05686-24 Union of Islamic Student Associations in Europe (UISAE) v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. The Union of Islamic Student Associations in Europe complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Students in Britain ‘are urged to fight war against Iran’s enemies’”, published on 5 August 2023.

2. The article – which appeared on page 38 – reported that a “London-based student organisation [had been] accused of hosting senior commanders of the regime’s paramilitary group, who ha[d] spouted antisemitism and fundamentalist propaganda”. The article later reported that: “The Islamic Students Association of Britain […] was found to have organised a series of contentious talks”, and that the Islamic Students Association of Britain [ISAB] “appear to operate under an umbrella organisation, the Union of Islamic Student Associations in Europe”. Further to this, it said that, “[i]n one talk Saeed Ghasemi, a former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander, told students the Holocaust was ‘fake’ and urged them to join ‘the beautiful list of soldiers’ who would fight and kill Jews”.

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline, “Iran’s Islamic armed forces tell students in UK to wage war on Jews”.

4. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that the “Islamic Students Association of Britain appears to operate under an umbrella organisation, the Union of Islamic Student Associations in Europe”, and that this was not the case as they were separate organisations.

5. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 12. It considered it had only been referenced in the article because the publication held an “Islamophobic and Iranophobic mind view and policy”. It also said it felt the publication consistently attacked Muslims and Iranians and considered this article in particular displayed Islamophobia and “Iranophobia”. It further said that linking all Muslims and/or Iranians to any Islam or Iran related matter due to their Muslim or Iranian background violated Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code, the Equality Act, protected characteristics, and the Declaration of Human Rights.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the complainant’s organisation was an umbrella organisation with member associations in several countries, therefore it did not consider that the article was inaccurate on this point. It acknowledged that the individual member organisations were independently administered, however, it did not consider this meant that the umbrella organisation was not accountable for the actions of the individual member organisations, or that the member organisations were able to take actions at odds with the policies and values of the umbrella organisation to which they belong.

7. The publication said it considered there were overlaps between the complainant and ISAB in personnel, premises, and activity: the fact that ISAB’s previous ‘chairman’ was the head of UISAE at the time of publication; and the fact that one of the complainant’s 40 active offices was also the headquarters of ISAB. The publication added that persons applying to become members of ISAB or those renewing their memberships were invited to do so through the complainant's website.

8. The complainant said the evidence provided by the publication did not support the claim that the two organisations were linked. Rather, it had provided evidence contrary to this, as it believed the evidence suggested that ISAB had its own elections and a Committee that made decisions for it, rather than UISAE holding responsibility over its governance.

9. The publication did not consider the article breached Clause 12 where the complainant’s concerns did not apply to any specific individuals.

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 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

10. The Committee first considered whether the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that the “Islamic Students Association of Britain appears to operate under an umbrella organisation, the Union of Islamic Student Associations in Europe”. When considering this point of complaint, the Committee took into account the evidence provided by the publication in support of its position that ISAB and the complainant’s organisation were linked, including the shared headquarters and the fact that people applying to become members of ISAB or those renewing their memberships were invited to do so through the complainant's website.

11. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position in that it considered the publication suggested that ISAB had its own elections and a committee that made decisions for it, therefore suggesting that the organisations were not linked. However, the publication had provided a basis for linking the two organisations. Further to this, the Committee noted that the article reported that the Islamic Students Association of Britain “appears” to operate under the complainant; this was not presented as definitive fact. Given this, the Committee considered that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of this claim, and that the article was not significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

12. The Committee turned next to the complainant’s complaint under Clause 12. It noted the Clause 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; the terms of this Clause do not apply to groups or categories of people. In these circumstances, where the complainant had not alleged that the article had discriminated against a specific individual, there was no breach of Clause 12.

Conclusions

13. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

14. N/A

Date complaint received: 25/03/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/07/2024

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant 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.