Swedish Television has been convicted twice by the so-called Review Board after a reporter referred to illegal migrants as just that—illegal migrants. However, the board is divided, and two members wanted to acquit the segment.

In September last year, the state broadcaster’s program ‘Rapport’ aired a segment about Britons demonstrating against immigration. In the segment, it is claimed that ‘far-right groups’ are behind the protests, after which a dark-skinned man participating in the demonstration is interviewed.

“We don’t want trouble. We want to live in peace,” he says, stating that ‘a line has been crossed’.

One incident upsetting the demonstrators is a 41-year-old Ethiopian man who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl. This is one of many similar immigration-related incidents that have affected the United Kingdom—as well as other Western countries.

“We don’t want all these undocumented illegal people walking around our streets in small groups, frightening our children. Our children are in danger!” exclaims a white woman interviewed by SVT.

“Illegal migrants”

SVT’s UK correspondent Anna-Maja Persson was on-site covering the demonstration in London. It is after these two short interviews that the two forbidden words are uttered.

“So far this year, a record number of illegal migrants have crossed the English Channel to the UK, where the asylum seekers, among other things, are placed in hotels,” SVT’s viewers are told.

Migrants entering the UK through so-called ‘irregular routes’, for example by boat or smuggled in lorries, lack valid entry permits. This type of immigration is therefore called illegal migration by the British state, regardless of the political party of the prime minister residing at 10 Downing Street at the time.

The terminology is established by the Illegal Migration Act.

Convicted by the Review Board

But two television viewers reacted to the state TV reporter’s choice of words. They reported the segment on Rapport to the so-called Review Board.

On Monday, a divided board convicted the Rapport segment—twice. The board argues that referring to illegal migrants as illegal migrants is ‘both misleading, in violation of the requirement for accuracy, and value-laden, in violation of the requirement for impartiality.’

The board argues that the fact the term ‘illegal migrants’ is legally correct does not mean state television should use it.

“In a statement, SVT says that people arriving in the UK via irregular routes lack valid entry permits, which is classified as illegal migration by the British state. Regardless of how the phenomenon is characterised as above, the review board finds that this does not legitimise the use of the term illegal migrant for individuals arriving in the country in this way,” the decision reads.

However, the review board is not unanimous in its decision. Deputy chairman Ulrik von Essen, who chaired the meeting, and board member Staffan Rosell, both wanted to acquit the Rapport segment.