Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 12371-21 A man v asianimage.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. A man
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
asianimage.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “[Name] is now Muhammad: Man
takes Islamic declaration of faith at mosque”, published on 10 November 2021.
2. The
online article reported that a man had made a declaration of faith at a named
mosque. It said that after taking the ‘Shahadah’ this man had changed his first
name, which was included in the article, to “Muhammad”. The article went on to
explain that the Shahadah is the Muslim declaration of faith and the first
Pillar of Islam. It said that the man had “uttered the words in front of
witnesses” at the mosque after weekly prayers, adding that “in a recording of
the moment” the man was heard being welcomed into the community by the Imam.
The article included the Iman’s comments at the ceremony, made reference to the
area where the man was from and was accompanied by a photograph which showed
the back of an individual, dressed in white, being embraced by another
worshipper whilst surrounded by a number of other attendees.
3. The
complainant, the man featured in the article, said that the publication
intruded into his private life, in breach of Clause 2 (Privacy). He said that
the photograph and recording of the ceremony had been taken without his
knowledge and consent while he had been making a private declaration of faith,
which he said had taken place in the company of “loads” of fellow worshippers.
He said that mobile phone devices were banned from the mosque, with signs at
the entrance announcing this. He considered
that the inclusion of his first name, the area where he lived, and the
photograph, identified him to his family and friends – who were not aware of
his conversion to Islam – as well as people living in the local area. This had
caused him considerable distress and disrupted his private and family life.
4. He
said that the article was also inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy); he
had not changed his first name to “Muhammad”.
5. The
newspaper said the article was based on information provided by a source, and
published in good faith. The source was a member of the mosque and an
upstanding member of the local community, who regularly provided the newspaper
with community-based content. Taken in this context, it noted that an
individual affirming their new faith was a cause of celebration and news to
share with the wider community. It demonstrated this by sharing an example
where another mosque had shared, via social media, an individual partaking in a
similar ceremony.
6. While
the publication accepted that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy over the information included within the article, it did not accept
that the complainant was identified; he was only referenced by his first name
and the photograph did not show his likeness.
7. The
newspaper also said that the information contained within the article had been
put into the public domain prior to the article’s publication; the source had
recorded the ceremony and captured the published photograph, sharing this
information on SoundCloud and then subsequently within a WhatsApp broadcast to
potentially ‘hundreds’ of their contacts. It noted that during the recording
the Iman had invited the local community to witness the Shahadah and welcome
the complainant: “We would keep a gathering just for [the complainant] so that
everyone in our community can witness [him] taking Shahadah today […] we are
now inviting him collectively as a community. You’re part of our community.
You’re part of our family. You’ve embraced the whole of Islam. You’re now just
like my brother.” It did not accept that the mosque “banned” the use of mobile
phone devices, or that there was a sign at the entrance indicating this. While
it acknowledged that the mosque requested these devices remained on silent, and
their use may be frowned upon by some worshippers, their use was not prohibited
8. Further,
it maintained that the article was an accurate summary of the recording, with
the complainant’s first name and the area where he lived both stated by the
Imam. In addition, the complainant’s decision to change his name to Muhammad
was discussed, as heard in the recording: “Muhammad, we did propose some names
isn’t it? We came up with the names of the prophets [..] and then we agreed to
choose and stay on Muhammad”.
9. Notwithstanding
this, upon receipt of the complaint, the newspaper amended the article and
removed the photograph, the complainant’s first name and any reference to where
he was from. It subsequently offered to delete the article. The complainant,
however, did not consider this was sufficient. As such, the matter was passed
to the Complaints Committee for adjudication.
Relevant
Code 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.
Findings
of the Committee
10. Clause
2 of the Editors’ Code states that everyone is entitled for respect for their
private and family life, and that editors will be required to justify
intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. It further
states that it is unacceptable to photograph individuals without their consent
where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
11. The
photograph, which had been taken without the complainant’s knowledge, showed
the complainant participating in a religious ritual, inside a place of worship.
The text of the article disclosed additional information about him: his first
name and the area where he lived. In the view of the Committee, the partial
view of the complainant shown in the photograph, alongside the information in
the article, made him readily identifiable within the small local community. It
therefore effectively disclosed the fact of his conversion to Islam to those
who recognised him. The complainant had not publicly disclosed this
information; indeed, the article’s publication had caused him considerable
distress.
12. While
an observer to the complainant’s Shahadah had recorded the ceremony and
captured the published photograph, subsequently sharing this information online
and via WhatsApp, the newspaper had not sought or obtained consent from the
complainant himself. Furthermore, the Committee did not consider that the
publication had demonstrated that the information had entered the public domain
to any substantial extent; the publication had not been able to demonstrate how
many people had viewed the WhatsApp message or the SoundCloud page prior to the
article’s publication. In the view of the Committee, there were no grounds to
conclude that the WhatsApp message or the SoundCloud recording had entered the
public domain to the extent that it reduced or eliminated the complainant’s
reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information.
13. The
Committee acknowledged that publication’s apparent intention to report on a
positive community event, using information provided by an established member
of the local community. It concluded however that publishing this private
information, alongside a photograph of the complainant engaged in a religious
ceremony inside a place of worship, constituted a significant and unjustified
intrusion into the complainant’s private life. The article breached Clause 2 of
the Editors’ Code.
14. The
Committee did not consider that it was inaccurate for the newspaper to have
reported that the complainant had changed his name to “Mohammed”, in
circumstances where the Iman had referred to him as such in the recording of
the ceremony. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code.
Conclusion(s)
15. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 2.
Remedial
Action Required
16.
Having upheld the complaint under Clause 2, the Committee consider the remedial
action that should be required. Given the nature of the breach, the appropriate
remedial action was the publication of an upheld adjudication.
17. The
Committee considered the placement of this adjudication. The adjudication
should be published on the newspaper’s website, with a link to the full
adjudication appearing on the top half of the homepage for 24 hours; it should
then be archived in the usual way. The headline to the adjudication should make
clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, refer to the subject matter and be
agreed with IPSO in advance of publication.
18. The
terms of the adjudication for publication are as follows:
Following
an article published on 10 November 2022, headlined “[A man] is now Muhammad:
Man takes Islamic declaration of faith at mosque”, a man complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that the publication had breached
Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The
article reported that a man had made a declaration of faith at a named mosque.
It said that the man had taken the Shahadah, the first Pillar of Islam, “in
front of witnesses” at the mosque after weekly prayers, adding that “in a
recording of the moment” the man was heard being welcomed into the community by
the Imam. The article included the Iman’s comments at the ceremony, made
reference to the area where the man was from and was accompanied by a
photograph, captioned “CEREMONY: The man being hugged in the mosque”, which
showed the back of the complainant.
The
complainant said that the publication intruded into his private life, in breach
of Clause 2 (Privacy). He said that the photograph and recording of the ceremony
had been taken without his knowledge and consent while he had been making a
private declaration of faith, which he said had taken place in the company of
“loads” of fellow worshippers. He considered that the inclusion of his first
name, the area where he lived, and the photograph, identified him to his family
and friends – who were not aware of his conversion to Islam – as well as people
living in the local area. This had caused him considerable distress and
disrupted his private and family life.
The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. While the publication
accepted that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the
information included within the article, it did not accept that the complainant
was identified. It said that the article was based upon information provided by
a member of the mosque, and published in good faith. It further said that the
information contained within the article had been put into the public domain
prior to the article’s publication; the source had recorded the ceremony and
captured the published photograph, sharing this information on SoundCloud and
then subsequently within a WhatsApp Broadcast.
The
photograph, which had been taken without the complainant’s knowledge, showed
him participating in a religious ritual, inside a place of worship. In the view
of the Committee, the article had contained sufficient information to identify
the complainant within a small, local community. It therefore effectively
disclosed the fact of his conversion to Islam to those who recognised him. The
complainant had not publicly disclosed this information; indeed, the article’s
publication had caused him considerable distress.
While
the newspaper’s source had observed the complainant’s Shahadah and had
subsequently shared the recording and photograph online and via WhatsApp, the
newspaper had not sought or obtained consent from the complainant himself. In
addition, the Committee did not consider that the publication had demonstrated
that the information had entered the public domain to any substantial extent;
the publication had not been able to demonstrate how many people had viewed the
WhatsApp message or the SoundCloud page prior to the article’s publication. In
the view of the Committee, there were no grounds to conclude that the recording
and photograph had entered the public domain to the extent that it reduced or
eliminated the complainant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to
the information.
While
the Committee recognised the publication’s apparent intention to report on a
positive community event, using information provided by an established member
of the local community, it concluded that publishing this private information,
alongside a photograph of the complainant engaged in a religious ceremony
inside a place of worship, constituted a significant and unjustified intrusion
into the complainant’s private life. The article breached Clause 2 of the Editors’
Code.
Date
complaint received: 07/12/21
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/06/22
Back to ruling listing