claim that he
had been “banned” from the Labour party’s list of potential council candidates.
He said that, while he was rejected as a councillor, he had not been banned; he
considered this suggested that he could never reapply for such a position, when
no such prohibition existed.
6. In
addition, he said that it was inaccurate and misleading to claim that he had
“attended a march in London in 2018 at which one speaker called for Israel to
be ‘wiped off the map’” as he was at the march as a legal observer, rather than
in a personal capacity. He said that by reporting that he had attended,
alongside the views of other attendees, this affiliated him with their views
and politics and suggested that he held those views and supported them.
7. The
complainant further said that article as a whole, including the headline, was
inaccurate. He said that the headline and the article suggested that he still
held the views expressed in the headline and that it was only made clear at the
end of the article that this was not the case. He added that he did not think
many readers would get to this part of the article, or that they might miss it,
as it was only a small part of the whole article.
8. The
complainant further said that the article was in breach of Clause 2 (Privacy)
and Clause 3 (Harassment). He said that the publication had “trawled” through
his social media, working in collaboration with another newspaper, and that
this amounted to intrusion into his private life. In addition to this, the
complainant said that the newspaper had breached his privacy by speaking to
individuals at the Labour Party. The complainant said that – in addition to the
article under complaint – three other articles had been published about him
within the same month, and that this amounted to harassment in breach of Clause
3.
9. The
publication accepted that it had, due to an error introduced in editing,
incorrectly reported that the complainant had “compared Israel to ‘white
supremacy’ during an anti-racism lesson for civil servants”. On 8th March,
during direct correspondence with the complainant after IPSO had referred the
matter to the publication, it said that it would be happy to amend the article
and address the point in a published correction, setting out that the
complainant had expressed those views on Twitter and not in an anti-racism
lesson. During the early stages of IPSO’s investigation, the publication
offered to publish the following correction as a footnote to the online
article, in the online daily corrections and clarifications column, and in
print:
Because
of an editing error, we wrongly said that Mizanur Rahman had compared Israel to
“white supremacy” during an anti-racism lesson for civil servants in 2019
(Cabinet Office anti-racism trainer wished death on Zionists, News, Nov 26,
2021). In fact he drew the comparison on Twitter in 2014. Mr Rahman has asked
us to make clear that it no longer represents his view.
10. The
publication did not accept that the complainant’s other concerns had breached
the Code. In relation to the complainant’s concern that the word “banned” was
incorrect, it said that it was not in dispute that the Labour Party had
rejected the complainant’s application as a prospective Labour candidate and
that it had dismissed his appeal against this decision. The publication added
that the article had not said anything about the duration of such a ban, and
that the article did not suggest that he could never reapply for such a role.
11. The
publication said that it was accurate to state that the complainant had
attended the protest and to include the views expressed by one of the speakers.
In relation to the complainant’s concerns about the accuracy of the article as
a whole, the publication said that the article concerned the Labour Party’s
rejection of the complainant’s application to become a prospective councillor.
It said that the facts could not have been reported accurately without
reference to the historical facts that accounted for the rejection, and that
the complainant’s earlier tweets were essential to understand why the Labour
Party took the action it did. It noted that the complainant’s current views
were included in the article.
12. In
relation to Clause 2 and Clause 3, the publication said that there was also no
breach of these Clauses. It said that, while Clause 2 refers to correspondence,
including digital communications, this did not extend to the public social
media activity of a prolific Twitter user with nearly 3,000 followers. In
regard to Clause 3, it said that this related to the conduct of journalists in
the course of the newsgathering process, and that the Clause does not seek to
limit the number of articles that can be written about an individual.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2
(Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii) It
is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or
private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause 3
(Harassment)*
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
Findings
of the Committee
13. The
article had incorrectly reported that that the complainant had “compared Israel
to ‘white supremacy’ during an anti-racism lesson for civil servants”; there
was no dispute that this comparison had been made on Twitter in 2014, rather
than during an anti-racism lesson. Where the Committee noted that the publication
said that this error had been introduced in editing, it took the view that the
publication had failed to take sufficient care not to publish inaccurate
information and found that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (i). As the
inaccuracy implied that the complainant had made that comment while delivering
anti-racism training to public servants when, in fact, it had been made on
social media five years earlier, it was the Committee’s view that this was a
significant inaccuracy. Therefore, the newspaper was obliged, in accordance
with the terms of Clause 1(ii), to correct this promptly and with due
prominence.
14. The
Committee then turned to the question of whether the action proposed by the
publication was sufficient to avoid a further breach of Clause 1 (ii). The
newspaper had offered to amend the article during direct correspondence with
the complainant on the 8th of March and to address the point in a published
correction. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to publish a
footnote correction on the online article, in addition to publishing the
correction in its online daily corrections and clarifications column. The
correction offered identified the inaccuracy and put the correct position on
record. The Committee considered that the offer of the amendment and correction
were prompt given that the publication had offered this in its first substantial
response to the complainant after the complaint was passed to it by IPSO. As
the inaccuracy had appeared in the body of the article, the proposed position
of the correction as a footnote on the online article, in addition to
publishing it in its daily corrections and clarifications column, was of due
prominence. As such, the Committee considered that this was sufficient to meet
the terms of Clause 1 (ii), and there was no further breach of this sub-Clause.
15. The
complainant had also said that it was inaccurate to claim that he had been
“banned” from the Labour party’s list of potential council candidates, and that
– while he was rejected as a councillor – he had not been “banned”. He added
that he considered this suggested he could never reapply for such a position.
It was not in dispute that the complainant had been rejected as a councillor
and the Committee noted the publication’s point that the article made no
comment on the duration of this “ban”. It was the Committee’s view that the
whole sentence made clear the nature of the “ban” - that this was in relation
to the “party’s list of potential council candidates”. Where the complainant
had been rejected as a potential candidate and therefore would not appear on
this list, the Committee considered there was sufficient basis to describe this
as the complainant having been “banned” from such a list. There was no breach
of Clause 1 in regard to this.
16. The
Committee next turned to the complainant’s concerns that it was inaccurate and
misleading to claim that he had “attended a march in London in 2018 at which
one speaker called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’”, as he had attended
the march as a legal observer, rather than in a personal capacity. The
Committee noted that it was not in dispute that the complainant had attended
the march, and that therefore, it was not inaccurate for the article to have
included this information. The complainant had also expressed concerns that by
reporting his attendance alongside the views of other attendees, that this
affiliated him with their views and politics and suggested that he also held
those views. The Committee noted that the article made no comment on whether
the complainant held the same views as the speaker, it merely stated that “one
speaker called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’”, which the complainant did
not dispute. For these reasons, there was no breach of Clause 1.
17. The
complainant had also said that the article as a whole was inaccurate as he
considered it suggested that he still held the views expressed in the headline.
The complainant added that it was only made clear at the end of the article
that this was not the case. The Committee noted that the headline stated that
the complainant “wished death on ‘Zionists’”, with the past tense indicating
that ”wish” happened previously. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s
concerns but held the view that – where the article made clear that he no
longer believed all Zionists should die – there was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
18. The
complainant had also said that Clause 2 and Clause 3 had been breached. The
complainant’s social media account was public and had no privacy restrictions,
and therefore he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the information
included in it. In addition, the Tweets were about views that the complainant
had chosen to share with a public audience and reporting them did not represent
an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. The complainant had also said
that he considered it was a breach of his privacy to speak to individuals at
the Labour party. The Committee noted the Code does not prevent newspapers from
speaking to third parties in relation to stories or approaching people for
comment. There was no breach of Clause 2.
19. The
complainant considered there had been a breach of Clause 3 as he believed it
was harassing for four articles to have been published about him within the
same month. The Committee considered that four articles over a month period,
from a number of different publications did not represent a pattern of
behaviour which could be said to be harassing. It noted that only one article
had been published by thetimes.co.uk, which in and of itself, did not amount to
harassment. There was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusion(s)
20. The
complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1 (i).
Remedial
Action Required
Date
complaint received: 20/02/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/07/2022
Back to ruling listing