Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 03072-21 Agbetu v thejc.com
Summary
of Complaint
1. Dr
Toyin Agbetu complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
thejc.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Sadiq Khan's statue diversity appointee resigns over
antisemitism claims”, published on 24 February 2021.
2. The
online article reported that the complainant had resigned from his position on
the Mayor of London’s Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm after being
accused of anti-Semitism. It went on to report that the Conservative Mayoral
candidate, Shaun Bailey, had called for his resignation in the light of social
posts made by the complainant which claimed “there was an ‘immoral hierarchy of
suffering’ which Jews benefit from and black people do not”. The article
included the comments made by Mr Bailey and a spokesperson for the London Mayor
Sadiq Khan, with the former saying that the complainant’s “record of
antisemitic comments and anti-vaccine lies put him beyond the pale”. The mayor
was quoted as confirming the resignation of the complainant and agreeing that
it was the right course of action. The article went on to report that the
complainant had previously signed a letter that described an inquiry into
anti-Semitism within the Labour Party as “unwittingly discriminatory” because
“racism against Jewish people is set apart from racism and prejudice against
other people” and had also praised an academic who had claimed that Jews played
“an integral role in the slave trade”.
3. The
complainant said that the article included a number of inaccuracies about him,
in breach of Clause 1. He denied that he had resigned from his position with
the Commission as a result of the allegations of anti-Semitism; he had, in
fact, resigned to preserve his health and family’s wellbeing, following a media
campaign against him. The complainant further denied that he had a “record of
anti-Semitic comments and anti-vaccine lies” and said that the article
misrepresented his comments regarding the “immoral hierarchy of suffering”. He
said that his statement, included within a blog post, had concerned access to
justice for the victims of the Maafa [the transatlantic slave trade] and been
taken out of context by the publication. This was compounded, he argued, by the
use of the term “benefit” and the omission of the following statement from the
original blog post: “Victims and survivor-descendants of the Shoah (Jewish
holocaust) have been served well by Nazi hunters, Holocaust remembrance days,
apologies, acts of atonement and wide ranging reparations from those
responsible for facilitating their unjust suffering.” He also expressed concern
that he had not been provided with an opportunity to reply to the article’s
serious claims.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that the
headline was supported by the text of the article, maintaining that the
complainant had resigned from his position after Mr Bailey had called for him
to “go” over his “history of anti-Semitism”, irrespective of the other
reasoning provided by the complainant. The publication noted the context of the
resignation: in the week leading up to his resignation, a number of separate
publications had reported that the complainant had been accused of racism and
the radical misuse of the word ‘Nazi’; another publication had shared the blog
posts which referred to the “hierarchy of suffering” with City Hall.
5. During
direct correspondence with the complainant, the newspaper had sought further
clarity as to how the article had misrepresented his previous comments in
relation to the “hierarchy of suffering” and offered him the opportunity to
respond. In response, the complainant said that the disputed statement had been
“pruned” from the following paragraph, with the article inappropriately
introducing the topic of the Holocaust and radically altering the context of
his comments:
“It
would seem that access to justice for African people continues to be decided
through an immoral hierarchy of suffering. Victims and survivor-descendants of
the Shoah (Jewish holocaust) have been served well by Nazi hunters, Holocaust
remembrance days, apologies, acts of atonement and wide ranging reparations from
those responsible for facilitating their unjust suffering. In contrast victims
and survivor-descendants of Maafa (African enslavement and its legacy) have
been denied moral, political, spiritual and economic justice at every turn.
Most Britons engage with Maafa denial unless they are connected to those
teaching about Pan-African freedom fighters and liberation movements based both
in the Diaspora and the Motherland”.
6. The
publication maintained that, in considering the full paragraph, it was unable
to see how “hierarchy of suffering” could mean anything other than a system
than benefits Jewish victims above black victims of racism and genocide.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
7. The
complainant was concerned that the article had reported that he had resigned
from the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm “over” claims of
anti-Semitism. The newspaper argued that the complainant had resigned after
Shaun Bailey had called for his resignation for his “record of anti-Semitic
comments”, which justified its use of the word “over”. Whilst the Committee
recognised that the complainant was best placed to comment on the exact reason
for his resignation, it was clear that the complainant’s position on the
Commission had come under considerable public criticism following revelation of
alleged “anti-Semitic comments” in the days leading up to his resignation. By
the complainant’s own account, coverage of this criticism, which he considered
to form part of a “media campaign” against him, had played a direct role in
prompting his decision to resign. Given that the complainant had cited his
desire to protect his family’s and his own wellbeing in the face of the
“campaign” as his reason for resigning, and that central to the coverage was
the allegation of anti-Semitism, the Committee did not consider that the
headline claim that the complainant had resigned “over antisemitism claims”
significantly misrepresented the situation. There was no breach of Clause 1.
8. The
complainant denied that it was reasonable to interpret his comments on the
“hierarchy of suffering” as the publication did, reporting that he had claimed
there was a hierarchy of suffering “which Jews benefit from and black people do
not”. Whilst the complainant clearly disagreed with this interpretation of his
comments, the newspaper was entitled to characterise them in this way and
provided a sufficient basis to do so with the reference to a “hierarchy of
suffering” immediately followed in his blog post by the juxtaposition of the
justice received by the victims of the Holocaust and the victims of the Maafa.
In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that there had been a
failure to take care over this characterisation, and it did not give rise to a
significantly misleading impression that required correction under Clause 1.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
9. There
is no standalone requirement to contact subjects of articles for comments prior
to publication, although not doing so may constitute a failure to take care
over the accuracy of the article if it gives rise to a significant inaccuracy.
In this case, the article had reported publicly available remarks made by the
complainant, and not contacting the complainant for comment did not give rise
to any significant inaccuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1 in not
contacting the complainant for comment prior to publication of the article.
Conclusions
10. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
11. N/A
Date
complaint received: 29/03/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/10/2021
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Back to ruling listing