03844-24 Dawson v spectator.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Juno Dawson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that spectator.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The sad truth about ‘saint’ Nicola Sturgeon”, published on 21 May 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – was a comment piece about Nicola Sturgeon and focused largely on her stance on transgender rights in Scotland. It reported, referring to the complainant, that Nicola Sturgeon “was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender”. It also reported that Ms Sturgeon said: “‘I’ve had more abuse hurled at me over the issue of trans rights than probably any other issue I’ve discussed, including Scottish independence probably’”, and that when interviewed by the complainant Ms Sturgeon “[took] the opportunity to restate that ‘trans women are women’ and that ‘people should be able to live how they want to be’”. It also reported that “[a]t the height of the gender storm back in 2023, [Sturgeon] said of some of those opposed to gender self-ID: ‘There are people who have opposed this Bill that cloak themselves in women’s rights to make it acceptable, but just as they’re transphobic you’ll also find that they’re deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well’”.

3. The complainant complained first directly to the publication and then to IPSO one day later. She said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman”. She said that she held a Gender Recognition Certificate and was declared a woman in all legal matters by the Gender Recognition Panel.

4. The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 as she considered the claim that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman” to be discriminatory as she legally changed her gender in 2018. The complainant considered she was deliberately misgendered with the intention being to offend her.

5. Lastly, the complainant said the article breached Clause 3 in its reporting that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman” as she believed the author of the article had pursued a campaign against her. She added that she felt the words used within the article were designed to cause her suffering and to encourage others to harass her online.

6. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that the complainant was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman”. It said the author of the piece did not believe in gender identity and held the view that it was not possible for a person to change their biological sex. The publication added that such gender critical views were a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and did not consider the claim to be a significant inaccuracy requiring correction. However, prior to IPSO’s investigation and one day after the complainant had complained directly to the publication, it offered to print the following as a footnote at the end of the article:

“Juno Dawson has contacted us to say that, having obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate in 2018, she is legally a woman”.

7. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 12. It believed the reference in the article to the complainant’s gender was relevant, as it put the remarks made by Ms Sturgeon into context and did not consider this to be either prejudicial or pejorative.

8. Lastly, the publication also did not accept it had breached Clause 3. It said it did not accept that publishing this statement amounted to harassment.

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 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

9. The Committee first considered whether the article had breached Clause 1 in reporting that the complainant, who has a Gender Recognition Certificate, was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman”.

10. When making its decision, the Committee had regard to the context: this was a comment piece, clearly distinguished as such by the inclusion of the columnist’s prominent byline, author’s illustration, and the tone, which expressed the author’s opinions of Nicola Sturgeon and her stance on transgender rights. The publication had explained that the author held gender critical views and asserted that these constituted a philosophical belief and were therefore protected under the Equality Act 2010.

11. The Committee took into account that the article made clear the columnist’s views on the issues which were highlighted in the piece. He was critical of what he perceived to be Nicola Sturgeon’s position that “men should be allowed to assume the rights of women at their whim”, describing the self-ID gender legislation passed in Scotland as a “disaster”. Given the context, the Committee considered that the sentence in issue was sufficiently distinguished as being the columnist’s view that the complainant remained biologically male despite the transition process she had undergone rather than being a statement of fact about the complainant’s sex or gender as recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. For these reasons, the Committee did not uphold the complaint of inaccuracy.

12. The Committee next considered whether stating that the complainant was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman” amounted to a pejorative or prejudicial reference to the complainant on the basis of her gender identity.

13. The Editors’ Code protects the right to hold and express a wide range of beliefs, and the columnist was accordingly entitled to express beliefs about gender transition and biological sex.

14. The Editors’ Code also requires, however, that “the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s... gender identity”. In the view of the Committee, referring to the complainant as a man “claiming” to be a woman was personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial of the complainant due to her gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express his views on the broader issues of a person’s sex and gender identity given that this targeted her as an individual. The Committee upheld the complaint of discrimination under Clause 12 (i).

15. The Committee also considered whether the reference to the complainant’s gender identity was genuinely relevant to the story, under Clause 12 (ii). The Committee noted that the terms of the Clause state that details of an individual’s gender identity must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story. The Committee considered that the brief reference to the complainant’s gender identity was genuinely relevant to the story in the context of her public profile as someone who had spoken on transgender issues and in the context of the discussion of Ms Sturgeon’s views towards transgender issues – which arose within the interview the complainant had conducted. As such, there was no breach of Clause 12 (ii) on this point.

16. The Committee also considered the complaint that the words used within the article were designed to cause her suffering and encourage others to harass her online. It noted that Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when gathering news, including the nature and extent of their contacts with the subject of the story. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concern about the impact of the article. It has in the past found that publication could constitute harassment, taking into account a number of factors, including the number of published articles relating to the person concerned; the time period over which the articles were published; the extent to which the subject of the articles might be considered a public figure and the extent to which their activities might arguably have prompted the coverage; the extent to which the articles might reasonably be said to have solely targeted the subject; whether the published information could reasonably be said to be intrusive or offensive; whether the subject matter of the articles was a matter of legitimate interest for readers; the extent to which republication of any material could be said to be prompted by a fresh newsworthy event; whether a reasonable editor could regard the repetition of earlier content and images as relevant; the extent to which the coverage could be expected to cause alarm or distress to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position; and whether publication could be regarded as an abuse of media freedom. The Committee did not consider that this sole brief reference, in the context of a column discussing Nicola Sturgeon’s views on gender identity, could constitute harassment under the terms of Clause 3. There was no breach of Clause 3.

Conclusions

17. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 12 (i).

Remedial action required

18. 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.

19. When considering what remedial action was appropriate, the Committee had regard to the terms of Clause 12 the publication had breached – the article had included a reference to the complainant’s gender identity that the Committee considered to be both pejorative and prejudicial. The Committee had expressed its concern that this reference was personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant. Given the nature of the breach, the appropriate remedial action was the publication of an upheld adjudication.

20. The Committee considered the placement of this adjudication. As the article appeared online only, the adjudication should be published online, with a link to this adjudication (including the headline) being published on the top 50% of the publication’s homepage for 24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual way. If the newspaper intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment to remove the breach identified by the Committee, a link to the adjudication should also be published on the article, beneath the headline. If amended to remove the breach, a link to the adjudication should be published as a footnote correction with an explanation that the article had been amended following the IPSO ruling. The publication should contact IPSO to confirm these amendments it intends to make to the online material to avoid the continued publication of material in breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

21. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as follows:

Juno Dawson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that spectator.co.uk breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The sad truth about ‘saint’ Nicola Sturgeon”, published on 21 May 2024.

The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required spectator.co.uk to publish this adjudication to remedy the breach of the Code.

The article under complaint was a comment piece about Nicola Sturgeon and focused largely on her stance on transgender rights in Scotland. It reported that Nicola Sturgeon “was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender”.

The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 as she considered the claim that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman” to be discriminatory as she legally changed her gender in 2018. The complainant considered she was deliberately misgendered with the intention being to offend her.

IPSO considered referring to the complainant as a man “claiming” to be a woman was personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial to her gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express their views on the broader issues of sex and gender identity. As such, there was a breach of Clause 12 (i) on this point.

Date complaint received: 23/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/10/2024

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.