00088-25 Versi v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Miqdaad Versi complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Islamophobia law ‘would ban discussion of Asian grooming gangs’”, published on 9 January 2025.

2. The article reported that the leader of the opposition had “told MPs” that “’Labour’s definition of Islamophobia bars discussion of Asian grooming gangs.” It said during Prime Minister’s questions the Conservative party leader asked the Prime Minister “to cancel his party’s adoption of the definition used by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims”. It also said the opposition leader “asked whether the Prime Minister intended to introduce a law to ensure the Government had to abide by the Islamophobia definition, and he declined to rule it out.” It then reported “at PMQs, [the leader] said that the APPG’s definition said, ‘talking about sex groomers was an example of Islamophobia’, and claimed that this is why people are too ‘scared to tell the truth’”.

3. The article also reported:

“The Conservative leader said: […] ‘The Labour Party has adopted the APPG definition of Islamophobia. That same APPG report said talking about sex groomers was an example of Islamophobia. [….] So will the Prime Minister look again at the Labour Party’s adoption of the definition of Islamophobia, its chilling effect and rule out introducing it in government?’”

4. The article also appeared online under the headline “Labour’s Islamophobia definition ‘forbids discussion of Asian grooming gangs’, says Badenoch.”

5. The complainant said the headline of the print article was inaccurate in its reference to an “Islamophobia law”. He said the opposition leader raised the question of the adoption of a definition of Islamophobia; she had not referred to the possibility of an Islamophobia law being introduced. The complainant said there was no justification for the article’s claim that the APPG definition of Islamophobia, even if it were adopted, would become law. The complainant added that the article conflated the adoption of a legally non-binding definition with the adoption of a new law.

6. The complainant provided the Hansard entry for the debate, which read as follows:

Opposition leader: The Labour party has adopted the APPG definition of “Islamophobia”. The same APPG report said that talking about sex groomers was an example of Islamophobia. This is exactly why people are scared to tell the truth, and the lack of clarity means that innocent British Muslims are smeared by association. That is not fair, and only a national inquiry can solve this. Will the Prime Minister look again at the Labour party’s adoption of the definition of “Islamophobia” and its chilling effect, and rule out introducing it in government?

Prime minister: I will call out any aspect that has prevented anybody from coming forward, or any case from going forward, when it comes to violence against women and girls, child abuse or child sexual exploitation, as I have been doing for the best part of 15 years. Yes, some people will say there should be a further inquiry—I accept that—but that means all the victims and survivors who give evidence need to be in a position to do so, and not all of them are. I have been speaking to them. Some think they are, but it will take time. All of the institutions will have to give evidence; that will take time. This will delay things until 2031. We already know what the major flaws are. My argument is that we should get on with that action. That is why we are bringing forward the Bill this afternoon.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It referred to the comments by the opposition leader, who – in reference to the APPG definition of Islamophobia - questioned whether the prime minister would be “introducing it in government”. It said in her comments, the opposition leader explicitly distinguished between the Labour Party's adoption of the definition and the separate matter of the possible introduction of such definition in government. It said readers would understand that, when the article referred to an "Islamophobia law", it was referencing the opposition leader’s question about whether the Prime Minister would rule out introducing the APPG definition in government - and its understanding was when the opposition leader referred to the definition being introduced in government, she was referring to it being introduced by way of law.

8. The publication also said the headline was supported by the body of the article, which fully explained the headline’s meaning. It said the article referred to the opposition leader mentioning the possible introduction of a law which would include a specific definition of Islamophobia. It also said that - while the complainant took the view that any possible introduction of the definition would not be legally binding - this was a different interpretation of the remarks made in parliament, rather than a significant inaccuracy in need of correction.

9. Finally, the publication noted that the article did not state that there was an existing Islamophobia law, or the government was planning to introduce a law to this effect.

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.

Findings of the Committee

10. The Committee noted that, while the headline and article both referenced an “Islamophobia law”, neither claimed that such a law was being proposed by the government. Rather, the article made clear it was reporting on a question which had been put to the Prime Minister by the opposition leader, who had “asked whether the Prime Minister intended to introduce a law to ensure the Government had to abide by the Islamophobia definition, and he declined to rule it out.” This tallied with the Hansard record provided by the complainant, which showed the opposition leader had asked: “Will the Prime Minister look again at the Labour party’s adoption of the definition of ‘Islamophobia’ and its chilling effect and rule out introducing it in government?”. The text of the article also reproduced these remarks, making clear the precise question which had been put to the Prime Minister.

11. While the complainant had disputed that the question asked of the Prime Minister was a reference to the definition of Islamophobia being adopted in law – rather than as a non-binding definition – the Committee noted that he was not in a position to speak on behalf of the opposition leader as to the intention behind her words. However, given the opposition leader had stated introducing the Islamophobia definition “in government” would have a “chilling effect”, the Committee did not consider the headline’s summary to be misleading. The Committee was satisfied the headline, read together with the article, did not create the significantly inaccurate or misleading impression that there were current plans to introduce an “Islamophobia law”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Remedial action required

12. N/A

Date complaint received: 09/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/05/2025