Commission’s decision in the case of Johnstone v New Statesman / The Guardian

The complainant considered that the publication (23/08/2012) had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice by saying, in relation to Mr Anders Breivik, “so, how do we handle the man who is truly guilty?” The complainant was concerned that this characterised Mr Breivik as “truly guilty” before a verdict had been passed.

Clause 1 states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”. The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s point that, at this stage, Mr Breivik was not technically guilty in the legal sense. However, the Commission considered the context in which the words had been used and noted that the article made clear that the verdict had not yet been decided: “on 24 August, the verdict against Anders Behring Breivik will be pronounced at Oslo District Court”.  

The Commission also noted that this article reflected the personal views of the journalist: “Asne Seierstad questions a system that gives Anders Breivik publicity”.  The Commission made clear that columnists are entitled to express their personal views and comments provided that they are clearly distinguished from fact. The Commission considered that the phrasing “truly guilty” was the journalist’s view and that the readers would have been aware of this. 

Read in the context of the article, the journalist had been discussing the amount of blame that the Prime Minister and other individuals should shoulder for the events; before addressing the “man who is truly guilty”. In this way the Commission considered that the term “guilty” was being used, not in the legal sense, but synonymously with the term “responsible” or “to blame”. Given that Mr Breivik had publically admitted to the murders and bombing, the Commission did not consider this to have been inaccurate or misleading. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code.

The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s concern about Mr Breivik’s ability to receive a fair trial, it made clear however that this issue did not fall within the Editors’ Code of Practice, and therefore it was unable to comment on this further.

The Commission turned next to the complaint regarding the article of 28 August. The complainant considered that the newspaper had breached the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) by referring to Mr Breivik’s “conviction” and by inferring that his inspiration was from the “far right”.  Regardless of whether or not there is a review, it remained the case that the conviction stood at the time of publication, and the newspaper was entitled to refer to it. There was no breach of Clause 1. 

The Commission addressed the complainant’s concern that it was inaccurate to state that Mr Breivik got his inspiration from the far right. Clause 1 (iii) states that “the press, while free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” The Commission considered that the article was a comment piece and the remark reflected the journalist’s opinion that Mr Breivik’s actions were based on an extreme right-wing ideology. In this regard the Commission was satisfied that readers would not have been misled and did not establish a breach of the Code.

Reference no’s: 123663 /123691

Correspondence from PCC: Complaints Co-ordinator: Simon Yip; Re: Complaint submitted to Press Complaints Commission against The Guardian: Sindre Bangstad: Article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia (PDF).  

Your complaint will now be passed to the Commission with a view to it making a ruling under the Code. We aim to be in touch with you with a decision within the next 50 days (35 working days). In the meantime, should you have any queries or require any further advice, please do not hesitate to contact us on 020 7831 0022. 

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:39 AM
Subject: Press Complaints Commission - Our reference 123691

Complaint submitted to Press Complaints Commission against The Guardian: Sindre Bangstad: Article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia (PDF).

This complaint refers to a violation of Editors Code. 1. Accuracy, and relates to the following statements made by Mr. Bangstad in his article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia[1]: 

[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review. 

On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.  

[B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’  

[C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’. 

Response from PCC: Complaints Coordinator: Simon Yip Subject: Press Complaints Commission - Our reference 123663

Dear Ms Johnstone

Thank you for your email.

Your complaint will now be passed to the Commission with a view to it making a ruling under the Code. We aim to be in touch with you with a decision within the next 50 days (35 working days). In the meantime, should you have any queries or require any further advice, please do not hesitate to contact us on 020 7831 0022.

A copy of the Code of Practice which all newspapers and magazines who subscribe adhere to, can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html  

Complaint against New Statesman: Åsne Seierstad: Article: The grotesque manipulations of Anders Breivik; Violation of Editors Code: 1. Accuracy.

This complaint relates to the following statements made by Ms. Seierstad in her article: The grotesque manipulations of Anders Breivik:

--------
So, how do we handle the man who is truly guilty? Are we prepared to punish the culprit in keeping with the standards of his crime?
[..]
In the letters, Breivik explained how he plans to keep fighting against the values of Norwegian society. Those same values that gave him a fair trial, lax treatment in prison and even the right to keep spreading his message.
--------

Overview of Complaint:

[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik as ‘the man who is truly guilty’ 

Only persons who are (A) totally ignorant of objectively applying the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process; and/or (B) endorse the denial of the principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to rules of evidence and due process to Mr. Breivik; could imply that Breivik is truly guilty, when he has not been found guilty in a court of law.

* Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity:
* The Necessity Defence
* Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity’: 
* Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity?
* Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
* Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
* Request to Lippestad Attorneys: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.

[II] Mr. Breivik’s StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Circus was not a Fair Trial

* Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity’ 
* Massive Censorship of Corruption in Norway v. Breivik Trial: (A) Bar Association Complaints, (B) Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges Complaints, (C) Environmental Appeals Board: Media Censorship Complaints. 
* Norway Media's Censorship of PFU 'Breivik Guilty Complaint' Against News in English: Nina Berglund.

Please find full details of complaint in attached PDF.

PS: Note to New Statesman:

Ms. Seierstad also writes:

"There is one thing that Breivik fears: that he will be judged insane. This would take away his aura of being an ideologue, a political prisoner. He would then just be a nobody again. Most of the surviving victims see the harshest punishment for him as isolation. They hope that someone will take away his computer, restrict his letter-writing and leave him alone in his cell with his thoughts and his guilt."

If truth be told, there is something Mr. Breivik fears way more than an insanity verdict; that an EcoFeminist’s efforts on behalf of his right to a free and fair trial, will eventually be successful. 

A verdict of insanity will only reinforce his argument about the corrupt Norwegian state, which will enable his Political Psychiatry martyrdom. A retrial, focussed on the objective and subjective evidence for his alleged act of ‘necessity’; that occurs as a result of the activist efforts of an Honourable Rule of Law EcoFeminist, utterly destroys his argument that all Feminist’s endorse (i) right wing censorship, (ii) the feminization of men, and (iii) that women have no honour, etc. The last thing Mr. Breivik wants is an HONOURABLE ENEMY ECOFEMINIST fighting for his right to a free and fair trial.  It is his worst nightmare.