Decision of the Complaints Committee 08369-19 Miller v
The Sunday Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Gina Miller complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the
Editors' Code of Practice in an article headlined "Poor Nigel- what's he
going to do with his 600 camp followers now?", published on 20 October
2019.
2. The article was a comment piece in which the columnist
discussed the reaction to the Prime Minister's Brexit deal and the role of the
Brexit Party and its leader Nigel Farage in the forthcoming general election
and the Brexit process. The columnist claimed that certain figures' dislike of
the deal had prompted him to agree with it and wish it "swift passage
through the chamber". The columnist stated "I admit I was helped in
reaching this conclusion by hearing the journalist [name] howling about it on
the radio, like an undead blue-stockinged banshee; and by finding that it also
had the loathing of the anti-Brexit businesswoman Gina Miller, the Liberal
Democrat leader Jo Swinson and various pompous Scottish remoaner lawyers who
always bring out the Jack Cade in me. If these monkeys hate it, it can’t be all
bad".
3. The article also appeared in substantially the same
format online under the headline "Poor Nigel — what’s he going to do with
his 600 camp followers now?", published on 19 October 2019.
4. The complainant said that the article referred to her as
a "monkey", which represented a prejudicial and pejorative reference
to her race in breach of Clause 12. The complainant emphasised the long, clear and
proven history of the word as a term of racial abuse and said that the fact she
appeared in a list of other individuals was irrelevant. The complainant also
said that the details of her race were not relevant to the story.
5. The publication denied that the term represented a
reference to the complainant's race. It said that the complainant was one
person in what was otherwise a group of white individuals who had been attacked
over their public positions on Brexit. There was no indication that the use of
the term "monkeys" applied to the complainant in particular, to her
race, or to the race of anyone else in the list; race was neither explicitly or
implicitly an issue. The publication said that the term "monkeys" is
a term frequently used by the columnist to describe his disapproval of foolish
behaviour, as defined in dictionaries, and had never been used by the columnist
as a reference to race. The publication provided further examples of the
columnist's use of the term in his published material. The publication
apologised for any offence caused but emphasised that the columnist was simply
expressing his dislike of the named individuals, an opinion he was entitled to
convey in the context of a comment piece.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. 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
7. The Committee acknowledged that the term “monkey” or
“monkeys” could, in certain circumstances, represent a prejudicial or
pejorative reference to an individual’s race.
In this instance, the term had been used by the columnist to describe a
group of named and unnamed individuals of different races of whom he was
critical for their views on Brexit. The complainant was named as a member of
the group and was not otherwise distinguished. Given the context, the Committee
found that the term had not been used as a prejudicial reference to the complainant’s
race. There was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusions
8. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
9. N/A
Date complaint received: 28/10/2019
Date decision issued: 24/01/2020