Decision of the Complaints Committee – 28437-20
Wimborne-Idrissi v thejc.com
Summary of Complaint
1. Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that thejc.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “JVL founder calls for Labour
members to 'resist' Starmer's attempts to tackle antisemitism”, published on 8
October 2020.
2. The article reported on what one of the Jewish Voice for
Labour founding members had said during a meeting. It reported that she had
“openly urged Labour members to ‘resist’ attempts by Sir Keir Starmer to tackle
antisemitism in the party.” The article gave the full quote as said by the
founding member in a meeting later in the article: “We should be working to
resist the imposition of the IHRA so-called definition — the non-legally
binding definition of antisemitism on councils. We are also going to have to
fight the ban on our constituency Labour Party from even being able to discuss
it. This is difficult because, as I am sure you all know, in a Kafkaesque
twist, General Secretary David Evans has announced that not only may you not
discuss the IHRA or the impending Equalities and Human Rights Commission report
into the Labour Party —or Starmer’s decision to pay out large sums of our money
as Labour Party members to the so-called whistle-blowers in the Panorama
programme which vilified Labour over a year ago — it is now impossible to
discuss the General Secretary’s letter saying that we may not discuss those
specific issues. This has to be resisted.” The article also reported in the
subheading that the founder had “admitted” that "pro-Palestinian activists
had left Jewish people feeling 'defensive and uncomfortable'", and went on
to describe this as a “damning admission”. The full quote was included later in
the article, which reported that the complainant had said that “There is also a
difficulty — to a certain extent generated by the attacks on pro-Palestinian
activists — the tendency for some people to say ‘If I haven’t upset a Zionist
by breakfast I’m doing something wrong’. It’s almost as if there’s an
obligation to use offensive and abusive language, as if that helped Palestine.
When it doesn’t. It does also create an atmosphere in which Jewish people are
genuinely going to feel defensive and uncomfortable. That’s not our aim.” The
subheading also reported that it was “exclusive”. The article also referred to
the founder as having launched "scathing attacks", having
"poured scorn", and referred to an activist as a "hard-left
activist".
3. The complainant, the founding member of the Jewish Voice
for Labour, said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. The
complainant said that she had not called for members to “resist” Sir Keir
Starmer’s attempts to tackle antisemitism. She said that instead she had called
for resistance to the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and the
ban on discussing the definition, the (at the time) pending Equalities and
Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report and the decision to settle the libel case
with the whistle blowers in the Panorama documentary on antisemitism. The
complainant said she was not asking people to resist attempts to tackle
antisemitism, but to resist the methodology which Sir Keir Starmer had said
should be used to stop antisemitism, as she did not believe such methodology
was fit for purpose. She said it was right that people should be able to
critique the IHRC definition, the EHRC report and the Panorama settlement. She
provided a link to where the recording of the video was available on YouTube
and said that her intention was clear in this video from which the quote was
taken.
4. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to
report in the subheading that she had “admitted pro-Palestinian activists had
left Jewish people feeling 'defensive and uncomfortable'". She said the
full quote from the meeting, that was included later in the article, gave the
true meaning of her words, and that in fact she had said that the reaction by
some people to attacks on pro-Palestinian activists had left some Jewish people
feeling “defensive and uncomfortable”. The complainant said this was compounded
by the term “exclusive” also in the subheading, which gave the impression she had
spoken directly to the publication to give them this quote. She said the term
“exclusive” was further misleading as all that was reported on was online and
public. She also noted that she had not been invited for comment on the
article.
5. The complainant also said that the terms “damning
admission” "scathing attacks", "poured scorn" and
"hard-left activist" were pejorative and demonstrated a failure to
distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.
6. The complainant said that the frequency in which the
Jewish Voice for Labour was written about by the publication amounted to
harassment under Clause 3 and discrimination under Clause 12 of the Editors’
Code against the complainant and the Jewish Voice for Labour whose views differ
to those of the publication.
7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
noted that since Sir Keir Starmer became leader of the Labour party, he had
wanted to make tackling antisemitism a top priority, and for the IHRA
definition of antisemitism to be adopted. The publication said that he had
repeatedly described these actions as his commitment to rid the party of
antisemitism. The publication said that the headline was not only based on what
the complainant had said in the meeting, and the quote that was included in
full in the article, but also other actions of the founder, and the Jewish
Voice for Labour. It referred to an email, which the publication described as
an aim to implement Sir Keir Starmer’s efforts to tackle antisemitism, warning
local Labour Parties against motions on the IHRA antisemitism definition, the
EHRC report and the Panorama Settlement. The Jewish Voice for Labour protested
this email in multiple statements, in addition to what the complainant said at
the meeting. It noted that the complainant did not challenge the accuracy of
the quotes within the article, only the accuracy of the headline.
8. The publication said that it had accurately reported the
complainant’s position that pro-Palestinian activists had left “Jewish people…
defensive and uncomfortable”. It said that it was accurate to characterise this
as a “damning admission” and that her remarks were clarified in full later in
the text to ensure that the context of her remarks was understood by readers.
It said that the term “exclusive” had been used as the publication believed
that it had material no-one else did, as few people knew about the meeting and
that it was not reported by any other publications. The publication said that
as it was reporting on a public meeting, there was no need to ask the
complainant for comment.
9. The publication said that the use of the terms “damning
admission”, "scathing attacks", "poured scorn" and
"hard-left activist" was not a failure to distinguish between
comment, conjecture and fact and that this article, which was campaigning,
would have been clearly identified by readers as a comment piece.
10. The publication said that Clauses 3 and 12 were not
engaged.
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 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 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
11. The complainant had accepted that she had said the
quotes attribute to her within the article, but disagreed that the headline of
the article was supported by these quotes, and that she had not called “for
Labour members to 'resist' Starmer's attempts to tackle antisemitism”. She said
the policies put forward were not fit for tackling antisemitism. The article
had gone on and included a quote from the complainant at a publicly available
meeting, which had set out that Labour had been told “not discuss the IHRA or
the impending Equalities and Human Rights Commission report into the Labour
Party —or Starmer’s decision to pay out large sums of our money as Labour Party
members to the so-called whistle-blowers in the Panorama programme which
vilified Labour over a year ago — it is now impossible to discuss the General
Secretary’s letter saying that we may not discuss those specific issues.” The
complainant had gone on to say: “This has to be resisted.” The publication had
characterised these elements as Sir Keir Starmer’s attempts to tackle
antisemitism, and whilst the complainant may disagree that his “attempts” were
not fit for purpose, it was not misleading for the publication to characterise
the adoption of the IHRA definition, and the ban on motions regarding the
definition, the EHRC report or the Panorama settlement as Sir Keir Starmer’s
“attempts to tackle antisemitism”. Where the publication had included the full
context of what the complainant was asking for people to “resist” this would
not mislead readers. On this basis, the publication had taken care not to
publish misleading information and no significant inaccuracy to correct, and
there was no breach of Clause 1.
12. The article had stated that the complainant had
“admitted”, or made the “damning admission” that "pro-Palestinian
activists had left Jewish people feeling 'defensive and uncomfortable'".
The complainant said that what she had actually said was the reaction by some
people to attacks on pro-Palestinian activists had left some Jewish people
feeling “defensive and uncomfortable”. The publication had again included the
complainant’s full quote from the publicly available meeting where she had said
““There is also a difficulty — to a certain extent generated by the attacks on
pro-Palestinian activists — the tendency for some people to say ‘If I haven’t
upset a Zionist by breakfast I’m doing something wrong’. It’s almost as if
there’s an obligation to use offensive and abusive language, as if that helped
Palestine. When it doesn’t. It does also create an atmosphere in which Jewish
people are genuinely going to feel defensive and uncomfortable.” Where the
complainant had said that the words of those who hoped that upsetting “a
Zionist” “helped Palestine” made Jewish people “feel defensive and uncomfortable”,
it was not misleading for the publication to characterise this as saying that
“pro-Palestinian activists had left Jewish people feeling 'defensive and
uncomfortable’”. The terms “admitting” or “damning admission” where the
complainant accepted she had said the quote, fell within the realm of editorial
discretion, and did not render the quote misleading. On this basis, the
publication had not reported inaccurate information and there was no breach of
Clause 1.
13. The article had stated that it was “exclusive”, despite
the information being available online. The Committee did not find that this
was a significant inaccuracy, and did not require a correction under Clause 1.
The article had used terms such as “damning admission”, "scathing attacks",
"poured scorn" and "hard-left activist", which the
complainant considered as pejorative, however these terms would not mislead a
reader, and therefore did not breach Clause 1. In addition, where there were no
significant inaccuracies in the text, it was not a failure to take care not to
publish misleading information by not going to the complainant for comment.
14. The complainant had said that the frequency and
negativity of articles about the Jewish Voice for Labour consisted a breach of
Clause 3 and Clause 12 against the Jewish Voice for Labour and herself. Clause
3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news
story, and is meant to protect people from being repeatedly approached by the
press against their wishes. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific
individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race,
colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental
illness or disability. As the complainants concerns did not relate to this,
neither Clause was engaged.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
16. N/A
Date complaint received: 09/10/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/12/2020
Back to ruling listing