UK blasphemy law in action

IPSO: Islam and mosques can't be cricized or questioned - only individual muslims

 The assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council Miqdaad Versi complained to IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation - created after an intensive campaign by BBC) about the accuracy of the Daily Star Sunday article with the headline “UK mosques give cash for terror”. It was also publishned online with the headline “UK mosques fundraising for terror”.

The articles suggested that money was being transferred to Bosnia in order to fund terrorist training camps in the country.

Versi allegedly said: "There is growing islamophobia in the UK today, with more and more people having negative attitudes towards Muslims. In such a climate, it is very important that newspapers are careful in reporting facts accurately. In this case, the newspaper wrongly alleged that UK mosques were fundraising for terror without any evidence.

"Such sensationalism creates real damage as it reinforces an unfounded assumption that mosques across the UK are a problem in our society. I hope that through this correction, isolated incidents can be seen for what they are – actions by fringe elements of society, and not linked to Muslim institutions such as mosques.”

IPSO ruling: Summary of complaint

Decision of the Complaints Committee
11868-15 Versi v Daily Star on Sunday

1. Miqdaad Versi complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Star on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “UK mosques give cash for terror”, published on 22 November 2015. It was published online with the headline “UK mosques fundraising for terror”.

2. The article reported that one of the newspaper’s journalists had posed as a man wanting to transfer money abroad which he had “raised with the help of a group of Bradford-based Isis sympathisers”. The man he contacted told him that he could assist him with transferring the money to Bosnia, and said that “we get funds from UK brothers from collections at mosques”. The article suggested that money is being transferred to Bosnia in order to fund terrorist training camps there. The text of the article was the same online and in print, only the headlines and sub-headlines differed.

3. The complainant said that the headlines were inaccurate as they suggested that UK mosques, generally, were raising money to fund terrorist activity. In fact, as the article had made clear, it was one group of men in Bradford, and not any mosque as an organisation, that was collecting money. Further, there was no suggestion that the practice was occurring beyond that single group, but the headline had given the impression that the practice was widespread. The statement that UK mosques had been collecting money to fund terrorism had been presented as fact, and not adequately distinguished as the claim of the one person with whom the journalist had been in contact.

4. The newspaper did not believe that the headlines had been significantly inaccurate or misleading. It said that the headlines should be read in conjunction with the text of the article, and in this case the text had made clear that the funding of terrorism by mosques was a claim made by one man. The sub-headline of the print article, “Radical in boasts about whip rounds”, made clear that the statement in the headline above it was the pretension of one individual. Similarly, the sub-headline of the online version of the article stated that “Cash collected in UK mosques is funding terrorism, it was claimed last night”, made clear that this was not established fact.

5. Nonetheless, the newspaper offered to publish the following clarification in a forthcoming edition, on page 2; the original article had appeared on page 9:

“The headline of an article, published on 22 November 2015, stated ‘UK mosques give cash for terror’. We would like to clarify that the headline was based on the claims of radical Isa Amriki that funding for terrorism came from collections at mosques, not by or on behalf of UK mosques, which were not involved in any way.”

6. It also offered to amend the online headline so that it read “Collections at UK mosques ‘fundraising for terror’”, and to append a version of the clarification as a footnote.

7. The complainant requested an opportunity to work with the newspaper in future to avoid repetition of similar inaccuracies, and the opportunity to write a positive story about Muslims. The newspaper declined to resolve the complaint on this basis, and so the complainant asked that the Committee adjudicate on the matter.

Relevant Code Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

(i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

(ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.

(iii) The press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

9. It was accepted by the newspaper that the money was being collected by individuals acting in a personal capacity, and not by mosques as organisations. However, both versions of the headline had given the clear impression that mosques were institutionally raising money for terrorism. The single text message conversation that the journalist had had did not support this assertion. Both the print and online versions of the headline represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, and a breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Code.

10. The headlines were significantly misleading. They gave the impression that the newspaper had discovered serious, organised wrongdoing, when that was not the case, and the inaccuracies required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The newspaper had already offered to publish a clarification, and the Committee was satisfied that the proposed wording identified the initial inaccuracy and made clear the correct position. In the context of IPSO’s investigation of the complaint, the correction had been offered promptly. The newspaper had also offered to publish the clarification on page 2, when the article had appeared on page 9; this constituted sufficient prominence under the terms of the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

11. The sub-headlines of both versions of the article had made clear that the statement that mosques were raising money for terrorist activity was a “boast” and a “claim”, and the article itself had made clear the basis for that claim. The Committee considered the headlines in their full context, and while the evidence provided in the article did not support the statement in the headlines and the Committee had already established that they were significantly inaccurate, there was no additional failure to distinguish between conjecture and fact in either the headlines or the text of the article; there was no breach of Clause 1 (iii).

Conclusions

12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (Accuracy).

Remedial Action Required

13. The newspaper had already offered to publish a clarification in print, as well as amending the online article and appending the clarification as a footnote. These actions would be sufficient to remedy the established breach of the Code and, in light of the Committee’s decision, they should now be published.

Date complaint received: 07/12/2015
Date decision issued: 31/03/2016

Klevius ruling

Klevius comment: Interestingly IPSO, which was established through the work of a Jew is headed by an other Jew. Why is an "independent" press organization so closely related to islam supporting Jews? Couldn't they really find more secular/independent individuals for such important roles on a matter that to a high degree will encounter religious complaints. After all, islam is based on Judaism and islam is today the main cause of controversies, censorship etc. Or if they really needed Jews in this process, why not Jews critical of islam. There are probably more of them than those positive to islam.

Klevius conclusion: Firstly, "individuals acting in a personal capacity, and not by mosques as organisations" is a pure oxymoron in the case of sharia islam. "Mosques as organizations" constitute the very meeting places for muslims of all sorts. Secondly, as long as there are no efforts made to draw the line between "radical" sharia muslims and Westernized non sharia "muslims", then the generality of mosques apply.

However, the by far most important aspect is totally missing in the ruling, namely that it's a well known fact that UK mosques and madrassas have showed substantial problems living up to the "Westernized islam" mirage, and therefore the underlying criticism in the writings is in line with reality. As a consequence it turns out that it's IPSO's ruling that misses in "accuracy".

Klevius advice: Why don't you (the press) write about the fact that Miqdaad Versi is a sharia muslim who rejects the most basic of the Human Rights Declaration. So how does Klevius know this? He doesn't know it for sure of course because there is always the possibility that Miqdaad Versi lies to other muslims. However, as the assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council in Britain it seems defend able to assume he is a true sharia muslim.

 London will probably (with BBC's keen assistance) get a sharia muslim Mayor this spring - in line with Cameron's wish to make it the world's main sharia hub.

Is the next step to make a sharia muslim the head of IPSO?


All in line with the wishes of UK's "closest ally in the muslim world", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who harbor and steer the muslim world sharia organization OIC. An organization that has openly opposed the most basic of Human Rights equality.

Why so eagerly push for sharia "blasphemy" censorship when most muslims allegedly aren't "radical" and therefore maybe not that keen on supporting the Sauydi dictator family and sharia islam?!