Decision of the Complaints Committee 09587-19 Liberty v
The Sun
Summary of Complaint
1. Amanda Liberty complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'Goops! it's my highs &
lows of 2019" published on 18 December 2019.
2. The article was a columnist’s annual “awards” page,
rounding up notable stories and events from 2019. It focussed on people or
events she considered to be hypocritical or worthy of derision – for example it
awarded prizes to the “Eco Hypocrite Of The Year (aka Hotly Contested Hot Air
Award)” and “Nancy Doolally-o Award For Services To Delusion”. The columnist
awarded the “Dagenham Award (Two Stops Past Barking)” to a woman named and
pictured as having married a chandelier-style light fitting. It said that she
was an “objectum sexual” and asked whether she was “Dim & Dimmer?”
3. The article also appeared online in the same form with
the headline “[NAMED COLUMNIST] My annual award winners from Eco Hypocrite to
Virtue Signaller Of The Year”.
4. The complainant was the woman named and pictured as
having married a chandelier. She said that her sexual orientation is an
attraction to objects, described in an academic paper as “objectum sexual”. She
said that by awarding her the “Dagenham Award”, as a result of her relationship
with a chandelier, as well as positing whether she was “Dim & Dimmer” the
article was pejorative to her sexual orientation in breach of Clause 12. She
also raised concerns that the article referred to a chandelier style light
fitting, when in fact, she was in a relationship, not a marriage, with a
chandelier.
5. The publication did not accept that the terms of Clause
12 were engaged. It said that it did not doubt that the complainant’s
attraction to chandeliers was genuine, however it said that sexual orientation
in the context of Clause 12 covered people who were attracted to people of the
same sex, the opposite sex, or both. It noted that this was the definition of
sexual orientation given by the Equality Act 2010, and used by the Equality and
Human Rights Commission and Stonewall – for example, the complainant was not
legally able to marry the chandelier and it would not be legally discriminatory
to prevent such a marriage. It was not aware of any reputable definition of
sexual orientation which included objectum sexual. For these reasons, the
publication said that Clause 12 did not cover attraction to objects.
6. The publication also noted that the complainant had
already put extensive details of her attraction to objects in the public domain
via previous interviews and article. It said that just as the complainant had
exercised her freedom of expression in speaking about her then engagement to
the chandelier, the columnist was entitled to comment on it.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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
8. The Committee recognised that the complainant found the
article to be offensive and upsetting. However, it was mindful that the Code
does not cover issues of taste and offence; newspapers are free to publish
information as they see fit as long as the Editors’ Code is not otherwise
breached. In determining whether the terms of Clause 12 were engaged, the
Committee took into account the Equality Act 2010 which defines sexual
orientation as a person’s sexual orientation towards persons of the same sex,
persons of the opposite sex or persons of either sex. The Committee considered
that Clause 12 provides protection to individuals in relation to their sexual
orientation towards other persons and not to objects. As such, the
complainant’s attraction to an object did not fall within the definition of
sexual orientation as provided by Clause
12 and the terms of Clause 12 were not engaged.
Conclusions
9. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
10. N/A
Date received: 18/12/2019
Date concluded by IPSO: 24/03/2020