The press regulator has been accused of undermining free speech after reprimanding The Telegraph for quoting comments previously made in Parliament. The Telegraph has the story.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) has upheld a complaint by the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) against The Telegraph over allegations by Michael Gove, the former communities secretary, that it was “affiliated” to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation banned as a terrorist group in some countries.
Mr Gove made the allegations in the Commons last March under parliamentary privilege, which protects politicians against legal action by organisations or individuals for comments made in Parliament.
Ipso has ruled that despite that protection – which extends to the reporting of proceedings in Parliament – The Telegraph’s account of those comments in a subsequent story in January this year was misleading because it failed to secure and publish a response from the MAB, which denies it is affiliated with the Brotherhood.
Ipso judged that it was not sufficient for The Telegraph to publish online a contemporaneous statement from March last year in which the MAB rejected Mr Gove’s allegations of extremism, maintaining that it was “law-abiding” and “contributed to the common good”.
The ruling came despite the fact that there is no obligation for a publisher to seek a response provided care is taken not to publish “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.
In an article for The Telegraph, Mr Gove, now the editor of The Spectator, warns that the ruling could have a “chilling effect” on free speech.
It has raised questions over the ability of newspapers to report controversial statements by politicians in Parliament without the risk of being reprimanded if they fail to get new, or any, responses.
In his Commons statement last year, Mr Gove named three Muslim groups, including the MAB, that he said would be investigated.
In January, The Telegraph reported on a decision by the United Arab Emirates to deem eight organisations including the MAB terror groups.
In the report, The Telegraph repeated the comments made by Mr Gove, which were protected by parliamentary privilege. The Telegraph’s online report included a statement from the MAB made at the time in which it denied extremism.
Reports of any proceedings in Parliament are covered by qualified privilege, meaning news organisations have a complete defence for reporting what is said, as long as they report accurately and in good faith.
On that basis, The Telegraph did not seek a fresh comment from the MAB in referring to Mr Gove’s comments.
Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Gove says: “Whether or not you agreed with my proposals (many good people didn’t), The Telegraph was reporting in good faith, utilising the fact that words spoken in the Commons are protected by parliamentary privilege and may be freely repeated outside.
“To censure a publication for straightforwardly reporting Commons proceedings can only have a chilling effect on free speech, which is precisely what the Muslim Association of Britain wants. It doesn’t want scrutiny.
“Groups suspected of extremism rarely do. They seek to present themselves as a peaceable association of co-religionists who simply want to get along and do good works.”
The MAB maintains that it is “a British organisation operating entirely within the British Isles, with no presence elsewhere” and says “it is not an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood nor a member”.
The MAB has previously been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in a report to Parliament commissioned by Lord Cameron, who was then the prime minister, in 2015. It was compiled by Sir John Jenkins, a former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and Sir Charles Farr, a former director of the office for security and counter-terrorism.
Sir John said: “The idea that Ipso is trying to censor something which has been said in the House with parliamentary privilege is bizarre and quite a reach.
“I couldn’t see anything where Ipso addressed the issue of why they’re trying to stop somebody saying something that has already been said under privilege in the House of Commons.
“They don’t really address it. They’re getting themselves bogged down in the technicality of whether you should or shouldn’t have given someone a right of reply. It seems like casuistry to pick a fight about the right of reply on something that is already out there in the public domain.”
Worth reading in full.
