00225-25 Muslim Association of Britain v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) 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 “UAE brands UK organisations as terror groups for links to Muslim Brotherhood”, published on 11 January 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the newspaper’s front page – reported on UK organisations who allegedly had links to the Muslim Brotherhood. It said: “The Muslim Brotherhood is not banned in the UK or proscribed as a terrorist organisation, although Michael Gove last August identified the group’s British affiliate, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), as a potential extremist body. The then communities secretary named MAB as one of a number of groups that were ‘divisive forces’ within Muslim communities and caused ‘real harm to them’ because of their ‘Islamist orientation and views’.”

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline “British organisations deemed terror groups by the UAE for alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood”. This version of the article was published on 10 January 2025.

4. The online version also included the following: “Responding to Mr Gove’s statement in the Commons naming MAB, a spokesman at the time rejected the allegations of extremism. ‘Singling out mainstream, law-abiding British Muslim organisations who have contributed to the common good, sets a dangerous precedent undermining democracy, religious freedoms and free speech,’ said Raghad Alikriti, the chair of the MAB. ’This poses a threat to the very fabric of a fully functioning democracy. Michael Gove shamelessly abuses parliamentary privilege to deflect scrutiny and accountability.’”

5. The complainant contacted the newspaper directly to make it aware of its concerns on 11 January. It said the article had breached Clause 1, as it had no affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood. It said the claims Mr Gove had made about any alleged affiliations or links were inaccurate. It requested that the online version of the article be amended, and a correction and an apology be published online, in print and on X. It further requested the following statement be added to the online article: “The Muslim Association of Britain is a British organisation operating entirely within the British Isles, with no presence elsewhere. It is not an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood nor a member”.

6. The publication responded on 14 January - it said the reference under complaint had been taken from the Hansard record of a speech given by Michael Gove in a debate in the Houses of Parliament on 14 March 2024:

"Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups such as Cage and MEND give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views.”

7. The publication said that fair and accurate reports of proceedings of a legislature are protected by Part I of Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 “without explanation or contradiction”. It said its reporting was a fair and accurate reflection of the Hansard record of the proceedings and that the protection of ‘qualified privilege’ therefore applied. It said the article also included the complainant’s statement, issued at the time and in response to Mr Gove's speech. Notwithstanding this, on receipt of the complaint, it had updated the article to include the complainant’s additional statement. The publication also removed the reference under complaint from the online version of the article.

8. The complainant said that the original article did not attribute the statement to Mr Gove and instead presented it as a statement of fact, endorsed by the publication. The complainant said that the statement made by Mr Gove may be covered by parliamentary privilege; however, the newspaper could not rely on privilege to present the claim without qualification. The complainant also said that the claim Mr Gove had made was unsupported by evidence.

9. The publication said the article did attribute the statement to Mr Gove, as it said: "although Michael Gove last August identified the group's affiliate". The article also later stated "responding to Mr Gove's statement in the Commons naming MAB". It said any reasonable reader would have understood the information in the article about the complainant had been obtained from the statement made by Mr Gove in Parliament.

10. The publication added that the government had drawn links between the two groups previously. It said the UK Cabinet Office had commissioned a report on the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK. It said the government’s summary of the report described MAB as an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

11. The complainant said the publication had relied on sources which it said had been discredited, such as the author of the report on the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK.

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

12. The Committee acknowledged that Hansard recorded that Mr Gove had made the following comments on 14 March 2024: “Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood […] give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views”. The Committee also noted the complainant’s position that it was not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and that the reference in the article did not sufficiently attribute the claim to Mr Gove, but instead presented it as fact.

13. The Committee carefully considered the wording of the article, which was: “The Muslim Brotherhood is not banned in the UK or proscribed as a terrorist organisation, although Michael Gove last August identified the group’s British affiliate, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), as a potential extremist body.” It noted that, while the article did not include a direct quote from Mr Gove, the identification of MAB as a “British affiliate” was sufficiently attributed to Mr Gove. Nevertheless, this was a serious allegation, which the complainant refuted.

14. The Committee noted that the online version of the article included the complainant’s statement, made in response to what had been said by Mr Gove in Parliament. However, this statement did not include its position that it was not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the print version did not include its position at all. Where the newspaper had published a serious allegation about the complainant, the Committee considered it was necessary to include the complainant’s position; otherwise, this could lead readers to believe that the allegation had gone unchallenged and is accepted. Therefore, omitting the complainant’s denial of the allegation that it was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood was misleading. In addition, it did not appear that the newspaper had taken any steps – prior to the article’s publication – to seek the complainant’s comment on the allegation. As such, the publication had not taken care not to publish misleading information, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

15. While the article had accurately reported Mr Gove’s comments, the omission of the complainant’s position that it was not an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood was significant given the seriousness of the allegation and, therefore, required a correction. While the newspaper had amended the online article to include the complainant’s response, it had not offered to publish a correction online or in print setting out the complainant’s position, and therefore there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

16. The complaint was upheld in part under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

17. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

18. The Committee considered the article was significantly misleading where it omitted the complainant’s response to a serious allegation against it. However, the newspaper had taken steps to accurately report the contents of Mr Gove’s speech, and had published the complainant’s statement in the online version following receipt of its complaint. On balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge what Mr Gove said, as well as the complainant’s position – that it is not an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

19. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

20. The correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column. Given the online article has been amended to include the complainant’ position, the correction on the article should be published as a footnote.

21. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 20/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 15/04/2025