In a democratic society the press must be accountable for stirring up hate 

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) was set up in the wake of the Leveson report on phone hacking. The public were told it would have “very real teeth” and be “tough”, but IPSO’s Board contains people who come from the very organisations it regulates. Worse still, when deciding on complaints about hate speech, that causes real damage to British society, IPSO has repeatedly sided with those organisations. With your support, I will bring a judicial review test case to challenge this shameful state of affairs.

My case arises out of hundreds of complaints made to IPSO in August 2017. A Sun columnist, Trevor Kavanagh, had used the rightful conviction of a gang for serious sexual exploitation offences as a pretext for wildly discriminatory, inaccurate and inflammatory comments about a “problem” with “young, single migrant men,” that was “turbocharged” by “over a million more so-called refugees,” had a “common denominator…  Islam,” and involved “Muslim sex crimes.” His article closed with this question: “…what will we do about The Muslim Problem then?” a sinister echo of the words used by the Nazis in 1940s Germany.

Mr Kavanagh was then a board member of IPSO and so responsible for overseeing, appointing and remunerating its Complaints Committee members. They investigated only my complaint - so other complainants were silenced. My complaint was then rejected, demonstrating inbuilt appearance of bias and ineffective protection against discrimination and hate speech. Freedom of speech must be protected, but journalists should be accurate and fair in their comment and held accountable for hate speech by their regulators. Please support my case and help bring about that accountability.

Who am I and why do I care?

I'm Rachel, an individual involved in equality education. I work with young people and adults on an almost daily basis to open up conversations on controversial issues, and provide opportunities for critical thinking and discussion. I recognise the importance of talking about sensitive topics, but I’m a firm believer that these conversations should be mindful of facts, and undertaken with care.

I am often told by students as young as 8 years old that the press holds significant power in influencing people’s opinions, and that spreading harmful stereotypes and misinformation can lead to prejudice, and unfair treatment. Just today a student told me she believes people are likely to trust a journalist, as they have been given the power and responsibility to write on these topics and therefore “must know more about it than I do.”

Press regulation is not about censorship; it is about maintaining fair and decent standards that the public can confidently expect will be upheld. Journalists should not be above the law, and those with the power to influence opinions must be held accountable for the words they choose, and the consequences those words could have.

It is a demonstration of the unfairness of the process that I am currently the sole complainant, despite hundreds of complaints being submitted. I do not undertake this review to speak for others, but hopefully to speak with them, condemning hatred, and encouraging fairer regulation.

The law does not come cheap, so I am raising funds to support a judicial review, to pay the legal fees involved, but I also hope this crowdfunding platform will serve to bring people together from all communities and walks of life to stand together to condemn hate speech, and work towards a free and fair press. I hope I can count on you to stand with me.

The case 

I intend to bring a judicial review, to challenge the unlawful decision that IPSO made on this article. The case highlights that IPSO have inconsistent regulation with regards to discrimination and accuracy, that hundreds of complainants went unheard, and there was a clear appearance of bias, as the journalist who wrote the article sat on IPSO's board for the duration of the investigation.

What does success look like?

First, if the judicial review succeeds, it will mean the decision on this article will have to be made afresh, taking into account all of the complaints submitted, and with safeguards against bias. 

But the case has even greater implications. It could lead to press regulation being improved by removing the risk of bias in many other IPSO decisions. And it could lead to the Editors’ Code being interpreted, or suitably amended, to effectively protect against discrimination and hate speech within the press.

Why is this important?

What the press say has consequences. Islamophobia has increased alarmingly in recent years, as have hate crimes generally, particularly since the EU Referendum. There have been several previous complaints made regarding Islamophobia within the press, prompting the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) to call for an investigation into press racism. While freedom of speech and expression is an important human right, in exercising our rights we should not infringe upon the rights of others in a way that harms them. The rights to live in safety and dignity, free from discrimination with freedom of religious belief are all vital in a democracy. This is why the law has always recognised that hate speech should be regulated.

Regulating its members is IPSO’s job. It exists to ensure reporting is fair, accurate and is held up to suitable standards. Like any other regulator, IPSO should be accountable to the Courts. If it appears biased and really is free to interpret the Editors’ Code to allow articles of this kind to be published with impunity, it is completely unfit for purpose.  

How much am I raising and why?

I am raising £25,000 to for my lawyers to prepare and issue the case ,and  seek the Court’s permission for judicial review. I also need to set aside some of this money in case the case fails and IPSO seeks its costs. I will ask the Court for protection against further costs at the next stage.

What is the next step in the case?

IPSO has a few days left to respond to the letter before claim, after which my legal team will need to prepare the judicial review for issue.  But this will only be possible with your support.

Case background

In 2017, I complained about a Sun article entitled, ‘Now Philip Hammond is finally Out he must shut the door behind him and take control over our laws, our trade and especially immigration’. Part way through the article, its focus shifts to migrants, refugees and Muslims, who are said to be responsible for particular crimes. Muslims are said to be “a specific problem”. Readers are expected to speculate on “what will we do about The Muslim Problem… ?”

The comments that followed left no doubt about the intent and nature of the article.

Hundreds of complaints – a single,  unlawful response from IPSO

I complained that Mr Kavanagh’s article breached two key principles of IPSO’s Editors’ Code which are supposed to guard against inaccurate statements and discriminatory reporting that targets people on racial or religious grounds. There were many other complaints (over 200, according to one report), including one from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. In parallel with the IPSO complaints, 107 MPs from across parties also wrote a letter to The Sun’s editor condemning the article.

But only my complaint was used in the investigation of the article by IPSO’s Complaints Committee and I was told the whole process was confidential, so I could not liaise with other complainants. The net result was that what other complainants had to say was ignored and they had no opportunity to respond to The Sun’s defence. I provided ample factual evidence to prove many of the points in the article inaccurate. I argued emphatically that the discrimination was blatant and, should IPSO decide that the Editors’ Code did not protect against this kind of discrimination, then the Code would not be fit for purpose.

Outrageously, the complaint was not upheld. The decision is a masterpiece of sophistry, with IPSO arguing that the inaccuracies are just a columnist’s opinions and “could not be understood as a claim of fact,” and that while they recognise that the article “was capable of causing serious offence, given it could be interpreted as a reference to the rhetoric preceding the Holocaust,” it did not breach the Code’s provisions on discrimination either. IPSO claimed “an individual” would be protected against discrimination, but groups of individuals were not. Yet its own guidance says that “identifiable groups” are protected - and identifying particular racial and religious groups and attributing criminality to them was the whole point of Mr Kavanagh’s article.

Perhaps the decision is less surprising when we remember that Mr Kavanagh sat on IPSO’s Board throughout the investigation. Though he was not a member of the IPSO Complaints Committee, its members are appointed by the Board and it decides what they are paid, raising serious concerns about IPSO’s ‘independence’ and highlighting a clear bias built into the process.

The time has come to hold IPSO to account in the Courts. Importantly, this case is not about suppressing free speech (which IPSO cannot do). It is about the press being fair when they speak freely and accountable to an unbiased and genuinely independent regulator when they are not.

What next? 

 IPSO has a few days left to respond to the letter before claim, after which my legal team will need to prepare the judicial review for issue.  But this will only be possible with your support.