BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The mock crucifixion and subsequent imitation of self-mutilation with a knife by a

character on Shortland Street was broadcast in the episode screened on 27 November

1995 at 7.00pm.

Rev Graham Capill, the leader of the Christian Heritage Party, and Mr Michael Gibson

complained that the scene breached broadcasting standards because it exceeded the

bounds of good taste and decency, was violent, disturbing for children, and contained

offensive religious overtones.

In its response, TVNZ observed that the programme was classified PGR and was

screened during PGR time. It noted that the scene was the culmination of a long-

running storyline in which the character James was dealing with the accidental death of

his father and his mother's perceived indifference to the death. In TVNZ's view, the

scene was clearly part of a theatrical performance and not particularly disturbing. While

it was intended by the character James to shock his mother, TVNZ did not consider that

the religious overtones were offensive to viewers. It declined to uphold any aspect of

the complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Capill on the Christian Heritage

Party's behalf, and Mr Gibson referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the episode complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

In the episode of Shortland Street broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on 27

November 1995 between 7.00–7.30pm on TV2, one of the characters performed an

adaptation of a speech from Hamlet. Wearing a crown of thorns, he appeared to be

hanging on a cross as he spoke. At the end of his speech, he drew a knife across his

body which seemed to draw blood.

Rev Graham Capill, leader of the Christian Heritage Party and Michael Gibson

complained to TVNZ that the scene breached broadcasting standards because it was

violent and disturbing to children. They also complained that it contained offensive

religious overtones and thus breached the standard requiring good taste and decency

When it responded to the complainants, TVNZ advised that it had assessed the

complaints under standards G2, V1, V2, V3 and V7 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, which were nominated by the complainants. The first standard

requires broadcasters:

            G2        To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency          

                        and taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context       

                        in which any language or behaviour occurs.

The other standards read:

            V1        Broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that any violence shown is

                        justifiable, i.e. is essential in the context of the programme.           

            V2        When obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve heightened

                        impact, realistic violence – as distinct from farcical violence – must be

                        avoided.

            V3        Warnings should be given, at least at the beginning of a programme,

                        when a programme contains material which is likely to be disturbing

                        to the average viewer or which is unexpectedly violent for that

                        programme genre.

            V7        Ingenious devices for and unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain, injury

                        or death, particularly if capable of easy imitation, must not be shown,

                       except in exceptional circumstances which are in the public interest.

Noting first that the episode was classified as PGR and screened during PGR time,

TVNZ pointed out that this was a viewing period recognised as family viewing time as

opposed to children's viewing time. It observed that in the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, PGR material is defined as:

            Programmes containing material more suited to adult audiences but not

            necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a

            parent or adult.

It then proceeded to examine the scene complained about. It noted that it was the

culmination of a long-running story line which concerned the character James. In an

earlier episode, his father had died as a result of an accident and his mother, apparently

unmoved by the tragedy, began a relationship with another man. Seeking retaliation,

James performed a graphic dramatic scenario, loosely based on Hamlet, at the school

talent quest, much to his mother's embarrassment. TVNZ reiterated that the scene was

the result of a build-up in tension between James and his mother and should be seen in

the context of the serial format of Shortland Street and fictional drama. It also observed

that Shortland Street was specifically aimed at the 15–25 year old age group and that

the story line was typically about situations and feelings which confronted this group.

TVNZ disagreed with the allegation that the scene was blasphemous and therefore in

breach of standard G2. It denied that the imagery of the crucifixion was blasphemous,

noting that crucifixion was a method of capital punishment used in areas under the

influence of both Greece and Rome for many centuries. While it accepted that for many

Christians a crucifixion always referred to the death of Christ and was seen as an act of

love, TVNZ suggested that the word crucify itself referred to torment and mental pain,

and therefore it seemed quite appropriate in the context of the theatrical presentation for

James to use that imagery to convey his feelings to his mother. It repeated that the

incident was not to be considered in isolation,and that it was part of the growing

alienation between James and his mother following the death of his father.

The Authority regards the incident, designed to shock and humiliate James's mother, as

a dramatic performance which drew partly on the imagery of Christianity. It also made

use of the language and imagery in Shakespeare's Hamlet, incorporating Hamlet's

speech when he lamented the recent death of his father, swiftly followed by his

mother's incestuous relationship with his uncle. Notwithstanding that for many

Christians the performance contained elements of the crucifixion of Christ, the

Authority does not consider it appropriate to ban imagery of Christianity, and notes that

in its historical context, crucifixion was a violent and cruel torture. It does not consider

that the imagery on this occasion was blasphemous. Seen in context, it was, as TVNZ

explained, the plea of a troubled young man for attention. His efforts are condemned

by all of the other characters (except for the immature Nick). The Authority considers

that the story line went to great lengths to show that the behaviour of James did not

receive endorsement. It declines to uphold the complaint that the incident breached the

standards of good taste and decency.

Turning to the alleged breach of standard V1 (which requires that the violence be

justifiable), TVNZ maintained that it did not consider the implied violence in the

sequence was unacceptable in a programme bearing a PGR certificate. It considered

that the scene was entirely in keeping with the story line and did not agree that imitating

self-inflicted injury would have been regarded by most viewers as violent.

The Authority believes that although the scene portrayed a potentially violent act, in

context it did not breach standard V1. It considers those who knew about the attention-

seeking antics of the character would have easily recognised the performance for what it

was. Viewers were quickly disabused of the seriousness of the self-mutilation when

the character smeared the fake blood over his chest immediately after he had drawn the

knife over his body. The Authority also considers that viewers, including children,

would have readily identified the performance as theatrical, particularly since it was part

of the school talent quest.

Responding to the complaint under standard V2 (gratuitous violence), TVNZ advised

that it did not consider the standard was breached when the context was taken into

account.

In the Authority's view, the standard does not apply to this incident since the violence

was clearly theatrical. Even those who believed for a moment that the knifing was real

were quickly reassured when it became obvious the blood was fake.

To the allegation that standard V3 was breached because no warning was given, TVNZ

responded that in the circumstances a warning would have been quite inappropriate. It

noted that the scene was meant to be realistic but that it was quickly apparent that the

blood was not real and that James had tricked both the audience and his mother.

The Authority recognises that the whole point of the incident was to trick the audience

and James's mother into believing that he was harming himself and that a warning

would have undermined the dramatic impact of the scene. It does not consider that a

warning was necessary when the violence was obviously theatrical. It declines to

uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, TVNZ responded to the allegation that standard V7 was breached because the

incident gave close-up detail indicating how suicides may be accomplished. It denied

that there was any suggestion that the character James intended to commit suicide, and

reiterated that James's performance was intended solely to shock and humiliate his

mother, not to deliberately harm himself.

Because of the dramatic context, and because crucifixion is a far from novel means of

inflicting pain or death, the Authority declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In its response to the complaints, TVNZ emphasised the PGR classification of the

programme. That classification indicates that the content is not necessarily suitable for

younger children without parental guidance. The Authority acknowledges that the

series is targeted towards a relatively sophisticated young adult audience which is

familiar with the media and theatrical techniques, and for whom the scene complained

about would not have been disturbing. It has taken this factor into account in its

deliberations.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter

Chairperson

29 February 1996

Appendix I

Christian Heritage Party's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd 
– 5 December 1995

Rev Graham Capill, leader of the Christian Heritage Party, complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd about its broadcast of an episode of Shortland Street on 27 November

1995 at 7.00pm.

The episode contained a scene in which a character portrayed a mock crucifixion and

imitation self-mutilation with a knife. The Party complained that the scene breached

broadcasting standards for the following reasons:

1.         There was no warning given.

2.         Young children are likely to be part of the audience and would have found the

            scene particularly disturbing.

3.         The violence was not essential to the story line. It was not necessary to show a

            scene which amounted to psychological torture for his mother and self-

            inflicted injury to himself.

4.         The religious overtones of the crucifixion of Christ were offensive and

            unnecessary.

5.         The violent scene was glorified by at least one member of the audience,

            conveying the message that such an act received approval from other young

            people.

Mr Capill concluded by stating:

In my mind this programme has, once again stepped over the boundary as to

what is acceptable, especially in the light of how young the audience is likely to

be. While it was a dramatic high point in the programme, that does not justify

such a vivid depiction of a violent act.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 December 1995

TVNZ noted that the episode, classified as PGR, was screened in PGR time and was

intended for family viewing, not children's viewing.

The scene complained about was the culmination of a long-running storyline involving

the character James dealing with his father's death and his mother's apparent

indifference to the death. As a means of retaliation, James performed a graphic scenario

loosely based on Hamlet in the school concert. His act embarrassed his mother – which

was the effect he desired.

TVNZ explained that the scene was the result of a build-up of tension between James

and his mother and had to be seen in the context of the serial format and fictional drama.

It observed that the series was aimed at the 15–25 year-old age group and was typically

about situations and feelings that confront this group. Acknowledging that some

younger children may find some of the issues difficult to deal with, TVNZ noted that

the PGR classification made it clear that the content required parental guidance and that

the programme was not to be regarded as a children's programme.

To the specific points, TVNZ responded:

1.         A warning was inappropriate when it was clear the scene was a theatrical

            performance.

2.         The scene was not particularly disturbing - it was part of a concert.

3.         The scene was entirely in keeping with the storyline. Imitating self-inflicted

            physical injury would not be regarded by most viewers as violent.

4.         The average viewer would not agree that the religious overtones were

            offensive. The relevance to the story line would not have been lost to

            avid viewers.

5.         The scene was not glorified by comments of one member of the cast.

TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

Christian Heritage Party's Referral to the Authority – 8 January 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold the complaint, Mr Capill, on the

Party's behalf, referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Responding to TVNZ's comments about the programme's PGR classification, the Party

argued that even if parents had been watching with their children, they would not have

been able to shield them from the scene because there was no warning that it was about

to happen. The Party did not agree with TVNZ that a warning prior to the programme

would have spoiled the impact, suggesting on that logic, all warnings would be "quite

inappropriate".

In response to the argument that Shortland Street was a serial aimed at teenagers, the

Party advised that its complaint was narrowly focused on the mock crucifixion and

subsequent knifing of the character James. Mr Capill wrote:

[The complaint] was made after a phone call from a 14 year old teenager who is

unknown to me, concerned and disturbed at what he had just seen. He

wondered if I would be speaking out against it. TVNZ seems to have dismissed

my complaint as simply being typical of many adults who don't understand

young people. I reject that is the case and would draw the Authority's attention

to the fact that I was stirred into action by a young person within the target

audience age group. I also have a young family of my own. I know that they

too would be disturbed by this incident.

The Party disagreed with TVNZ's assertion that the incident would not have been

regarded as violent by most viewers. It noted that even in AO movies, it was rare to

find a close-up portrayal of a knife being run across the chest of a person and it was not

apparent until James rubbed the 'blood' off that it was an act. The Party asked the

Authority to remind TVNZ that many young children would be watching television at

7.00pm.

As far as the Party was concerned, TVNZ did not explain the relevance of the

crucifixion scene to the storyline. It added that while the scene might not have been

offensive to the average viewer, it was particularly offensive to those who take the

crucifixion of Christ seriously. It observed:

            The crucifixion of Christ had nothing to do with revenge or hatred. It was an

            act of selfless love to save sinners from eternal damnation; absolutely nothing

            to do with this particular scene.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 19 January 1996

TVNZ drew the Authority's attention to the frequent references throughout the

programme to the fact that the item was included in a talent quest. It considered that

viewers would have been in no doubt that the scene was part of the theatrical

presentation and that the knife wielding was part of the performance. TVNZ added:

            Drama would lose its point altogether if it did not have such moments of

            uncertainty and ambiguity and the speed with which the situation was resolved

            removed any need for there to be a warning.

TVNZ also noted that the entire incident lasted only a few seconds.

It repeated that the incident emphasised James's concern about his mother's behaviour

and that the lines from Hamlet were particularly apt. It continued:

The 'crucifixion' scene emphasised the pain present in the words of Hamlet (as

he observes his mother Gertrude) and the pain felt by the impressionable,

rebellious but vulnerable James as he tries to shock and embarrass his mother.

We accept that for many devout Christians a crucifixion always refers to the

death of Christ and is seen as an act of love. Far be it from us to enter into

religious discussion with Mr Capill, but surely that act of love was through the

endurance of unbelievable pain? No disrespect was shown to Christians – there

was nothing blasphemous about the imagery.

TVNZ did not agree that the plot was unsuitable for children watching in the company

of an adult. It also noted that the scene should not be seen in isolation, and that it was a

part of the consequences of James's father's death and the growing alienation between

James and his mother.

Christian Heritage Party's Final Comment – 31 January 1996

When asked to make a brief final comment Mr Capill on behalf of the Christian Heritage

Party underscored three points.

The first was that the fact that the scene was part of a theatrical presentation did not

change the fact that it was still violent. Secondly, the Party did not believe that young

children watching the programmes could be expected to draw the fine distinctions which

TVNZ was expecting them to do. It considered the overall impression was of blood

and violence.

Finally, the Party advised that it found TVNZ's justification of the 'crucifixion' scene

unconvincing. It continued:

The crucifixion had nothing to do with the plot or the words quoted from

Hamlet. The fact that 'James' wore a crown of thorns shows that a depiction of

Christ's death was intended, and not just a general scene of pain and agony.

Many Christians found this offensive.

The Party sought firm action from the Authority in order to protect children from such

violent scenes appearing as early as 7.00pm.

Appendix II

Michael Gibson's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd 
– 28 November 1995

Mr Gibson of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that its broadcast

of an incident during an episode of Shortland Street on 27 November 1995 at about

7.00pm exceeded the bounds of good taste and decency as well as the boundaries of the

law in its blasphemy.

The scene, which portrayed a teenager enacting a scenario based on Hamlet at a talent

quest, showed him in "a blasphemous crucifixion scene". In Mr Gibson's view, the

blasphemy was exacerbated because of the time of screening and the nature of the target

audience of young people.

He noted that since registering a telephone complaint with TVNZ he had seen an article

in a weekly magazine (which he enclosed) about which he commented:

            This is a clear indication (if any were needed) that TVNZ deliberately chose

            to flaunt the item and that its screening was well considered and deliberate.

            The whole matter is, therefore, a sign of a serious slipping in the standards

            which TVNZ has been setting itself in a popular programme which screens

            at the early hour of 7 pm.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 December 1995

TVNZ advised that the complaint was considered in the context of standard G2 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It noted that the programme was classified

as PGR and was screened in PGR time, and pointed out that PGR was a viewing period

recognised as family viewing time as opposed to children's viewing time.

TVNZ's response was similar to that to the Christian Heritage Party and is summarised

above. It also added with reference to standard G2, that it did not consider that that the

content of the scene transgressed the bounds of good taste and decency. It wrote:

            In the context of a stage performance, the use of the powerful image of the

            crucifixion was not in our view outside the bounds of taste and decency, and

            did not in our view "flirt with the boundaries of the law in its blasphemy" as

            you claim.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Gibson's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority 
– 18 January 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold his complaint, Mr Gibson referred it to

the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Gibson described as "regrettable" TVNZ's refusal to tell him how much it would

cost for him to buy a copy of the offending episode so that he could see for himself

what the context was for the incident. He wrote that he was unaware of any

background to the item. He wrote:

            If TVNZ are indeed basing a case on viewers having to have seen the full

            background in a long-running series then I make no apologies in raising this

            matter.

He also noted that when complaints were laid with the Press Council, it required an

entire article to be submitted to it and was therefore doubly sorry that TVNZ had not let

him have a copy of the episode in spite of his offer to pay.

TVNZ's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority 
– 26 January 1996

TVNZ emphasised that it did not regard the scene at the talent quest as being

blasphemous. It repeated that the incident focused on the growing concern James felt

about his mother's behaviour following the accidental death of his father – a situation

with which Shortland Street viewers were thoroughly conversant. It considered the

extract from Hamlet was thoroughly apt.

Its arguments are summarised above in its response to the Christian Heritage Party

(p.iii).

TVNZ added that the word 'crucify' refers to torment and mental pain and therefore it

seemed quite appropriate in the context that the youthful James should use imagery

drawing on that idea to convey his feelings to his mother. It repeated that the incident

had to be seen in the context of James's father's death and the growing alienation

between James and his mother.

Mr Gibson's Final Comment – 3 February 1996

When asked to make a brief final comment, Mr Gibson responded to points made in

TVNZ's reply to the Authority.

He described TVNZ's response as useful because it appeared to concede that the scene

was only explicable to regular viewers. He asked whether regular viewers were warned

either in the episode itself or in earlier episodes to expect a violent crucifixion scene, or

whether the warning was confined to the magazine "New Idea" which carried the story

of the scene.

Mr Gibson asked whether TVNZ had sent the Authority earlier episodes and how long

before the incident was a viewer meant to have been watching in order to find the

explanation for the boy's behaviour. He also asked why TVNZ had sent the Authority

copies of the episodes immediately following the scene. Was it because there was an

apology? If so, when was it broadcast?

With respect to the discussion about blasphemy, Mr Gibson made the following points:

1.    TVNZ referred in its letter of 26 January to "very devout Christians". Mr

Gibson asked whether TVNZ was thinking of some other complainants or was

it suggesting that he represented such a group. He also asked whether it

believed that only such a group would be offended.

2.    Mr Gibson wrote:

Following the phrase "many devout Christians" TVNZ make the

extraordinary and very, very false claim that "a crucifixion always refers

to the death of Christ". This totally unworthy and a shallow effort at

avoiding the issue, which is that the crucifixion which was presented by

TVNZ deliberately represented the crucifixion of Christ. If TVNZ

disagrees with this then they should provide some sort of evidence that a

"Crown of Thorns" was present in other crucifixions.

3.    To TVNZ's statement that Christ's crucifixion was an act of love, Mr Gibson

responded that he reserved the right to comment on that statement at length. In

the meantime he asked that the Authority treat the phrase as a "representation as

shallow as TVNZ's other theological analyses."

4.    In Mr Gibson's view, the character was overdoing it to attempt to inflict injury

upon himself if, as TVNZ argued, he was already experiencing unbelievable

pain. Furthermore, it should not have been screened at 7pm and he need not

have emulated Jesus Christ.

5.    Mr Gibson argued that it was blasphemous for the character to talk about the

death of his father (as in the speech from Hamlet) when he was emulating

Christ.

6.    Mr Gibson objected that he had not had an opportunity to re-view the incident

and suggested that it was fundamentally wrong that TVNZ was able to present

an elaborate case and he was denied the opportunity to comment.

Finally, Mr Gibson referred to the publicity generated for Shortland Street in December

which was aimed to present the series as suitable for daytime viewing in the UK where

it was achieving high ratings. Mr Gibson said that he understood the crucifixion scene

would not not be included in the UK. He believed an explanation was required from

TVNZ as to the misleading publicity and the exact reason why the scene would not be

shown in the UK.