June 18 2021
Complaints: 8945 and 8946
Decision to adjudicate
Date of publication: May 15 2021
Headline: So long as Tukkies still know whether they’re Arthur or Martha
Author: John Scott
Particulars
Ms Kim Lithgow and Ms Kellyn Botha each submitted a complaint about John Scott’s column “PS” in Die Burger on May 15 2021 on the grounds that it is prejudiced and inflammatory. The column was republished, with the same headline, as an opinion piece on the same day on Netwerk24’s website.
1. Summary of text
1.1. Scott’s column discusses the University of Pretoria’s decision to introduce and implement certain measures to accommodate the needs of “transgender, intergender, nonconforming gender and non-binary gender” students.
1.2. According to the column, the university will increase the number of “gender-neutral” bathrooms to accommodate transgender students and also plans to offer students “wider [gender] choices” during the registration process from next year.
2. Complaints
2.1. Lithgow complains that the article is transphobic.
2.2. Lithgow further submits that the article is irresponsible on the grounds that it perpetuates a cycle of ignorance and hatred against members of the transgender community.
2.3. Botha contends that the article is deeply offensive toward members of the transgender community and ridicules the University of Pretoria's trans-inclusive policy.
2.4. In addition, Botha argues that the article is “openly inflammatory” and poorly researched.
2.5. Both demand an apology from Die Burger, while Botha also demands an apology from Netwerk24.
3. Public Advocate
3.1. The Public Advocate disagreed with Lithgow’s contention that the article is transphobic, irresponsible or perpetuates a cycle of ignorance and hatred against the transgender community.
3.2. He also disagreed with Botha’s contention that the article is inflammatory.
3.3. He pointed out that Clause 7.2 of the Press Code states: “Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”
3.4. In addition, he cited Clause 5.1 of the Press Code, which states that the media shall “avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, and not refer to such status in a prejudicial or pejorative context – and shall refer to the above only where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported, and if it is in the public interest” (the Public Advocate’s emphasis).
3.5. He also stated that that the author of the article disagrees with the university’s new policy of “gender neutrality”, and that Scott was entitled to do so.
3.6. The Public Advocate therefore declined to accept Lithgow’s and Botha’s complaints on the grounds that there was no prima facie breach of the Press Code.
3.7. Lithgow and Botha have now appealed to the Press Ombudsman to adjudicate their complaints.
4. Analysis
4.1. Scott’s column does indeed take issue with the University of Pretoria’s new measures to accommodate the needs of transgender students.
4.2. He questions the rationale behind these attempts as well as their practicability, and does so in a tone which may give offence to some readers.
4.3. However, the column sufficiently meets all the criteria in Section 7 of the Press Code on “Protected Comment”.
4.3.1. The complainants do not provide any specific examples of malice – generally understood as a desire to cause harm – in the column. Even though it employs a derisory tone, which may be hurtful to members of the transgender community, this is an insufficient basis on which to draw the conclusion that it is inflammatory. Nowhere does the column incite anyone to commit any act of violence against any member of the transgender community.
4.3.2. The column falls within the ambit of public interest, which is defined in the preamble of the Press Code as “information of legitimate interest”. Comment on the policies adopted by a public institution such as the University of Pretoria certainly meets this requirement.
4.3.3. While the claim that the column is poorly researched is noted, Clause 7.2 of the Press Code merely requires the author to take “fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true” (my emphases).
4.3.4. Scott’s “PS” column in Die Burger on May 15 2021 meets the Press Code’s requirement that “it appears clearly to be comment”: by definition, a column is the personal opinion of the writer; in addition, the column carries the word “Gesprek” (Conversation) above the headline. The online version carries the word “Menings” (Opinions) above the headline.
Decision to adjudicate
For these reasons, I agree with the Public Advocate and decline to adjudicate these complaints.
Appeals procedure
The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombudsman
June 17 2021