Meghan Markle: Press watchdog upholds sexism complaint over Jeremy Clarkson’s column
Former ‘Top Gear’ presenter said he dreamt of crowds throwing ‘excrement’ at the duchess
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) has upheld a sexism complaint about Jeremy Clarkson’s opinion column in The Sun about Meghan Markle.
In December, Clarkson wrote in his column for the newspaper that he “hated” Markle and dreamt of the day she would be made to parade naked through Britain while the crowd chanted “shame” and threw “excrement” at her.
The former Top Gear presenter was widely criticised for his words, and later apologised for the piece, describing his language as “disgraceful” and saying he was “profoundly sorry”.
The Sun also apologised and said it regretted the publication of the column, which was removed online.
Still, it became Ipso’s most complained about article ever after more than 25,000 people complained.
An investigation was launched in February and, on Friday (30 June), it was announced that Ipso had upheld the complaint that the column was sexist towards the Duchess of Sussex, with some of the Clarkson’s language described as “pejorative and prejudicial”.
The ruling is the first time a complaint to Ipso about discrimination relating to someone’s sex has been upheld, the regulator said.
However, Ipso rejected complaints that the piece was inaccurate, harassed the duchess and included discriminatory references to her on the grounds of race.
The newspaper 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 (1 July) edition and on its website.
Watch Apple TV+ free for 7 days
New subscribers only. £8.99/mo. after free trial. Plan auto-renews until cancelled
Watch Apple TV+ free for 7 days
New subscribers only. £8.99/mo. after free trial. Plan auto-renews until cancelled
In a statement, The Sun said it accepts “that with free expression comes responsibility”, adding it has a “proud history of campaigning for women”.
The Fawcett Society, a charity championing gender equality which complained to Ipso, said the ruling is a “landmark decision” about a “vile and offensive” column.
Ipso’s investigation found that the article made references to Markle’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 that 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.
In the article, Clarkson wrote: “I hate [Markle]. Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level.”
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”.
The organisation 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).”
It continued: “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 that supports women and girls who have been victims of abuse.
Markle did not complain to Ipso or make any representations. Ipso said she was given the chance to comment, but the duchess “indicated that she did not have any opposition to Ipso considering a complaint from the representative groups”.
In its statement, The Sun said: “Ipso has ruled that The Sun published a column about the Duchess of Sussex which contained a pejorative and prejudicial reference to the duchess’s sex.
“The committee did not uphold separate elements of the complaint that the article was inaccurate, harassed the Duchess of Sussex, and included discriminatory references to her on the ground of race. The Sun is today publishing the summary of Ipso’s findings.”
Additional reporting by Press Association.