Decision of the Complaints Committee 05311-19 Gregson v
Sunday Herald
Summary of Complaint
1. Pete Gregson complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Sunday Herald breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in two articles headlined “Scots Labour ‘branch
office’ powerless to fight anti-Semitism” and “Scottish Labour's lack of power
to fight antisemitism ‘beggars belief’” published on 14 July 2019.
2. The first article reported that senior Labour figures and
Jewish leaders had said that Scottish Labour must be more of a branch office if
it is to tackle antisemitism. It reported on the complainant’s expulsion from
his trade union and his subsequent suspension by the Labour Party. It explained
that he had been expelled from his trade union “for anti-Semitic remarks and
abuse of one Jewish employee”. The article also reported that he had said that
the “Holocaust was exaggerated for political gain” The article stated that he
had since set up LAZIR (Labour Against Zionist Islamophobic Racism) “at Labour
Party HQ” and contained criticism from a number of sources in Scotland with
regards to the way in which the Labour Party was dealing with the situation
involving the complainant.
3. The second article repeated these claims, however it also
included comments from members of the trade union, including a chief who
expressed the view that the complainant should also have been expelled from the
Labour Party. The statement attributed to the complainant within this article
was that the “Holocaust was exaggerated”. The article also stated that the
complainant had started a petition calling Israel a “racist endeavour”, which
the article explained is a term which, under the IHRA definition, is
anti-Semitic. The article also made reference to an interview in which the
complainant had called the Jewish trade union employee a “Crazy Zionist”.
4. The articles appeared in substantially the same format
online with the headlines: “Row over Scottish Labour ‘branch office’ which is
‘powerless’ against anti-Semitism” and “Labour anti-Semitism row: Scots
activist who claims 'Holocaust was exaggerated' formed anti-Zionist group while
suspended”
5. The complainant said that the articles were inaccurate as
they “promoted the idea” that he was anti-Semitic, which he said was untrue. He
said that the statement regarding the exaggeration of the Holocaust was inaccurately
quoted in the articles; as he had actually said that he believed “Israel
exaggerated the Holocaust for political ends.” He also said that reference to
LAZIR being set up at the Labour Party HQ was incorrect as it had been set up
outside of the HQ and outside of working hours. Further, LAZIR operated
independently and not under the Labour Party banner. However, he acknowledged
that in order to receive full membership within the organisation, a member also
needed to be a member of the Labour Party. Whilst he accepted that he had
called the trade union employee a “Crazy Zionist”, he denied that it was a
“targeted attack” and abusive as reported by the publication.
6. The complainant also raised concerns that the articles were unbalanced as they had only presented the side of the union and the Labour Party. He said that he only accepted the Oxford English Dictionary definition of anti-Semitism, and when his comments are viewed in light of this definition, he did not believe his remarks constituted anti-Semitism. The complainant provided correspondence from the trade union to support his claim that he did not agree with the IHRA definition. He also raised concerns that the publication had used unnamed sources and requested that their identity be revealed.
7. The publication did not accept that it had breached Clause
1. It stated that the articles accurately reported that he had been expelled
from the trade union for anti-Semitic remarks and the abuse of a Jewish female
employee of the union. It relied upon the SACC’s coverage of the matter which
confirmed that the Scotland Secretary for the trade union had alleged that
comments the complainant had made amounted to anti-Semitism. It also relied
upon comments made by a trade union member referencing targeted attacks which
he said the complainant had made on the Jewish employee. Furthermore, they
pointed to a video on YouTube in which the complainant stated Israel was a
“racist country”. The publication also did not accept that it inaccurately
reported the formation of the LAZIR movement; neither of the articles had
stated that it was set up inside Labour
HQ- stating it was formed at the HQ would include outside of the building. It
also pointed to the fact that it had quoted a Labour source who stated that it
was not affiliated to the Labour Party despite the complainant not referencing
this when given the right to reply before the article was published.
8. The newspaper accepted that it could have provided greater
clarity when stating that the complainant stated the “Holocaust was
exaggerated”. However, it did not accept that this represented a significant
inaccuracy, as it did not believe omitting who the complainant believed
exaggerated the Holocaust, and for what purpose, changed the main thrust of the
complainant’s comment. Notwithstanding its position it offered to publish a
clarification confirming the complainant’s position in the following terms:
“We reported on July 13 that Pete Gregson was suspended by
the Labour party and expelled from the GMB trade union for claiming that the
Holocaust was exaggerated and, in the case of the GMB, for abusive behaviour
towards a female Jewish Labour member and union employee. Mr Gregson’s
position, which we are happy to publish in full, is that it is Israel that
exaggerates the Holocaust for political gain.”
Relevant Code Provisions
9. 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
10. The Committee considered whether it was misleading to report that the complainant had said that the “Holocaust was exaggerated”. Whilst the Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position that he had criticised one particular country for exaggerating the Holocaust for political gain, he had still expressed a view that the Holocaust had been exaggerated. The articles had made no claim as to who the complainant believed had exaggerated the event, or for what purpose, and the Committee did not find grounds to render the omission of this further contextual information misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to this point.
11. The Committee considered the reference in the articles to the LAZIR movement having been set up “at Labour HQ”. The Committee considered that this would be understood to be shorthand to indicate the links which existed between the LAZIR movement and the Labour Party. It was clear, as was accepted by the complainant, that only Labour Party members received full membership and that the complainant had chosen to set up the organisation outside the building which houses the Labour Party HQ. Where the article also included a quote from a senior Labour source which confirmed that LAZIR was not affiliated to the Labour Party, the reference to Labour HQ was not misleading in the way the complainant suggested. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
12. With regard to the complainant’s concern that the articles
promoted the idea that he is anti-Semitic, the Committee noted that they
accurately reported that he had been expelled from his union and suspended from
the Labour Party over allegations that he had made anti-Semitic remarks and
that he had abused a Jewish employee. The second article further explained that
he had called the employee a “Crazy Zionist” and had described Israel as a
“racist endeavour”. Correspondence provided by the complainant and from the
trade union, together with video footage from YouTube, confirmed that the
complainant had made or was alleged to have made these comments. The article also made clear that the
complainant’s comment about Israel was considered to be anti-Semitic under the
IHRA definition of antisemitism. Whilst the Committee noted that the
complainant disagreed with this definition, the newspaper had accurately
reported the circumstances of the complainant’s expulsion and suspension. There
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
13. The Committee also noted that the complainant’s concern that
the article was not accurate because it was not balanced. The Editors’ Code
does not require coverage to be balanced and the press has the right to
editorialise and to campaign provided that it distinguishes between comment,
conjecture and fact. Whilst the Committee was not asked to consider a complaint
made under Clause 14. With regard to the sources relied upon, the Committee
noted that Clause 14 specifically recognises the moral obligation of
publications to protect confidential sources and the publication was not
obliged to reveal the identity of its confidential sources. These concerns did
not engage the terms of Clause 1.
Conclusion
14. This complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
15. N/A
Date complaint received: 14/07/2019
Date decision issued: 28/10/2019
Review
16. 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.