The press watchdog has upheld a complaint that a heavily-criticised Jeremy Clarkson column in The Sun was sexist towards the Duchess of Sussex after he said he “hated” the “on a cellular level”.
The Sun column in December sparked more than 25,000 complaints from members of the public to watchdog IPSO, and was removed by the publisher.
In it, Clarkson told readers: “At night, I’m unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant ‘Shame!’ and thrown lumps of excrement at her”.
He added: “I hate her (Meghan). Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level.”
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) rejected complaints that the opinion piece was inaccurate, harassed the duchess and included discriminatory references to her on the grounds of race.
The Sun will have to publish a summary of the findings against it on the same page as the column usually appears, along with a notice flagging the statement on the front page of Saturday’s edition and on its website.
The Fawcett Society gender equality charity, which complained to Ipso, said the ruling is a “landmark decision” about a “vile and offensive” column.
The ruling is the first time a complaint to Ipso about discrimination relating to someone’s sex has been upheld, the regulator said.
Ipso found the article made references to the duchess’s sex, including a claim that she exercised power over the Duke of Sussex because of her sexuality.
It said this was “a reference to stereotypes about women using their sexuality to exert influence” and “implied that it was the duchess’s sexuality – rather than any other attribute or accomplishment – which was the source of her power”.
The regulator also found the article’s use of comparison to Scotland’s former first minister Nicola Sturgeon and serial killer Rose West was because the three are female.
Ipso also said Clarkson framed Meghan’s position as a “specifically female negative role model” when he referred to her influence on “younger people, especially girls”, and described his “dream” of her being publicly shamed in the streets of Britain as a form of “humiliation and degradation”.
It said: “Ipso considered that any of these references, individually, might not represent a breach of the code.
“However, to argue that a woman is in a position of influence due to ‘vivid bedroom promises’, to compare the hatred of an individual to other women only, and to reference a fictional scene of public humiliation given to a sexually manipulative woman, read as a whole, amounted to a breach of clause 12 (which relates to discrimination).”
“Ipso therefore found that the column included a number of references which, taken together, amounted to a pejorative and prejudicial reference to the Duchess of Sussex’s sex in breach of the Editors’ Code.”
Ipso said it also “considered in detail” the complaints relating to the duchess’s race but concluded the elements cited “did not provide a basis to establish that there was a pejorative reference to race”.
It also said publication of one article was “not sufficient” to support a breach of harassment and it did not breach the accuracy clause.
The regulator launched the investigation following complaints from the Fawcett Society and the Wilde Foundation, a charity which supports women and girls who have been victims of abuse.
The duchess did not complain to Ipso or make any representations. The regulator said the duchess was given the chance to comment, but “she indicated that she did not have any opposition to Ipso considering a complaint from the representative groups”.
Former Top Gear host Clarkson later apologised for the piece, describing his language as “disgraceful” and said he was “profoundly sorry”.
“I really am sorry. All the way from the balls of my feet to the follicles on my head. This is me putting my hands up. It’s a mea culpa with bells on”, he wrote.
“Usually, I read what I’ve written to someone else before filing, but I was home alone on that fateful day, and in a hurry. So when I’d finished, I just pressed send. And then, when the column appeared the next day, the land mine exploded.”
The Duke of Sussex branded the article about his wife “horrific, hurtful and cruel”, adding what Clarkson had written would encourage people around the world to believe it is an acceptable way to treat women.
Ipso chairman Lord Faulks said the article was a “serious breach” of the Editors’ Code of Practice, notably clause 12 in relation to discrimination, and they found the imagery used to be “humiliating and degrading” towards Meghan.
“Ipso’s purpose is to protect the public and freedom of expression by upholding high editorial standards”, he added in a statement.
“In this case, The Sun failed to meet these standards.”
Ipso chief executive Charlotte Dewar said: “The Editors’ Code of Practice protects the right of commentators to challenge, to shock, be satirical and entertain, but it states that the press must avoid discriminatory references towards an individual.”
Labour MP Harriet Harman, incoming chairwoman of the Fawcett Society, said: “Women are no longer prepared to endure the sexism that generations of women have been subjected to. Fawcett will be vigilant about sexism in the media and challenge it wherever it appears. This is a big step forward for women in the battle against sexism in the media.”
The Sun also apologised and said it regretted the publication of the column, which was removed online.
In a statement, The Sun said: “After Jeremy Clarkson’s column was published in December, both The Sun and Jeremy Clarkson apologised.
“The Sun accepts that with free expression comes responsibility.
“Half of The Sun’s readers are women and we have a very long and proud history of campaigning for women, which has changed the lives of many.”
