October 24, 2016

Fatima Manji complained to IPSO that The Sun had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “KELVIN MACKENZIE: why did Channel 4 have a presenter in a hijab fronting coverage of Muslim terror in Nice”, published on 18 July 2016.

The article appeared as part of a regular column.  In it, the columnist described his reaction to seeing the complainant presenting Channel 4 News’ coverage of a terrorist attack in Nice.  He said that he “could hardly believe his eyes” that the presenter, the complainant, “was not one of the regulars… but a young lady in a hijab”.  He questioned whether it was “appropriate for her to be on camera when there had been yet another shocking slaughter by a Muslim”.

Ms Manji said that the article discriminated against her on the basis of her religion: it suggested that her appearance on screen wearing a hijab was as distressing as witnessing a terrorist attack; that her sympathies would lie with the terrorists because she is Muslim; that Muslims in general are terrorist sympathisers; and that she should be prevented from enjoying a career as a television news presenter on the basis of her adoption of a religious item of dress.

Ms Manji was also concerned that the article had inaccurately claimed that Islam was “a violent religion” and had given the misleading impression that she had been chosen to present the news that evening as part of a “TV news game”.  In fact, she had already been rostered to present that evening, ten days prior to the attack.  Ms Manji said that the article had targeted her deliberately, causing her intimidation and distress, and whipping up hatred against her, and Muslims generally.  She considered this breached Clause 3 of the Code.

The IPSO Complaints Committee found that the column, read as a whole, questioned whether it was appropriate that Channel 4 had permitted news of the atrocity in Nice to be read by a newsreader wearing the outward manifestation of the religion that the columnist associated with that attack.  It set out the columnist’s opinion on the hijab, Islam in general and Channel 4’s choice of interviewee.

The Committee said: “There can be no doubt that this was deeply offensive to the complainant and caused widespread concern and distress to others”.  This was demonstrated by the number of complaints IPSO received.  The Committee said that it “understood the complainant’s position”, that she was doing no more than fulfilling her duties as a newsreader, while observing those tenets of the religion to which she adheres.

Further, the Committee said, the article was highly critical of Channel 4 for permitting a newsreader to wear the hijab.  It also contained pejorative references to Islam.  However, the essential question for the Committee was, it said, “whether those references were directed at the complainant”.

The Committee noted that Clause 12 seeks to protect individuals while respecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression enshrined in the preamble to the Code.  It prohibits prejudicial or pejorative references to an individual on account of, amongst other things, that individual’s religion.  However, it does not prohibit prejudicial or pejorative references to a particular religion, even though such disparaging criticisms may cause distress and offence.  “It should not be interpreted as preventing such criticism merely because, as is inescapable, many individuals subscribe to that particular faith.  Were it otherwise, the freedom of the press to engage in discussion, criticism and debate about religious ideas and practices, including the wearing of religious symbols while reading the news, would be restricted, the Committee said.

The Committee found that the article did refer to the complainant.  However, it did so “to explain what triggered the discussion about a subject of legitimate debate: whether newsreaders should be allowed to wear religious symbols”.  In the Committee’s view, the columnist was permitted to identify what prompted his discussion, rather than merely raising it in the abstract.  Furthermore, he was entitled to express his view that, in the context of a terrorist act that had been carried out ostensibly in the name of Islam, it was inappropriate for a person wearing Islamic dress to present coverage of the story.

The Committee concluded that, while the columnist’s opinions were undoubtedly offensive to Ms Manji, and to others, these were views he had been entitled to express.  The article did not include a prejudicial or pejorative reference to Ms Manji on the grounds of her religion.  Accordingly, it was not a breach of Clause 12.

As for Clause 3 (Harassment) in the light of its findings under Clause 12, and given that the course of conduct complained of was the publication of a single article on a matter which, while sensitive, was the subject of legitimate public debate, the Committee took the view that it did not amount to harassment under Clause 3.

As for Clause 1 (Accuracy) the columnist’s view that Islam is “clearly a violent religion” was a statement of his opinion.  This view, however extreme or offensive to many, did not raise a breach of Clause 1.  The suggestion that Ms Manji was a part of a “tv news game” was clearly conjecture, and underlined that the author’s criticism was directed at Channel 4 and not at the individual newsreader.  There was no breach of Clause 1.

The complaint was not upheld.

Commenting on the complaint brought by Fatima Manji against The Sun (see item above), IPSO Chief Executive Matt Tee said:

“IPSO received more than 1,900 complaints about Kelvin McKenzie’s piece and our Complaints Committee acknowledged in its ruling that many of those complainants, including Ms Manji herself, found the article both distressing and offensive. 

“In reaching its decision that the article did not breach the Code, the Complaints Committee noted the balance between protecting the rights of individuals with freedom of expression.  While the Code prohibits prejudicial or pejorative references to an individual, this is not the case for a particular religion, even though such criticisms may cause offence”.

“IPSO is committed to a trusted, free and responsible press and will reach our judgements only after careful and considered discussion of the evidence we receive from complainant and newspaper.  We know our ruling will not please everyone but we are confident that our conclusion is the right one”.

05935-16 Manji v The Sun (29 September 2016) — to read Decision of the Complaints Committee in full, click here. To read IPSO’s news release, click here.