• Statistics 2010
• Key rulings 2010
  • Introduction
  • Accuracy
  • Privacy
  • Online privacy
  • Intrusion into grief and suicide reporting
  • Children
  • Undercover reporting
  • Discrimination
  • Financial journalism

Key rulings 2010

Discrimination

The Commission upheld two significant complaints from individuals in 2010 who argued successfully that they had been discriminated against in breach of Clause 12 of the Editors' Code.

1. The first related to a transsexual woman who worked as a rape counsellor in Belfast. An article in the Sunday Life reported concerns about her suitability for the role and described her as a 'tranny' in the main text and in the headline. In the complainant's view, the term 'tranny' was deeply insulting and represented a pejorative reference to her gender. The newspaper said that no offence had been intended in the use of the word which it considered to be 'widely used' in articles about transsexuals and transvestites. The complainant said there was a significant difference between transvestites and transsexuals, arguing that the term tended to be used by the former and not the latter.

   The Commission upheld the complaint in January 2010: the complainant's 'gender identity should not have been open to ridicule'. In the full context of the piece, 'the use of the word 'tranny' - which was a needless abbreviation, held by many to be offensive - was pejorative'.

2. The second related to a July 2010 television review by AA Gill, who had referred to the television presenter Clare Balding as a 'dyke on a bike'. Miss Balding said that this was a pejorative reference to her sexuality and irrelevant to the programme. The hurt was compounded by a mock apology by the columnist in the same article for previously saying that she looked 'like a big lesbian'.

   The newspaper defended its columnist on freedom of expression grounds, saying that he was well-known for his acerbic and sometimes tasteless sense of humour. It said that the term 'dyke' had been reclaimed by various groups as an empowering, not offensive, term. In its view, there was no reason why - in an age where homosexuality carried little social stigma - the reviewer could not discuss the sexuality of a TV presenter who had no problem with being openly gay.

   While the right to legitimate freedom of expression is a key part of an open and democratic society - and the columnist was clearly entitled to his opinion about both the programme and the complainant - the Commission considered that the use of the word 'dyke' in the article, whatever its intention, was a pejorative synonym relating to the complainant's sexuality: 'the context was not that the reviewer was seeking positively to 'reclaim' the term, but rather to use it to refer to the complainant's sexuality in a demeaning and gratuitous way'. Making clear that the newspaper 'should have apologised at the earliest opportunity', the Commission upheld the complaint.