The U.K.’s media watchdog, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), has upheld two complaints lodged by women’s rights charities against Jeremy Clarkson’s December column in The Sun about Meghan Markle.

Variety can reveal that after a months-long process, IPSO found that the “Grand Tour” host’s column breached Clause 12 of the regulator’s Editors’ Code of Practice, which relates to discrimination. The case marks the first time in its nine-year history that IPSO has upheld a complaint on the basis of sexism.

As a result, The Sun has been instructed to publish a summary of the regulator’s findings in the spot where Clarkson’s column regularly appears in the print edition, and reference the decision on its front page and website homepage for 24 hours — something the tabloid hasn’t been forced to do since 2016, when its front-page “Queen Backs Brexit” splash was found to have breached press regulations.

“This is the most significant sanction that we would impose for an individual complaint,” IPSO CEO Charlotte Dewar told Variety in an exclusive interview (see below).

“It’s not about whether or not people are offended by something or whether they dislike it; it’s specifically about whether it has breached the Editors’ Code,” Dewar continued. “We wanted to be really, really clear about what specifically the complainants thought in the article had breached the code, and then — as a fair process requires — get the publication’s position on that.”

The ruling reveals that the Sun fought IPSO’s decision and took the case to the Independent Complaints Reviewer, a third party that oversees the regulator. The Sun argued that it removed Clarkson’s online article following public outcry, and that its publisher, Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, issued an apology in print and on its website in December. However, the reviewer rejected the Sun’s bid and did not uphold the tabloid’s request for review.

IPSO received more than 25,100 complaints from the British public about Clarkson’s column — an astonishing figure that broke the record for the most complaints ever received by the org for an article. The column led Amazon Prime Video to distance itself from Clarkson, despite his hit U.K. original series “Clarkson’s Farm.” As first revealed by Variety, the streamer won’t commission any new programs with the former “Top Gear” presenter in the future. While Clarkson has thrown doubt on this decision via social media, sources indicate that the relationship is over.

IPSO announced in February that it had launched an investigation into Clarkson’s article, which was published on Dec. 17. The article was headlined “One day, Harold the glove puppet will tell the truth about A Woman Talking B*ks.”

In the column, Clarkson wrote of Markle: “I hate her. Not like I hate [former Scottish National Party leader] Nicola Sturgeon or [British serial killer] Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level.”

He continued, referencing an infamous “Game of Thrones” scene involving Lena Headey’s Cersei: “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 throw lumps of excrement at her.”

The watchdog took forward complaints from two groups: The Fawcett Society, a U.K. charity campaigning for gender equality and women’s rights, and The Wilde Foundation, which provides specialist training to grow awareness of domestic abuse and its impact on women and girls. The groups said they were affected by breaches of Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) in the article.

Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice, in particular, receives special attention from IPSO, which says the press “must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person’s race, color, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.”

In its ruling, IPSO found that Clarkson’s column made a “pejorative and prejudicial” reference to Markle’s sex, which relates to Clause 12, but did not uphold other parts of the complaint that said the article was inaccurate, harassed Markle and included “discriminatory references to her on the grounds of race.”

One passage in the ruling (point 33) sheds light on how the Committee arrived at its decision to uphold the complaint on the basis of Markle’s sex:

The Committee first considered the references in the article to the Duchess’ sex. It noted that the article’s headline described the Duchess as a “A Woman Talking Bollocks”. The article cited three people as objects of the columnist’s ‘hatred’: the Duchess of Sussex and two other women, Nicola Sturgeon and Rose West, and the only clear common characteristic between the three was their sex. It highlighted that the Duchess is seen as a female role model (as being “pretty cool”) by referring to her influence on “younger people, especially girls”, and the feeling of “despair” which this prompted in the columnist. It stated that the Duchess had “obviously used some vivid bedroom promises to turn [the Duke of Sussex] into a warrior of woke”, which in the view of the Committee was a reference to stereotypes about women using their sexuality to exert influence, and also implied that it was the Duchess’ sexuality – rather than any other attribute or accomplishment – which was the source of her power. Finally, it referred to a “dream” of the columnist in which the Duchess was the subject of humiliation and degradation. Any of these references, individually, might not represent a breach of Clause 12. However, they were employed in the context of the columnist expressing his hatred of the Duchess “on a cellular level” and, together, they served to highlight the Duchess’ sex while the article also used humiliating imagery which played on negative stereotypes about women.

The regulator’s rejection of discrimination on racial grounds will be of particular interest in the U.K., where racism in the media has been a key criticism by Prince Harry and Markle.

The basis for this particular complaint was the column’s reference to Markle transforming Harry into a “warrior of woke,” which references anti-racism activism. The Complaints Committee explained in its decision that the phrase “did not amount to a pejorative reference to her race.”

“The Committee acknowledged that the reference could have connotations beyond the plain meaning of words,” reads the ruling. “However, the phrase is used in association with a wide range of social issues, not limited to issues concerning race.”

Responding to the ruling, the Fawcett Society CEO Jemima Olchawski said: “Since it was established in 2014 IPSO has never upheld a complaint about sexism – and that changes today. This landmark decision is a real opportunity for our media to catch up with what women have known for years – misogyny and hate are not acceptable and they can no longer be dressed up as satire or banter. Misogyny that normalizes violence and coverage that blames women who experience violence have no place in our media, or anywhere in our society.”

Olchawski said the decision will help to elevate “the state of public discourse about women and tackle misogyny in our media.”

“Editors must take note and ensure their processes are fit for purpose in the 21st century,” said Olchawski. “There must be a thorough and transparent investigation into how on earth these toxic comments made it onto the pages of one of our biggest newspapers.”

Variety has reached out to Markle via Archewell for comment on the ruling.

Read on for Variety’s exclusive interview with IPSO CEO Charlotte Dewar:

Why has it taken six months for IPSO to make this ruling?

We received 25,000 complaints. And every single one of those complaints has to be looked at by a member of our staff. So that did take a little while. And then the second, really important part of the process was identifying The Fawcett Society and the WILDE Foundation as representative groups to take forward these complaints. We were legally required to go through a process of deciding that there was a public interest in doing that; there was a significant potential breach of the code here. And we did go through that process and clear that bar. And also as part of that decision, we did contact the Duchess of Sussex because we were very cognizant that as well as the broader editorial standards issues, there’s also a human being at the centre of the story. And we wanted to give her — through her representative — an opportunity to express a view about how and whether we should take that forward. So that was all kind of throat-clearing in a way, and then we actually started the process of investigating. We were very, very aware of the strengths of feeling and the amount of public concern about this, but it was also incredibly important for us to conduct a very fair and thorough process that was specifically about the Editors’ Code, because that’s at the core of our regulation. It’s not about whether or not people are offended by something or whether they dislike it, but it’s specifically about whether it has breached the Editors’ Code. So we wanted to be really, really clear about what specifically the complainants thought in the article had breached the code, and then as a fair process requires, get the publication’s position on that.

Were there other organizations that complained as well?

[The Fawcett Society and the WILDE Foundation] went through the process of identifying themselves as representative groups who could fulfil this role of effectively speaking on behalf of others affected by the breach of the Editors’ Code.

Has the Duchess of Sussex been kept abreast of the investigations process over the last few months?

I don’t have any comments on that. The complaints we were investigating were the complaints by the Fawcett Society and the WILDE Foundation. They are the complainants and we have been corresponding with them as the complainants.

Can you provide further clarity on why IPSO did not find that the article contained pejorative or prejudicial references to the race of the Duchess?

We understand that, obviously, the two group complaints that we considered and a significant number of the 25,000 complaints from members of the public were absolutely raising the issue of whether the article made pejorative or prejudicial references to the race of the Duchess of Sussex, and we’re also very aware of the broader discussion on this issue. And we fully recognize that racism is a serious problem in the U.K. and the U.S. We’re very aware of that, and I think the Complaints Committee was very keen to acknowledge that in the decision as well. But at the end of the day, this was a complaint about a specific article and it’s very much the role of the Complaints Committee to look very closely at why the complainants believed … there was a reference to race and whether or not they felt that that bar had been met. This is why we went through a thorough process of making sure we absolutely understood the position of the complainant and the Complaints Committee did ultimately come to the view that although they respected that position and understood the complainants’ position, they did not feel that there was enough there to establish a reference to race.

The Sun then went to the third-party Independent Complaints Reviewer, which did not uphold their request for review. How often does this body get involved?

I don’t have numbers to hand but it happens regularly. That’s not all that unusual. It is very much a part of holding ourselves to account. We’re very aware that we’re making significant decisions and they can have significant implications, both for complainants and for journalists and editors. So we want to be sure that we’re under scrutiny and accountable as well.

What page of The Sun does the adjudication need to be printed on?

That needs to be printed in the slot where the original column appeared. That can fluctuate a little bit in terms of pagination, but that’s a regular column slot, so it will be on that page, and then also there will be a reference on the front page of the Sun.

And the specific language of what’s printed will be set out by IPSO?

Exactly. That’s all stipulated in the decision that that’s what they need to do.

Understood. And how often have you had this outcome in a case involving the Sun? As in, how often have they been required to print the adjudication in their pages and online, and mentioned on the front page and the website home page?

We do require front page adjudications for the most significant cases. And that does happen: we actually had that a couple of weeks ago [for Scottish local paper, Greenock Telegraph], but I’m not aware of when we last upheld a complaint against the Sun and required a front-page reference.

It sounds like this is a pretty significant ruling for IPSO and The Sun.

Yeah, it is a very significant sanction. No editor wants to be putting on his or her front page anything other than what they consider to be the most important stories of the day or the stories that their readers want to see. So yes, it’s significant.

Will there be any guardrails in place going forward so this doesn’t happen again at the publication? Does this ruling necessitate any internal policy change at the Sun?

IPSO has an ongoing relationship with the publishers we regulate in terms of their editorial standards. And one of the more formal aspects of that process is that, at the end of every year, they are required to report to us on all of the complaints that were upheld within that year, and to explain what steps they’re going to take and what they did following that upheld ruling. So this will absolutely be something that they will be needing to report to us on — what steps they took to prevent this from reoccurring. And then we’ll be able to review that and consider whether we need to do any further follow up. It’ll be early next year for that formal reporting process.

How do you think a ruling like this changes the perception of IPSO as a regulator of media in the U.K., especially at a time when there’s such an extensive dialogue about the power of the tabloid press and a number of high-profile court cases going on in the background?

IPSO’s fundamental purpose is to protect the public and the freedom of expression and we believe very strongly that those things are mutually reinforcing. So we protect the public by, for example, upholding complaints and imposing significant sanctions. We are in turn protecting freedom of expression and playing a part in wider discussions about the role of the press in the U.K., but also vice versa. We believe very strongly that protecting freedom of expression is also protecting the public and making sure that the press can play an appropriate role. So the role of the Complaints Committee here was not to be making a public statement about public policy issues. The decision makes really clear they were making a really detailed, focused, thorough decision about this complaint and this article. But yes, we are aware that this is an issue that caused a lot of concern.

In terms of the spectrum of sanctions IPSO can take, how serious is this ruling?

This was a serious breach of the Editors’ Code, and we think this is a significant sanction.

What’s the most strenuous sanction?

In terms of an individual complaint, requiring a front page sanction — this is not an exact science, and there’s different nuances to it — but yes, essentially, this is the most significant sanction that we would impose for an individual complaint.