01241-24 Muslim Association of Britain v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. The Muslim Association of Britain complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The Islamist threat is all too real – Gove understands it needs tackling”, published on 18 March 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 16 – set out the writer’s views on the Conservative government’s definition of extremism. The article reported the complainant, “the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) is one of several organisations declared extremist by Michael Gove in Parliament last week”. It went on to state that the complainant’s "concern for civil liberties does not apply to those who criticise Islamism, comment on Islam in ways it dislikes, or depict Mohammed in ways it finds offensive," and that it “demands ‘action’ against those who blaspheme – even if the blasphemers are not Muslim. It is among the organisations pushing for an official definition of ‘Islamophobia’, a one-religion blasphemy law that would be used to limit scrutiny of Islamists.”

3. The article also appeared online in substantively the same form; this version of the article was published on 17 March 2024.

4. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said the minister had not said it was extremist but had instead said it was one of a number of organisations which "give rise to concern because of their Islamist orientation and views". It said the Michael Gove had said he would hold the organisation and others "to account to assess whether they meet our definition of extremism and will take action as appropriate."

5. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate because it claimed that the organisation’s "concern for civil liberties does not apply to those who criticise Islamism, comment on Islam in ways it dislikes, or depict Mohammed in ways it finds offensive." It said that, as an organisation, it unequivocally believed in upholding civil liberties for all individuals, regardless of their opinions or beliefs.

6. The complainant also said the article breached of Clause 12 because it used language that perpetuated harmful stereotypes and contributed to the stigmatisation of Islam and Muslims in British society. It said terms such as "Islamist threat" implied Muslims were collectively guilty and fuelled Islamophobia, which it said had real and damaging consequences for individuals and communities.

7. On 18 March, the complainant contacted the publication to make it aware of its concerns. It did not receive a response. The complainant then contacted IPSO on 21 March, raising the same points of complaint under Clause 1, and an additional point of complaint under Clause 12. On the same date – IPSO made the publication aware that the article raised a possible breach of the Code.

8. On 2 April, 12 days later, the publication responded to the complainant. It accepted it had inaccurately reported the Michael Gove’s comments and said this was due to human error. The next day, it printed the following correction on its Corrections & Clarifications page:

“An article ‘The Islamist threat is all too real - Gove understands it needs tackling’ (March,18) reported that Michael Gove had declared the Muslim Association of Britain extremist. In fact, Michael Gove said the Government would assess if the Muslim Association of Britain was extremist. We are happy to correct the record.”

On 2 April, it also amended the online article, to state that the complainant was “one of several organisations to be assessed to see if they meet a new definition of extremism, Michael Gove said in Parliament last week” and added the following as a footnote to the article:

“An earlier version of this article reported that Michael Gove had declared the Muslim Association of Britain extremist. In fact, Michael Gove said the Government would assess if the Muslim Association of Britain was extremist. We are happy to correct the record.”

The same day, it printed the following as a standalone correction in its Online Corrections and Clarifications page, which was linked to on it homepage:

“An article ‘The Islamist threat is all too real - Gove understands it needs tackling’ (March,18) reported that Michael Gove had declared the Muslim Association of Britain extremist. In fact, Michael Gove said the Government would assess if the Muslim Association of Britain was extremist. We are happy to correct the record.”

9. The publication did not accept it had inaccurately reported that the complainant’s “concern for civil liberties does not apply to those who criticise Islamism, comment on Islam in ways it dislikes, or depict Mohammed in ways it finds offensive." It said the article was a comment piece, and it was clear from the presentation of this claim that it was the writer’s opinion of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, to which he considered the organisation subscribed. It said that, while the complainant may disagree with the writer opinions, he was entitled to write about them. It also said that the writer’s opinion was based on the complainant’s conduct as an organisation: for example, it said that the complainant had requested a school investigate and take appropriate action against a teacher who had shown a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed as part of a Religious Studies lesson.

10. The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 12. It said the purpose of the Clause was to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination and it did not apply to groups or categories of people. It said as the organisation’s complaint was that the article used language which discriminated against Muslim individuals and communities in general rather than to an individual, the Clause was not engaged.

11. The complainant said the corrections offered by the publication were not sufficient to resolve its concerns. It said that this was because they did not include an apology. It said the error could cause significant damage to its reputation and standing, leading to unwarranted distress and harm for both the organisation itself and those it represented.

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

12. The publication did not dispute it was inaccurate to report “the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) is one of several organisations declared extremist by Michael Gove in Parliament last week”, and that Mr Gove had instead he would “assess whether [MAB] meet our definition of extremism and will take action as appropriate.". It was unable to outline the care it had taken to prevent this inaccuracy occurring; it had simply said it was due to human error. The Committee considered had been a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

13. The inaccuracy related to a serious allegation against the complainant: that the government considered it to be an extremist organisation. It also misrepresented remarks made under parliamentary privilege by a serving government minister. The Committee therefore considered the inaccuracy was significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii).

14. The corrections offered by the publication identified the inaccurate information and put the correct position on the record, making clear it was inaccurate to state Michael Gove had said the Muslim Association of Britain was extremist, and that instead he had said the government would assess whether the organisation met the new definition. The proposed corrections were also sufficiently prominent, taking into account the fact that the online article had been amended to remove the original inaccurate information, and the fact that information had only appeared in the text of the article – rather than in the headline. Although the complainant had requested the publication publish an apology, the Committee did not consider that this was required in the circumstances of this specific case: while the inaccuracy was significant, it was not in dispute that a serving government minister had expressed some concerns about the complainant and had said that he would hold the complainant to account. In this case, therefore, the Committee did not consider that the inaccurate information required an apology to remedy it.

15. However, the corrections were not offered until 16 days after the organisation first contacted the publication to make it aware of the inaccuracy. The Committee accepted it can take publications a number of days to clarify the accuracy of information; for instance when there is a need to communicate with multiple sources to verify information, or to establish the correct position. However, in this case, the correct position was readily available – a record of what is said in parliament is easily accessible via Hansard. Taking this into account, the Committee did not consider that the corrections had been offered with sufficient promptness and there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in this regard.

16. The Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s "concern for civil liberties does not apply to those who criticise Islamism, comment on Islam in ways it dislikes, or depict Mohammed in ways it finds offensive." The Committee appreciated that the organisation did not agree with this. However, it considered whether or not an organisation can be said to “have respect for civil liberties” to be a subjective opinion – the organisation’s actions and positions could be interpreted in different ways by different individuals. This was particularly the case given the context of this claim; it appeared in a clearly distinguished opinion piece, setting out the writer’s views on a matter of public debate. Further, the basis for the claim, that the organisation wished to introduce a new definition of Islamophobia which the writer disagreed with, was made clear and included in the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

17. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns the article breached Clause 12. Clause 12 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. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. The organisation’s concern that the article discriminated against Muslim people in general did not relate to an individual. There was no breach of the Clause.

Remedial action

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. The Committee considered that the inaccuracy - namely, the claim that the complainant had been declared an extremist organisation by Michael Gove in Parliament – was significantly inaccurate and therefore in need of correction.

20. While the correction had not been offered with due promptness, the publication had offered to correct the inaccuracy, with sufficient prominence. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that the publication of additional corrections, making clear that IPSO had upheld the complaint, was the appropriate remedy for the breach. Given that the previous corrections’ wording was adequate to address the breach of the Code, the wording should remain the same, but with the addition of a reference to the fact that it has been republished following an upheld IPSO complaint.

21. The Committee then considered the placement of these corrections.

22. The additional print correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column.

23. Given that the complaint was upheld due to a delay in the publication’s correction, the Committee considered that the online version of the correction should appear as a standalone correction and a link to this correction should appear on the top half of the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way.

24. The wording of all corrections should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that they had been republished following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Conclusions

25. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1.

Date complaint received: 21/03/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/08/2024