Decision of the Complaints Committee – 10538-22 A woman v The Mail on Sunday
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman complained
to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and
subterfuge) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
the preparation and publication of an article published in July 2022.
2. The
article reported that the complainant, described as a “militant transgender
rights activist”, had “launched strident online attacks against those who have
raised concerns about the impact of transgender activism on women”. It also
stated that she “once appeared to compare a feminist author to the Nazis”, by
stating the author had “advocat[ed] a ‘final solution’ for trans people” in “an
apparent reference to the Holocaust”. The article contained the complainant’s
position, which was that she “denied comparing the author’s views to Nazism or
Hitler’s Final Solution” and also included a quote from her in which she stated
that “‘[i]t’s her […] final solution… You just read out what she wanted to do
to stop people transitioning. I meant ‘her final solution’. [The author]
described stopping the transition of trans people.’” The article contained
quotes from the author, saying that the complainant “should be disciplined by
the Tory Party”.
3. The
article described the complainant’s relationship with the MP Penny Mordaunt
who, at the time of publication, was a candidate for the Conservative
leadership challenge. It described the complainant as a “key backer” and
“staunch supporter” of Ms Mordaunt and said they had met at least three times
to discuss trans-rights issues. The article said that the pair had “chatted for
around five minutes” at a charity party. It also contained a photo of the two
women standing next to each other.
4. The
article also included a brief three-sentence description of the complainant’s
background and made reference to her life prior to her transition and included
a number of biographical details relating to that period.
5. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format.
6. The complainant said that, prior to
the article being published, she had been contacted by a journalist on 16 July
regarding correspondence she had engaged in with Ms Mordaunt, as well as the
“final solution” tweet and the allegation that this was a reference to Nazis.
At the end of the phone call, the complainant gave the reporter her email
address, although she never received an email from them.
7. The complainant said that the
article was in breach of Clause 12. She said that the inclusion of her
pre-transition history was irrelevant in the context of either her attendance
at a political event or her comments in relation to the author, and that it was
irrelevant that such details were in the public domain. The complainant said
that the article was also pejorative in that it included her “dead name” and
misgendered her. She also said that using the terms “militant” and “strident”
were prejudicial to her gender identity as a transgender person.
8. The complainant said that the
article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She denied that she had compared
the author to “the Nazis” and noted she had never used this term; she said she
had simply used the phrase “final solution” in a tweet to refer to the
“solution” presented by the author who had written about reducing the number of
people who had transition. The complainant noted that she had used quotation
marks around the phrase “final solution” in her tweet, which she said
disassociated herself from the phrase. The complainant said she had made clear
that she had not made this comparison whilst on the phone to the journalist –
and that her denial was included within the article itself.
9. The
complainant also said it was inaccurate to describe her as a “militant trans
activist” or “strident”. She said she was, in fact, a trans person concerned
about the author’s desire to limit the number of people transitioning expressed
by the author referred to in the article.
10. The
complainant also said that the article mischaracterised her relationship with
Ms Mordaunt. She said it was inaccurate to report that they had met on three
occasions to discuss trans rights issues; while they had met three times in
total, they had not discussed trans rights during the charity party they were
pictured at. She also said that she had never had a specific one-on-one meeting
with Ms Mordaunt, and never to specifically discuss trans matters. She also
said it was inaccurate to report that witnesses had seen the pair talking for
five minutes, as she considered it to have been closer to three minutes. The
complainant said, additionally, that it was inaccurate to describe her as a
“key backer” of Ms Mordaunt as she was not an MP, nor had she donated to her
campaign. The complainant also said that the interaction between herself and
the author had nothing to do with Ms Mordaunt, and that she considered the
article was intended to undermine Ms Mordaunt’s leadership campaign.
11. The
complainant said she had not been contacted by the Conservative Party regarding
a complaint made against her, and therefore it was inaccurate to report that
the author had said she “should be disciplined by the Tory Party”.
12. The complainant said that the
questions asked by the reporter when researching the story amounted to a breach
of Clause 2. She said that her correspondence with any Conservative MP was
private to her and should not have been the subject of questions. She was also
concerned as to where the publication had gained her phone number from. The
complainant said that the photo of her and Ms Mordaunt taken at a garden party
and published without either’s consent, also intruded into her privacy.
13. The complainant also considered the
phone call with the reporter amounted to harassment in breach of Clause 3. She
said that the phone call, which had not been pre-arranged and did not contain a
caller ID, was intimidating. She said that she had asked the reporter not to
write an article about her, and that she had said that the phone call needed to
stop and that she was ending the call. She said that after this he had asked
for her email, which she provided to have a written opportunity to object to
the claims being made. She said that the journalist had not stopped asking
questions until she put the phone down.
14. The complainant also had concerns
that the publication may have tried to access her emails. On 18 July she shared
screenshots of two alerts from her email address which were dated as having
taken place 10 and 11 hours before. The alert “type” was “unusual activity
detected” and the approximate location given was the United States. The
complainant said that the alerts stopped after she had reported the matter to
IPSO on 18 July, and that when she took her phone to be assessed by a
professional, they told her that the device’s email app was no longer connected
to normal servers and that she should delete the app and redownload it. She
said she therefore considered that the publication may have been trying to
access her emails in breach of Clause 10.
15. The complainant also said that the
article’s use of the terms “strident” and “militant transgender rights
activist” discriminated against her as a trans woman. She said that she had
made the comments about the author in self-defence and that she had a right to
freedom speech; this did not make her “militant” or ”strident”.
16. The publication did not accept a
breach of the Code. It said that the article did not contain any prejudicial or
pejorative references to the complainant’s gender identity. It also said that
the background to the complainant’s transition and the name they used were in
the public domain following an interview the complainant had given to a news
agency in 2015, and were basic background biographical details which were not
prejudicial or pejorative. It said that the previous name and pronouns used by
the complainant appeared only in the section of the article which related to
her life before she transitioned, and matched how she presented at that time.
It said that the article had only used female pronouns when describing her
after her transition. It also said that it did not consider that the terms of
Clause 12 required newspapers to explain why a person’s former name or
pre-transition story were genuinely relevant to a story.
17. The publication also said that the
claim the complainant had compared the author to Nazis had appeared in single
quotation marks, which indicated that it was a claim and not a statement of
fact. It also noted that the complainant’s denial had been published in the
article. The publication said, however, that the phrase “final solution” was
inextricably associated with the Holocaust. It also provided a copy of the
original tweet and video the complainant was retweeting with the phrase “final
solution” which had the caption “PLEASE: Watch this and tell me the Gender
Critical movement are not Nazis. Here’s [Twitter handle] and [Twitter handle]
openly talking about their plans for trans people. Children and adult.
Absolutely parallels with 1930s Germany”. The publication said, therefore, it
was not misleading on this point.
18. The publication also did not
consider that it was inaccurate to describe the complainant as being “militant”
or “strident”. It said that the terms were clearly of opinion and perspective
and that the article set out the basis for the characterisation by including
tweets published by the complainant.
19. The publication also did not accept
that it had mischaracterised the relationship between the complainant and Ms
Mordaunt. It said that it had taken care when reporting that the two had met at least three times to discuss trans-rights
issues by putting these questions to the complainant in advance of publication.
It provided a transcript of the phone call between the complainant and publication
in which the complainant said she had met Ms Mordaunt “three, possibly four
times” and that in those discussions Ms Mordaunt “talked about the context of
respecting and showing dignity to all people. That includes trans people, that
includes women, and it was her job to, to do that”. It said that this was the
basis for the quote, and – in any case – the difference between discussing a
topic with someone twice, or three times, was insignificant. The
publication said it did not consider there to be a significant difference
between “around five minutes” and three minutes
and noted that the article accurately reported what had been told to the
publication by a witness. It also said it considered the term “key backer” to
be subjective and did not consider this to be an inaccurate description where
the complainant had been supportive of Ms Mordaunt’s campaign; for example, it
said, she had dedicated her Twitter page to the campaign. It also said the
basis for the description of the complainant as a “key backer” was explained in
the story itself when it stated the complainant was a high profile trans
activist in the Tory party.
20. The publication said that the quote
from the author saying that the complainant “should
be disciplined by the Tory Party” was clearly attributed to the feminist author
as their opinion. It said it was irrelevant whether or not the complainant had
been contacted by the Conservative Party about a potential investigation.
21. The transcript of the phone call
provided by the publication showed that the reporter had asked the complainant
whether she had ever communicated with Ms Mordaunt by email. The publication
also said that her phone number was obtained via an online contact details
database which newspapers subscribe to. It said that neither of these concerns
engaged the terms of Clause 2.
22. The
publication also said that the complainant’s attendance at the garden party, in
which the photograph was taken, was not private, and that the image in question
had been shared on Twitter publicly. It said therefore, she had no reasonable
expectation of privacy over it.
23. The publication said that the
complainant had only been called by the journalist once, and that a lengthy
telephone conversation took place. It said that the complainant had not made
any requests to desist and that, therefore, there was no breach of Clause 3.
24. The publication said that the
complainant’s concern that it may have attempted to access her emails was a
very serious allegation which was without foundation and was denied. It noted
that the screenshots provided confirmed that the activity had taken place in
the US, rather than the UK where the publication was based. It also made clear
that IPSO had only passed on the complaint to the publication on 2 August,
sometime after the activity complained of had ceased. The chronology,
therefore, did not support the complainant’s position that the cessation of the
activity on her account had coincided with the publication being made aware of
the matter by IPSO.
25. The complainant said that she had
not seen the full tweet and video she had retweeted. She said she had retweeted
a tweet from a barrister, who had retweeted the video and the tweet the
publication had provided, but as she had blocked the original sender, she was
unable to see the comment attached to it.
26. The complainant also said she did
not accept that the transcript of the call was accurate or complete. She said
that she had told the journalist “that’s enough now” and said “please
stop/don’t” when asking if the newspaper was going to write a “hit piece” on
her and Ms Mordaunt. These remarks did not appear in the transcript provided by
the publication.
Relevant Clause 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.
Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for
their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and
correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify
intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering
an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the
material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph
individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is
a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause 3 (Harassment)*
i) Journalists must not engage in
intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in
questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to
desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If
requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these
principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use
non-compliant material from other sources.
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and
subterfuge)*
i) The press must not seek to obtain or
publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening
devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or
emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by
accessing digitally-held information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or
subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified
only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained
by other means.
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
27. The Committee first considered the
complainant’s concerns under Clause 12. The article referred to the complainant
as “trans” and included a three-sentence summary of her pre-transition life and
professional background. As part of this description, it used the pronoun and
the title the complainant had previously used. This clearly related to her
gender identity and therefore Clause 12 was engaged.
28. The Committee first considered
whether the details included in the article about the complainant’s gender
identity were genuinely relevant to the story. The story highlighted the
complainant’s support of Penny Mordaunt in her bid to become Prime Minister and
had presented in a critical light the complainant’s comments, and in particular
her suggestion that the author was seeking a “final solution” to reduce the
number of people making gender transitions. The Committee noted that the
complainant had established a profile as a trans activist in the Conservative
party, including by disclosing some of the information included in the article.
In the view of the Committee, these details of her gender identity provided
relevant context for her criticism and her strength of feeling on the subject
of gender transition. The Committee therefore found that the brief details
relating to the complainant’s gender identity were genuinely relevant to the
story, and there was no breach of Clause 12(ii).
29. The Committee then considered
whether the references were prejudicial or pejorative to the complainant’s
gender identity. Whilst the Committee appreciated that the name and pronoun
previously used by the complainant and the noun used in the article did not
reflect the complainant’s gender identity, it noted that these had been used in
one paragraph only and solely in the context of a brief description of the
complainant’s pre-transition history – and that her correct name and pronoun
had otherwise been used throughout the article. In addition, it did not
consider the terms “militant” or “strident” to be words to describe her
gender identity, rather it considered these described the strength of her
criticism of the author on twitter. On this basis, the Committee did not
consider the article had made any prejudicial or pejorative references to the
complainant’s gender identity and there was no breach of Clause 12(i).
30. With regards to Clause 1, the
allegations that the complainant had “‘compared
[a] feminist writer to the Nazis’”, had either been presented within single
quotation marks or preceded by the phrase “appeared to”. These aspects made
clear that this was a claim rather than statement of fact. In addition, the
article clearly set out the basis for the claim: the complainant had used the
term “final solution” when describing the author’s thoughts on transgender
people. The article also contained the complainant’s position on this point –
that she denied comparing the author to Nazis, and that she had been referring
to the author’s own “final solution”.
Where the article had made clear that it was a claim that the complainant had
compared the author to Nazis, had set out the basis for this claim, and
included the complainant’s position, the Committee did not consider that the
publication had failed to take care over this information, nor had it failed to
distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
31. The complainant also considered
that it was inaccurate for the article to describe her as “militant” and
“strident”. The Committee considered that these adjectives were not claims of
fact – they were clearly the characterisation of the newspaper and
intrinsically subjective terms, which was set out in the article on the basis
of the complainant’s tweets. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.
32. In addition, where the complainant
accepted that she had spoken to Ms Mordaunt on two occasions in the context of
her job about the respect and dignity of all people, including women and trans
women, and had met Ms Mordaunt on another occasion, it was not significantly
inaccurate to report that the two had met
at least three times to discuss trans rights issues. The Committee also did not
consider it to be significantly inaccurate to describe the length of the
meeting as five minutes, whereas the complainant thought it was closer to three
– particularly where this was reported in the context of a statement by a
witness. Finally, the Committee found that the term “key backer” did not have a
specific meaning, and where the complainant was a prominent, well-known
individual in the Conservative Party who had publicly supported Ms Mordaunt, it
was not inaccurate to report that she was a “key backer” of Ms Mordaunt. There
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
33. The complainant had also said it
was inaccurate to report a quote from the author which stated that she “should be disciplined by the Tory Party”. The
Committee noted that the article did not state that she had been disciplined by
the Party – but rather that the author had said she “should” be. Where this was
clearly set out as a quote and the opinion of the feminist author as something
that she wished to happen rather than something that had happened, the
Committee did not consider this to be inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause
1.
34. The complainant had also raised
concerns under Clause 2 about the questions asked by the reporter; the
newspaper’s acquisition of her phone number; and the publication of the photo,
without her or Ms Mordaunt’s consent. The questions asked of the complainant
regarded her support of a political candidate, and what they had discussed
within their respective political roles. This did not represent an intrusion
into her private life. Furthermore, the complainant’s phone number had been
acquired in order to put questions to her ahead of the publication of an
article, and her phone number was not published. The acquisition of a phone
number via an online contact details database, that was not published, in order
to speak to the subject of the article did not amount to an intrusion into her
privacy. Finally, the photograph had been published on Twitter publicly and was
already in the public domain and simply showed the complainant’s likeness. She,
therefore, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the
photograph. There was no breach of Clause 2.
35. With regards to Clause 3, the
Committee noted that the complainant disputed that the transcript provided by
the publication was accurate or complete. However, the further information the
complainant said she could recall from the conversation that did not appear in
the transcript did not amount to a request to desist. Further, neither the
transcript, nor the additional details the complainant provided amounted to
behaviour that was intimidation, harassment, or persistent pursuit. There was
no breach of Clause 3.
36. The complainant also had concerns
that the publication may have tried to access her emails, which the publication
strenuously denied. The Committee made clear that IPSO had not contacted the
publication about the matter until the 2 August, being several weeks after the
complainant had received the alerts described in paragraph 14. It also noted
that the alerts originated from the US – not the UK where the publication was
based. Taking this information into account, the Committee considered that
there no cogent evidence to support the allegation that the publication had
attempted to access the complainant’s emails. There was no breach of Clause 10.
Conclusion(s)
37. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
38. N/A
Date complaint received: 18/07/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO:
11/01/2023