Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 06034-21 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 “We're not drifting into segregation, we're
hurtling perilously towards it”, published on 31 May 2021.
2. The
article was an opinion piece, setting out the writer’s view that “[a] growing
mood of sectarianism threatens to undo the many successes of multiracial
Britain”. In the article, reference was made to a letter to schools, written by
Education Secretary Gavin Williamson, “warning that while pupils are allowed to
express political views, anti-Semitic language and threats must not be
tolerated”. It then went on to state the following: “In response to the Williamson
letter, Miqdaad Versi, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, complained
that the Government was being ‘one-sided’. The letter, of course, was not about
events in Israel, but the harassment of British Jews. In suggesting there might
be two sides to racism, Versi revealed more than he intended about why the
Government refuses to engage with the MCB.”
3. The
complainant was the man who, the article said, “complained that the Government
was being ‘one-sided’” in response to Mr Williamson’s letter. The complainant
said that it was inaccurate to state that he had “suggest[ed] that there might
be two sides to racism.” He said that this was based on misinterpretation of a
Twitter thread he had posted, in which he had stated in response to the letter that:
“We currently have a government which is so one-sided, they are unwilling even
to acknowledge concerns of those children who support Palestine & the
issues they have faced in schools. The bias & unfairness will be felt by
many across the country.”
4. He
said that later tweets clarified that he was not saying that racism was
“one-sided”; rather, he was calling on the government to also take action on
the discrimination and racism encountered by Muslim children, and that not
doing so was “one-sided”. A further tweet referred explicitly to “Muslim
children”, and another stated that “[m]any appear to not realise that calling
for our government to equally care for Muslims, does not detract from caring
for Jewish children facing antisemitism.”
5. Prior
to the complainant contacting IPSO, and outside of the publication’s complaint
process, the complainant wrote a letter to the newspaper for publication,
setting out why he considered the article was inaccurate in its reporting of
his tweet. The letter, which was published, said the following: “I spoke out
because Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, was tone deaf to the bigotry
faced by Muslim children when he wrote about the racism faced by Jewish
children. My plea was simply that Muslim children should not be ignored and I
pointed to many examples where young Muslims were censured for simply saying
‘Free Palestine’ and displaying Palestinian flags.”
6. The
complainant said that he wished for the publication to acknowledge, immediately
correct, and apologise for its error, and for him to be given the right to
reply in an opinion piece to be published in the newspaper. He also wished to
discuss the matter further with the publication to see what more could be done
to compensate for what he considered to be a breach of the Editors’ Code and an
attack on his reputation.
7. The publication said it did not accept that
the Editors’ Code had been breached. It first noted that his original tweet did
not refer to Muslim children, nor to the discrimination encountered by them,
but only to the “concerns of children who support Palestine & the issues
they have faced in schools.” It also said that, as the letter to which the
complainant was responding to referenced specifically a rise in anti-Semitism
and the bullying of Jewish pupils and teachers in the context of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rather than Muslim children generally, it
logically followed that the tweet was addressing those who expressed their
political beliefs about Palestine in a school setting. It also said that the
complainant could not have been complaining “about the Education Secretary
limiting pupils’ rights to express themselves about Palestine sensibly and
respectfully”, as the letter made clear that such expressions were not
prohibited. Therefore, it said, “[b]y taking issue with the letter” the
complainant could “only have been complaining about the prohibition of protests
that cross the line into antisemitism. By complaining that the letter was
‘one-sided’ [the complainant] could not have been saying that the Government
was unreasonably supportive of Israel and not the Palestinians because that was
not what the letter was about. The letter sought to stop the antisemitic
intimidation of Jewish people in schools and [the complainant] chose to
describe that as ‘one-sided’”. As such, the publication said, the columnist was
entitled to interpret the tweet in the manner he did and to question was the
other side of racism was that the complainant referred to; the reference to the
tweet in the article was clearly distinguished as the writer’s interpretation
of the tweet, in line with Clause 1 (iv).
8. The
publication also noted that a letter had been published by the newspaper which
made clear that the complainant disputed the article’s characterisation of his
tweet, and put his position on the record.
9. The
complainant said that the later tweets in the thread made clear that he was
referring to the discrimination faced by Muslim children who expressed their
support for Palestine; he noted that the one posted immediately after his first
tweet stated that “"No care about the Islamophobia that students have
faced, the assumptions of inciting terror, the double standards on flags /
posters. Those who reject Israel's right to exist are excluded. But not those
who reject Palestine's right to exist? Not those who support apartheid?"
He said that he had chosen to highlight the issue as he had been personally
approached by the parents of Muslim children who had been mistreated at school
after expressing their support of Palestine.
Relevant
Code Provision
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
Editors’ Code makes clear that the press is entitled to campaign, be partisan,
and express an opinion. However, there remains an obligation under the Clause 1
to take care over the accuracy of any claims of fact made within a comment
piece and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. Neither party
disputed that the alleged breach of Clause 1 had appeared in the context of a
comment piece; what was in dispute was whether the alleged breach – that the
complainant had “suggest[ed] that there were two-sides to racism” – was
presented as fact or comment within the comment piece.
11. The
column was critical of the complainant, and it was clear that the writer was
not speaking on behalf of the complainant nor setting out what his intent was
in criticising the government. Instead, the writer had quoted the complainant’s
“one-sided” comment regarding the tweet, and had interpreted the tweet as the
complainant “suggesting that there were two-sides to racism”. It was not in dispute that, as the article
reported, the complainant “[i]n response to the Williamson letter […]
complained that the Government was being ‘one-sided’.” This was the factual basis for the writer’s
characterisation of the tweet, which was that “[i]n suggesting there might be
two sides to racism, Versi revealed more than he intended about why the
Government refuses to engage with the MCB”. This was clearly distinguished as
the writer’s interpretation of the tweet by way of the use of the phrases
“suggesting”, “might”, and “revealed”; the tweet had, according to the writer,
“suggest[ed]” that “there might be two sides to racism”, and this had
“revealed” something to the writer. The phrases appropriately distinguished
this as the writer’s comment on the tweet, rather than a statement of fact that
the complainant had said there were “two-sides to racism”. The complainant was
entitled to dispute this interpretation, but where it was based on a portion of
the complainant’s own tweet in which he referred to the Williamson letter about
anti-Semitism in schools as “one-sided” – therefore setting out the basis for
the writer’s interpretation – and it was clearly distinguished as the writer’s
characterisation of the tweet, there was no failure to distinguish between
comment and fact and there was no breach of Clause 1.
12. While the Committee did not find a breach of
Clause 1, it welcomed the publication’s decision to publish a letter from the
complainant and giving him the opportunity to put his position on record
regarding what he considered to be a misinterpretation of this original tweet.
Conclusion
13. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
14. N/A
Date
complaint received: 03/06/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/10/2021
Back to ruling listing