Decision of the Complaints Committee – 04961-19 Cowan V
The Herald
Summary of complaint
1. Gordon Cowan complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Herald breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors' Code of Practice in an article headlined "Appeasement of
transphobes is putting our progress at risk" published on 24 June 2019.
2. The article, a comment piece, discussed "proposed
reforms to Scotland’s transgender laws" and whether the LGBT community was
accepted in Scotland. The columnist argued that the SNP's decision to put the
reforms "on hold" was appeasing transphobes for political gain. The
columnist was critical of the decision to put the matter “out to consultation”
in circumstances where a consultation had already been undertaken which showed
"overwhelming public support" for reform. The columnist went on to
claim that "the opponents of transgender reform do not have anywhere near
the numbers" which the group opposing the abolition of the Section 28
legislation that banned promotion of homosexuality had 20 years ago. The columnist
said that the opponents of transgender reform "represent a small minority
that has mastered the art of heckling over the heads of the majority".
3. The article also appeared in much the same format online
under the headline "Mark Smith: For pity's sake, stop it – the appeasement
of transphobes and conservative feminists is putting Scotland's progress at
risk."
4. The complainant said that the columnist's claim that the
opponents of transgender reform represent a small minority was inaccurate. The
complainant said that numerous opinion polls have been conducted on the
proposed changes to gender recognition laws, which aim to allow transgender
people to self-declare their gender without verification by medical
professionals. In each of the polls, public opinion opposed the change by
margins of between three to one and four to one. The complainant provided four
example opinion polls to demonstrate this.
5. The publication denied that the article was inaccurate.
It said that the claim that the opponents of reform represented a small
minority, was based the findings of the Scottish Government’s 2018 consultation
on the review of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. It said that the consultation
had attracted more than 15,500 individual responses, of which 60% (and 65% of
Scottish respondents) agreed with the proposal to introduce a self-declaratory
system for legal gender recognition. While the Scottish government did not
provide a breakdown of the remaining 40%, it was reasonable to infer that they
were against the proposal as it would be unlikely for someone to respond if
their position was effectively one of abstention. The publication said that the
poll was open to the public and attracted responses from both opponents and
advocates of the reforms. It emphasised that the function of a government
consultation is to gauge public opinion in order to inform future policy
decisions. When considering that the term "minority" is generally
defined as the smaller number or part, especially representing less than half
of the whole or bigger group, it was not misleading to report that opponents of
the reform represented a small minority. This, coupled with the high level of
responses, which contrasted with the comparatively low samples featured in the
opinion polls cited by the complainant, some of which were conducted by groups
opposing reforms, meant that it was not misleading for the columnist to rely on
the Scottish government’s consultation to support his claim, not least in the
context of a comment piece.
6. The complainant disputed that the consultation
represented an accurate source for the claim as it was self-selecting, and not
weighted to be demographically representative of the population as a whole; it
would inevitably attract responses from vested interest groups, who were likely
to respond in an organised and disproportionate manner. In contrast, the
opinion polls he provided were an accurate gauge of public opinion, as they
were demographically weighted to be representative. Regardless of the varying
positions of the commissioning bodies, the evidence of public opposition by a
majority was consistent.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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.
v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the
outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed
settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
Findings of the Committee
8. The article referenced the Scottish government’s
consultation which had sought the views of members of the public prior to
adopting reforms to Scotland’s transgender laws. The consultation was open to
the public and responses could be provided by both advocates and critics of the
proposed reforms. More than 15,500 submissions had been received and the
Committee noted that the findings of the consultation stated: "the
majority of respondents, 60% of those answering the question, agreed with the
proposal to introduce a self-declaratory system for legal gender
recognition". The Committee acknowledged the results of the opinion polls
which had been provided by the complainant, but in circumstances where the
article had referenced the government consultation, in which 60% of respondents
had supported the introduction of a self-declaratory system, the Committee did
not consider that it was significantly misleading for the article to claim that
opponents of reform to transgender laws represented a "small
minority". There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
9. The complaint was not upheld
Remedial action required
10. N/A
Date complaint received: 24/06/2019
Date complaint concluded: 25/10/2019