Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01732-22 Rahman v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Mizanur
Rahman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 ( Privacy), Clause 3
(Harassment), and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Anti-racism trainer who ran 'inclusivity' workshop for
civil servants at Cabinet Office wished death on 'Zionists' in Twitter post and
compared Israel to 'white supremacy'”, published on 25th November 2021.
2. The
article reported that an anti-racism trainer – the complainant – had “compared
Israel to 'white supremacy' and has wished death on ‘Zionists’”. It quoted
statements and tweets that the complainant had made in relation to Israel,
including a tweet he had posted in 2014 in response to news that an Israeli
soldier had lost his hands in an attack by Hamas: “‘Hopefully he, and all IDF
soldiers and Zionists, will lose more than just their limbs … their
lives!!!!’”. The article went on to state that the complainant “oversaw a
training session for public servants in 2019 called ‘an inclusive Britain’
despite previously sharing anti-Semitic posts on social media”. The article
stated that the complainant had shared “anti-Semitic posts on social media
since 2014”.
3. The
article went on to state that the complainant had “attended a Quds Day march in
London at which flags were flown for the terrorist group Hezbollah. During the
rally, one speaker called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’”. It further
reported that when asked if he still believed all Zionists should die, the
complainant had tweeted: “The answer to that is no. I personally would like a
peaceful solution to the conflict where Palestinian rights would be upheld and
treated equally to their Israeli counterparts”. The article also reported that
the complainant had “lodged a complaint after Labour banned him from its list
of potential council candidates. He claimed the decision was based on
‘institutional islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism’”. The article
concluded by stating that a spokesperson for the Cabinet Office had told the
newspaper, “‘[t]he Cabinet Office has recently adopted an increased due
diligence process for guest speakers in line with cross-government best
practice”. At the bottom of the article, a suggestion to share or comment on
the article stated: “Share or comment on this article: Muslim ‘anti-racism’
trainer who ran Cabinet Office inclusivity workshop compared Israel to Nazis”.
The URL of the article contained the phrase:
“Muslim-anti-racism-trainer-ran-Cabinet-Office-inclusivity-workshop-compared-Israel-Nazis”
and the title of the webpage, which in practice appeared in the title bar of
the browser window, said “Muslim anti-racism’ trainer who ran Cabinet Office
inclusivity workshop compared Israel to Nazis”.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said
that it was inaccurate to state that he had shared anti-Semitic posts on social
media “since 2014” as the posts the article referred to were confined to 2014.
He said that using the word “since” suggested that he continued to share posts
of this nature beyond 2014, which was not the case. The complainant further
said that the 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. The complainant added that he had done
a lot of work on anti-racism and with the Jewish Community since 2014 and had
publicly acknowledged that the views he had held previously were problematic.
5. The
complainant said that the article was also 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 candidate for a councillor role, 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
“attended a Quds Day march in London at which flags were flown for the
terrorist group Hezbollah” and a 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 said that the article had breached Clause 1 by stating that “[t]he
Cabinet Office has recently adopted an increased due diligence process for
guest speakers in line with cross-government best practice” as this
inaccurately implied that his attendance at the event had been problematic and
that the Cabinet Office had changed its policies after he had been a guest
speaker.
8. The
complainant further said that the article was in breach of Clause 2 (Privacy)
and Clause 3 (Harassment). He said the publication had “trawled” through his
social media, and that this amounted to intrusion into his private life, as did
the publication’s approaches to individuals at the Labour Party and the Cabinet
Office.
9. In
addition, the complainant said that the article had breached Clause 12. He said
that when searching the internet for the article, the headline appeared to
contain the word “Muslim”. He said that this reference to his religion was
pejorative and was not relevant to the article.
10. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. In relation to the
complainant’s concerns regarding the phrase “since 2014”, the publication said
that this was a minor grammatical error, which it had amended to “in 2014”. It
said that while it had done so, it considered the original sentence accurate,
as the complainant had been sharing the posts since 2014, because he had not
removed them. The publication went on to say that it did not agree with the
complainant’s interpretation of the word “banned”; it said that this clearly
related to the list of potential Labour candidates “earlier this month” and
that it did not agree that this implied the complainant could never reapply for
such a position in the future. It said that the complainant was prohibited from
being on the list of candidates in 2021, that he appealed and that this was
rejected, and that the article characterised this as the complainant having
been “banned” from the list. In an effort to resolve the complaint, the
publication offered to change the word “banned” to “rejected”.
11. The
complainant did not accept this as a satisfactory resolution to his complaint.
12. In
regard to the complainant’s concerns about the article stating he had attended
a Quds Day march, the publication said that the article did not report or
suggest that the complainant attended it as a supporter. It said that the
article merely stated the complainant attended, which was accurate. It said
that the complainant did not dispute that he had attended the march and
provided a screenshot from the complainant’s social media account in which he
stated that he was attending the march. In addition, the publication said that
it was accurate for the article to state that the Cabinet Office had recently
adopted a due diligence process, and that the article did not report or imply
that the complainant’s attendance at the event at the Cabinet Office was
problematic.
13. In
relation to the complainant’s concerns about the accuracy of the article as a
whole, the publication said that the article had made clear at length what the
complainant considered his current views to be.
14.
Regarding the complainant’s concerns that the article had breached Clause 2 and
Clause 3, the publication did not agree that reporting on historic, open social
media posts was a breach of the complainant’s privacy, or constituted
harassment. It added that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy over a
publicly available social media post and that the press is entitled to seek
comments from third parties on matters relating to articles.
15. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 12; it said that the reference to
the complainant’s religion was neither prejudicial nor pejorative and that his
religion was a relevant biographical detail. It said that the complainant’s
faith was referenced in his claims of discrimination by the Labour Party, which
was included in the article: “Earlier this month, Mr Rahman lodged a complaint
after Labour banned him from its list of potential council candidates. He
claimed the decision was based on ‘institutional islamophobia and
anti-Palestinian racism’”. It went on to state that the reference to the
complainant’s religion made clear the context of his historic posts against the
Jewish community and his current campaigning against Islamophobia.
16.
After the complaint was first passed to the publication and within its direct
correspondence with the complainant, the publication said that the
complainant’s faith was a matter of public record, citing articles and webpages
which apparently referenced his religion in the context of convictions for
criminal offences. The publication subsequently accepted that this was a
different person of the same name, entirely unrelated to the complainant. It
withdrew this claim and apologised to the complainant for the error.
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.
Clause
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
17. The
complainant had said that it was inaccurate to state that he had shared
anti-Semitic posts on social media “since 2014” as the posts to which the
article referred were confined to 2014. He said that using the word “since”
suggested that he continued to share posts of this nature beyond 2014, which
was not the case. It was not in dispute that the complainant had shared posts
of this nature in 2014, and that they had remained on the social media account
in question. Where this was the case, the Committee was of the view that the
posts had been shared “since 2014”, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
18. 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 that this suggested that he could never reapply for such a
position. It was not in dispute that the complainant had been rejected as a
councillor and it was the Committee’s view that the whole sentence made clear
the nature of the “ban” – that this was in relation to the Labour 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
regarding this point.
19. The
Committee next turned to the complainant’s concerns that it was inaccurate and
misleading to claim that he had attended a Quds Day march in London at which a
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. It further noted that the complainant had posted on social
media that he was attending the march, without the caveat that this would be as
a legal observer. 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.
20. The
complainant also said that the article had breached Clause 1 by stating that
“[t]he Cabinet Office has recently adopted an increased due diligence process
for guest speakers in line with cross-government best practice” as he
considered that this inaccurately implied that his attendance at the event had
been problematic, and that the Cabinet Office had changed its policies after he
had been a guest speaker. The Committee noted that the article did not state
that the complainant’s position as a guest speaker had been problematic, it
merely stated that the Cabinet Office had recently adopted a new practice.
Where the complainant did not dispute that this was the case, there was no
breach of Clause 1.
21. 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 towards 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 this was a historic desire. The tweets referenced in the
article were clearly dated, and furthermore, included the complainant’s recent
comments on his current stance in relation to his previous views. As such, the
Committee was satisfied that the articles made clear when the statements had
been made and as such there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
22. 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
also complained that it was a breach of his privacy to speak to individuals at
the Labour party and the Cabinet Office. 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 or Clause 3.
23. The
complainant had also raised concerns under Clause 12 in relation to the text
“Muslim ‘anti-racism’ trainer who ran Cabinet Office inclusivity workshop
compared Israel to Nazis”, which appeared in the webpage title. This also
appeared in the ‘Share and comment’ section and in the case of the URL
contained a hyphenated version of that same sentence. The Committee first
considered whether those references to the complainant’s faith were prejudicial
or pejorative. It noted that, while the statements in question did refer to the
complainant’s faith, they then went on to accurately provide a summary of the
points made in the article, which had reported that the complainant – an
anti-racism trainer – had “compared Israel to 'white supremacy' and has wished
death on ‘Zionists’”. In that context, the reference to the complainant’s faith
was provided as a biographical detail about him, rather than part of a negative
description. Where the complainant’s religion had been identified by its
correct name, and no pejorative or prejudicial language was used, the reference
itself was neither prejudicial nor pejorative. The publication was not required
by the terms of Clause 12 to limit its reporting of things which the
complainant had said or done nor was it the case that any perceived criticism
of him included in the article constituted a pejorative reference to his
religious faith. There was no breach of Clause 12 (i).
24. The
Committee then considered whether the references to the complainant’s faith
were “genuinely relevant” to the story. The article reported that the
complainant had “lodged a complaint after Labour banned him from its list of
potential council candidates. He claimed the decision was based on
‘institutional islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism’”. While the complainant
considered that his religion was irrelevant to the article, it provided context
to his complaint that the Labour Party’s decision was based on “institutional
islamophobia”. In these circumstances, the peripheral references to the
complainant’s religion, which did not constitute a focus of the article, were
genuinely relevant to the story. It was the Committee’s view that the
peripheral references to the complainant’s religion were proportionate to the
relevance it had to one element of the article. There was no breach of Clause
12 (ii).
Conclusion(s)
25. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
26. N/A
Date
complaint received: 20/02/2022
Date complaint concluded: 02/09/2022
Back to ruling listing