22210-23 Union of Islamic Student Associations in Europe (UISAE) v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. The Union of Islamic Student Associations in Europe (UISAE) complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Protests provoke fear over groups linked to Tehran”, published on 3 November 2023.

2. The article – which appeared on page 8 – reported that “officials ha[d] identified more than half a dozen UK-based groups with direct ties to Tehran”, and went on to report that “Whitehall briefings, informed by intelligence, suggest that Tehran has links to a core group of institutions to assert soft power, drive influence and sow tension”. It also reported that “[o]fficials ha[d] specifically raised concerns about groups who appear to have glorified Iran’s revolutionary guard [IRGC], which is notorious for its brutality”.

3. The article also appeared online under the headline “Revealed: The Iran-linked groups feared to be stirring up tension over Israel”. It included additional information which did not appear in the print version of the article: it reported that in “August, it emerged that the [complainant] which ha[d] the express backing of the supreme leader, had hosted several senior IRGC figures in online talks viewed by British students, who were encouraged to fight in an ‘apocalyptic war’ against Iran’s enemies and Jews”, and that the complainant “shared a clip of Khamenei’s speech spliced with footage of London protests on Telegram on Wednesday” – which it also referred to as “Khamenei’s propaganda”. The article also reported that the complainant, “not among those named by officials, ha[d] previously denied ties to Tehran, including direct or indirect affiliation to the IRGC". In addition to this, the article said that “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s official social media has praised the UK’s mass protest movement. His regime refused to condemn the Hamas atrocities and described them as ’legitimate self-defence’”.

4. The complainant said the headline of the online article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said that the article reported that UISAE was "not among those named by officials [and] has previously denied ties to Tehran, including direct or indirect affiliation to the IRGC". The complainant said this proved the headline was inaccurate and was not supported by the text of the article, and that there were no links between UISAE and Iran. It said that it was an independent student-led group with no affiliation with any government or entity. It added that its constitution forbade any ties and affiliations to any government or entity.

5. The complainant also said both versions of the article breached Clause 1, as they omitted part of a statement it had made to the newspaper, which was that it had “never had any direct or indirect affiliation to the IRGC or any army, government or security group anywhere in the world". The complainant acknowledged that the article included part of its denial – that it had denied “ties to Tehran”– but considered that the article deliberately excluded the remainder of its statement to mislead readers.

6. The complainant said the online article inaccurately reported that in “August, it emerged that” it “had hosted several senior IRGC figures in online talks viewed by British students, who were encouraged to fight in an ‘apocalyptic war’ against Iran’s enemies and Jews”. It said that it was alleged that another organisation hosted this event, and that this organisation it was run by a separate executive Committee, comprised of student volunteers, who were elected annually by the students. The complainant also said that the article inaccurately focused on events held by another iteration of the organisation rather than events held by the current committee.

7. The complainant also said both versions of the article were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it was not approached for comment prior to the article’s publication. It considered this was poor journalism, and appeared to be deliberately misleading in an attempt to portray narratives that did not exist. It felt that both versions of the article included numerous accusations and words it considered to be inaccurate and taken out-of-context, with a view to construct a narrative it considered fitted the “propaganda goal”.

8. The complainant said the online article breached Clause 1 as it reported that the organisation had “shared a clip of Khamenei’s speech spliced with footage of London protests”, and referred to this as “Khamenei’s propaganda”. The complainant said this attributed the video to Iranian media when it was actually taken from UK news organisations. It also said that “by definition, a speech refers to a speech given in its entirety”, and that it considered that “a 47 second reel including music, pictures, videos and a segment of a speech [wa]s not the definition of a clip of a speech”. Further, the complainant said that referring to the clip as “propaganda” was a misrepresentation that was deliberately misleading to the reader.

9. The complainant also said both versions of the article were inaccurate as it believed the publication failed to carry out “comprehensive journalism and negates our statement calling for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid and prosecution of war crimes, genocide and violation of international law”.

10. The complainant said the online article breached Clause 2 as it included “digital communications”, namely messages posted on a Telegram channel, that were intended for its members.

11. The complainant said the article breached Clause 3 as it believed the publication had printed “continuous harassment towards Muslims”, and because it had published articles about UISAE and its members.

12. The complainant said the article breached Clause 4 as it believed the publication had intruded into the grief and shock people felt in relation to the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict.

13. The complainant said the article breached Clause 10 as no consent was sought when using messages taken from its Telegram channel.

14. The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 because it “singled out and targeted” Muslims, and because it discriminated against members of UISAE based on their religion and ethnic background.

15. The publication did not accept that the headline of the online version of the article breached Clause 1. It said the article discussed various other groups it considered had links to Iran, and did not specifically identify the complainant’s organisation in the headline. It therefore considered that the article supported and clarified the headline, as it made clear which organisations had been “linked to Tehran”.

16. The publication did not consider that omitting parts of the complainant’s statement rendered the article inaccurate or misleading, given that the article reported that UISAE was “not among those named by officials” and had “previously denied ties to Tehran, including direct or indirect affiliation to the IRGC”.

17. The publication did not consider that reporting that the complainant “had hosted several senior IRGC figures in online talks viewed by British students, who were encouraged to fight in an ‘apocalyptic war’ against Iran’s enemies and Jews” was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said that the UISAE was an umbrella organisation with member associations – including the organisation that had hosted the event – and 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 – in this case, the complainant – 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 UISAE.

18. The publication also said there were overlaps between the UISAE and the organisation which had hosted the talks: the other organisation’s previous chairman was the head of UISAE at the time of publication; and that persons applying to become members of the hosting organisation or those renewing their memberships were invited to do so through the complainant's website; and the fact that there were about 40 active offices in the UISAE, one of which was shared with the hosting organisation’s headquarters.

19. The publication did not consider Clause 1 had been breached as it had not contacted the complainant prior to the article’s publication. It said that the Editors’ Code does not require publications to contact the subject of article before it is published – unless this is necessary in order to take care the article is accurate, or to give the subject the opportunity to respond to any significant inaccuracies in articles that had been published.

20. The publication did not consider that it was inaccurate to refer to the video shared by the complainant as “propaganda”. It said the term was subjective and that the article set out the basis for why messages from Khamenei’s regime, part of which were shared on the complainant’s Telegram channel, could reasonably be considered to be “propaganda”. In addition to this, the publication did not consider referring to the video as a “clip” was inaccurate; it said this term was generally understood to denote a short potion of a longer video, and the complainant accepted that the reel included “a segment of a speech”. Further to this, the publication said it was not inaccurate to omit that the footage had been taken from UK sources, given the article did not claim otherwise.

21.The publication did not consider the complainant’s allegation that it had failed to carry out “comprehensive journalism” and “negated” the complainant’s statement calling for a ceasefire was inaccurate. It said the article focused on concerns about UK-based groups with perceived direct ties to Tehran stirring up tension in relation to the conflict in Israel and reported on the complainant’s alleged links to Tehran, while making clear that the complainant denied any such link. The publication did not consider the omission of the entirety of the complainant’s statement – which the complainant believed to be relevant – rendered the article inaccurate or misleading.

22. The publication did not consider that it had breached Clause 2. It said the online article referenced a Telegram post by the complainant – which was sent to a group seen by roughly 100 people. However, as the article did not include the exact wording of the post and only referenced that a clip had been shared on Telegram, the publication did not consider the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding this information.

23. The publication did not consider that the terms of Clause 3 were relevant to the complainant’s concerns, given that the complainant was an organisation, and the terms of Clause 3 protect individuals rather than organisations.

24. The publication did not consider that the article breached Clause 4 as the Clause specifically refers to a “personal” experience of grief or shock. Therefore, the complainant’s concerns which related to circumstances of general shared grief experienced by a population or large group, were not relevant to the terms of the Clause.

25. The publication did not consider that the article breached Clause 10 where the complainant’s concerns did not appear to relate to information being obtained through clandestine means or by the use of subterfuge.

26. The publication did not consider the article breached Clause 12, given that the complainant had not alleged that a specific individual had been discriminated against.

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 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

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 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

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

27. The Committee first considered whether the headline of the online version of the article was inaccurate and unsupported by the text of the article. The complainant considered that including its denial of having “ties to Tehran” rendered the headline of the article inaccurate and provided evidence that the organisation was not linked to Iran. The text of the article later clarified why the complainant’s organisation had been referenced in the article: the organisation “had hosted several senior IRGC figures”. The article also included the organisation’s denial of having “ties” to Iran. As such, the Committee considered the headline was not inaccurate and was supported by the text of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1.

28. The Committee also considered whether the article breached Clause 1 by omitting parts of the complainant’s statement. The Committee did not consider that the omission of the phrase: "any army, government or security group anywhere in the world", rendered the article inaccurate or misleading, in circumstances where the article included the complainant’s denial in relation to the core claim being made by the article that it had “ties to Tehran”. The Committee did not consider this was a breach of Clause 1.

29. The Committee next considered whether the online article inaccurately reported that the complainant “had hosted several senior IRGC figures in online talks viewed by British students, who were encouraged to fight in an ‘apocalyptic war’ against Iran’s enemies and Jews”. The complainant had said that it was another organisation who had hosted this talk. When considering this alleged inaccuracy, the Committee took into account the evidence provided by the publication in support of its position that the hosting organisation had close links with the complainant including: the shared headquarters; the materials used to promote links to Zoom content that displayed logos that included both ‘Islamic Students Associations of Britain’ and ‘UISAEUK’; and the fact that persons applying to become members of the other organisation or those renewing their memberships were invited to do so through the complainant's website.

30. Given that the publication had provided a basis for linking the two organisations. 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.

31. The Committee then considered whether Clause 1 had been breached as the publication had not approached the complainant for comment prior to the publication of the article. The Committee noted that the Editors’ Code of Practice does not include a standalone requirement for publications to contact interested parties ahead of an article’s publication, provided the resulting article does not include any inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. Given that the article did not include any such inaccuracies, there was no breach of Clause 1 in this instance.

32. The Committee then considered whether not reporting that footage of a speech shared by the complainant had been taken from UK media sources breached Clause 1. The Committee noted that the article did not state where the footage originated from. Rather, it reported that the complainant had shared this footage alongside a clip of “Khamenei’s speech”. In any event, the Committee did not consider that omitting to mention the source of the footage rendered the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

33. The Committee then considered whether the online article inaccurately referred to the video, shared of the speech, as a “clip”. Where the complainant accepted that the video did include “a segment of a speech”, and where the publication suggested that a “clip” is generally understood to be a short portion of a larger video, the Committee did not consider that this was inaccurate, distorted, or misleading. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

34. The Committee turned to the question of whether the online article inaccurately characterised the speech spliced with the footage of the protests as “Khamenei’s propaganda”. The Committee acknowledged the complainant felt this misrepresented the video. However, the term “propaganda” is inherently subjective, and the article set out is basis for reporting that the video was propaganda – by informing readers that “[Khamenei’s] regime refused to condemn the Hamas atrocities and described them as ‘legitimate self-defence’”. Therefore, The Committee did not consider that the article was misleading, inaccurate, or distorted on this point and there was no breach of Clause 1.

35. The Committee next considered whether the publication had breached Clause 1 by failing to carry out “comprehensive journalism” according to the complainant. Given that the complainant had not alleged any specific inaccuracies on this point, and the terms of Clause 1 relate to the publication of inaccurate, misleading, and distorted information, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

36. Turning next to the alleged breach of Clause 2, the Committee noted that the complainant was not acting on behalf of any specific named individuals who had alleged that their private and family lives had been intruded upon. It further noted that organisations do not have private or family lives that can be subject to intrusion. For these reasons, there was no breach of Clause 2.

37. The Committee considered whether the article breached Clause 3. As noted above, the complainant was not acting on behalf of any specific individuals. Given that the terms of Clause 3 protect individuals from harassment, rather than groups of people or organisations, there was no breach of Clause 3.

38. The Committee next considered whether the article had breached Clause 4. It noted that the terms of Clause 4 refer specifically to a “personal” experience of grief or shock, rather than to circumstances of general shared grief experienced by a population or large group. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 4.

39. The complainant expressed concerns that “no consent was sought [by the publication] to access [its] digitally held information”, and that this represented a breach of Clause 10. This Clause does not say that consent is required to access information held on social media platforms such as Telegram. As such, there was no breach of Clause 10.

40. Finally, the Committee considered the complaint under Clause 12. It noted that 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

41. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

42. N/A

Date complaint received: 04/11/2023

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.