25 signatures reached
To: The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)
Call for the Press Standards Organisation To Outlaw the Language of Hatred.
“We ask the Independent Press Standards Organisation to make a public pledge to outlaw the language of hatred, by
a) extending its (Clause 12) anti-discrimination regulations to cover groups of people as well as individuals, thus aligning its Editors’ Code of Practise with UK law
b) better enforcing its Code of Practise”
a) extending its (Clause 12) anti-discrimination regulations to cover groups of people as well as individuals, thus aligning its Editors’ Code of Practise with UK law
b) better enforcing its Code of Practise”
Why is this important?
a) EXTEND CLAUSE 12 TO COVER GROUPS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS
When Sun columnist Katie Hopkins referred to asylum seekers and migrants as ‘cockroaches’, ‘a swarm’, ‘a plague’ a ‘virus’ ; ‘vagrants’ ‘feral humans’ - who if they did reach our shores turned our towns into ‘festering sores’”,
she did not in any way breach Press Organisation standards, according to the IPSO ruling, which was again defended by its chief executive Matt Tee a few days ago. “In terms of the Editors’ Code, there wasn’t anything that could lead to a successful complaint against that column.” he said in his statement.
And that’s because the Code is inadequate.
In its ruling, this Press self-regulatory body said it could not even CONSIDER the complaints under the element of its Editors' Code of Practice dealing with discrimination, (Clause 12) as, although this “specifically prohibits prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals” its terms “do not restrict publications’ commentary on GROUPS OR CATEGORIES OF people”. (Emphasis mine)
But on those terms therefore, the IPSO Code of Practice would allow publications to use similarly vile language, about the disabled, about any racial or religious group, about people of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, just so long as the comment referred to the group as a whole, and not to any specific individual.
At present, under the section headed Discrimination, the IPSO Code states :
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.
We suggest that the words “or group’s” simply be added, between the words “individual’s” and “race”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following publication of Hopkins' column, other newspaper columnists expressed their horror at her remarks, more than 300,000 people signed a petition calling for her to be fired, and the High Commissioner of the United Nations expressed his deep concern.
GENEVA “. . . in the wake of a recent article in the Sun newspaper calling migrants “cockroaches,” the UN Human Rights Chief . . urged the U.K. authorities, media and regulatory bodies to take steps to curb incitement to hatred by British tabloid newspapers”
UK LAWS dealing with hate crimes and hate speech, DO outlaw expressions of hatred against ‘groups’ of people (see below).
And they state that a person is guilty of an offence if by his/her actions “(s)he intends to stir up . . . hatred, or . . hatred is likely to be stirred up. “
The Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 all say “ . . hatred means hatred against a group of persons . . . (defined by reference to race, religion, or sexual orientation.) Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a crime is considered to be ‘aggravated’ if the offence is motivated by [general] “hostility towards persons . . “ (plural) - who have a disability.
Surely the wording of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, with reference to discrimination, should at the very least then, reflect the current standard of UK law.
_______________________________________________________
Concern about free speech
Of course there could be and should be concern, and continuous debate, about free speech, but the Code already insists that it must not be interpreted in such a way as to “infringe the fundamental right to freedom of expression – such as to inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain – or prevent publications in the public interest. “
Nevertheless, it also says that this should be balanced with respect for the rights of the individual.
______________________________________________________________________
b) Urging IPSO to better ENFORCE its “Editors’ Code of Practise”
Even as it stands, in HAVING a clause about discrimination, IPSO presumably intends to promote an atmosphere of treating with respect and dignity, (even if not making them immune to criticism), individuals belonging to those groups which the law deems to be in need of particular protection in this area.
And its Code of Practice states “it is essential that an agreed Code be honoured not only to the letter, but in the full spirit “
Even if migrants and asylum seekers do not constitute an identifiable racial or religious group, (part of Matt Tee’s defence about IPSO’s ruling ) it is difficult to see how they would not be included within the SPIRIT OF a Code which says “The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion . . “ , within the spirit of a Code which seeks to protect children and vulnerable adults, and which affords particular consideration for those experiencing personal grief or shock.
It may be too late to get a better ruling on The Sun/Katie Hopkins case, but the Press must regulate itself against allowing a proliferation of such hateful language about human beings in its publications, by extending its Editors’ Code of Practice in the way suggested, and by better enforcing the Code. That is, if its claim that it “sets the framework for the highest professional standards that members of the press . . .have undertaken to maintain” – is to mean anything at all.
When Sun columnist Katie Hopkins referred to asylum seekers and migrants as ‘cockroaches’, ‘a swarm’, ‘a plague’ a ‘virus’ ; ‘vagrants’ ‘feral humans’ - who if they did reach our shores turned our towns into ‘festering sores’”,
she did not in any way breach Press Organisation standards, according to the IPSO ruling, which was again defended by its chief executive Matt Tee a few days ago. “In terms of the Editors’ Code, there wasn’t anything that could lead to a successful complaint against that column.” he said in his statement.
And that’s because the Code is inadequate.
In its ruling, this Press self-regulatory body said it could not even CONSIDER the complaints under the element of its Editors' Code of Practice dealing with discrimination, (Clause 12) as, although this “specifically prohibits prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals” its terms “do not restrict publications’ commentary on GROUPS OR CATEGORIES OF people”. (Emphasis mine)
But on those terms therefore, the IPSO Code of Practice would allow publications to use similarly vile language, about the disabled, about any racial or religious group, about people of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, just so long as the comment referred to the group as a whole, and not to any specific individual.
At present, under the section headed Discrimination, the IPSO Code states :
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.
We suggest that the words “or group’s” simply be added, between the words “individual’s” and “race”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following publication of Hopkins' column, other newspaper columnists expressed their horror at her remarks, more than 300,000 people signed a petition calling for her to be fired, and the High Commissioner of the United Nations expressed his deep concern.
GENEVA “. . . in the wake of a recent article in the Sun newspaper calling migrants “cockroaches,” the UN Human Rights Chief . . urged the U.K. authorities, media and regulatory bodies to take steps to curb incitement to hatred by British tabloid newspapers”
UK LAWS dealing with hate crimes and hate speech, DO outlaw expressions of hatred against ‘groups’ of people (see below).
And they state that a person is guilty of an offence if by his/her actions “(s)he intends to stir up . . . hatred, or . . hatred is likely to be stirred up. “
The Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 all say “ . . hatred means hatred against a group of persons . . . (defined by reference to race, religion, or sexual orientation.) Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a crime is considered to be ‘aggravated’ if the offence is motivated by [general] “hostility towards persons . . “ (plural) - who have a disability.
Surely the wording of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, with reference to discrimination, should at the very least then, reflect the current standard of UK law.
_______________________________________________________
Concern about free speech
Of course there could be and should be concern, and continuous debate, about free speech, but the Code already insists that it must not be interpreted in such a way as to “infringe the fundamental right to freedom of expression – such as to inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain – or prevent publications in the public interest. “
Nevertheless, it also says that this should be balanced with respect for the rights of the individual.
______________________________________________________________________
b) Urging IPSO to better ENFORCE its “Editors’ Code of Practise”
Even as it stands, in HAVING a clause about discrimination, IPSO presumably intends to promote an atmosphere of treating with respect and dignity, (even if not making them immune to criticism), individuals belonging to those groups which the law deems to be in need of particular protection in this area.
And its Code of Practice states “it is essential that an agreed Code be honoured not only to the letter, but in the full spirit “
Even if migrants and asylum seekers do not constitute an identifiable racial or religious group, (part of Matt Tee’s defence about IPSO’s ruling ) it is difficult to see how they would not be included within the SPIRIT OF a Code which says “The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion . . “ , within the spirit of a Code which seeks to protect children and vulnerable adults, and which affords particular consideration for those experiencing personal grief or shock.
It may be too late to get a better ruling on The Sun/Katie Hopkins case, but the Press must regulate itself against allowing a proliferation of such hateful language about human beings in its publications, by extending its Editors’ Code of Practice in the way suggested, and by better enforcing the Code. That is, if its claim that it “sets the framework for the highest professional standards that members of the press . . .have undertaken to maintain” – is to mean anything at all.
