BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Leonardo da Vinci's well-known painting of The Last Supper was the basis of one of

the satirical sketches on TV3's Comedy Central broadcast at 8.00pm on 31 January

1996. Other skits parodied child sponsorship advertisements and dog obedience

classes. Further, a man was shown talking aggressively about a woman.

Rev Milne of Wainuiomata complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the skit which

ridiculed the events portrayed in The Last Supper was deeply offensive and encouraged

discrimination against Christians. Mr Crafts made a similar complaint on that matter

and, in addition, described the other skits noted above as being in bad taste. That

description, he added, also applied to the domestic violence portrayed during the

programme.

On the basis that the painting – not the event – was being parodied and, further, that it

did not contain any suggestion of a sexual relationship between Jesus Christ and the

woman shown, TV3 declined to uphold that aspect of the complaint. It also maintained

that the other items referred to were not offensive and that the standard relating to

encouraging discrimination did not apply because of the programme's satirical

approach.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme complained about and have

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

Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The programme entitled Comedy Central was broadcast on TV3 on 31 January 1996 at

8.00pm. Among the skits were parodies of The Last Supper, child sponsorship

advertisements and dog obedience classes. Also a character was shown talking

aggressively about his female partner.

Both Rev Milne and Mr Crafts complained that the skit which parodied The Last Supper

was deeply offensive to Christians because it derided their beliefs. Rev Milne also

complained that it encouraged the denigration of Christians and blasphemed Christ by

the suggestion that he would be tempted to engage in a sinful liaison. He requested that

TV3 apologise publicly for the offence caused.

Mr Crafts also complained about other parts of the programme, in particular a segment

in which a dog apparently licked its faeces and then its owner's face, one which

parodied child sponsorship advertisements and a skit on domestic violence. He

expressed his concern about the whole programme, describing it as "rubbish" and not

very funny.

TV3 responded to both complaints under standard G2 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, and to Rev Milne also under standard G13. Those standards

require 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.

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of

the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupation

status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or

political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the

broadcast of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or

current affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or

dramatic work.

TV3 considered first the sketch depicting The Last Supper. It described the scene as a

comedic portrayal of Leonardo da Vinci's painting and argued that because it did not

include items of a sexual nature, bad language or violence, it was not in breach of the

good taste standard. Turning to the complaint that the sketch denigrated Christians

because it mocked their beliefs, TV3 noted that standard G13 was not intended to

prevent the broadcast of satirical material on religion within the legitimate context of a

humorous, satirical or dramatic work. To the complaint that the sketch suggested that

Jesus would compromise himself by a sinful liaison, TV3 responded, first, that the

character of Jesus in the sketch did not in any way condone, partake or even seem to

enjoy the arrival of the female character. Secondly, TV3 wrote, the sketch did not

imply that he did. It declined to uphold that aspect of the complaint.

With respect to the parody of the child sponsorship advertisement, TV3 maintained that

in the context of comedic, satirical work, it did not breach the accepted norms of

decency and taste. Turning to the dog obedience sketch, it argued that while some

people may have found the sketch revolting and the type of humour may be seen by

some as puerile, they were subjective opinions, and the sketch fell within the norms of

decency and taste. Referring to the domestic violence skit, TV3 maintained that it was

unable to determine that aspect of the complaint because the programme did not include

such a skit.

The Authority agrees with TV3's term "puerile" to describe the programme's humour.

It considers some of the sketches were at the limits of acceptability, particularly the child

sponsorship parody and The Last Supper skit. However, it concludes that because the

programme fell within a comedy genre which was probably familiar to viewers, it is not

surprising that some traditional institutions were the target of the programme's humour.

As required by the standard, the Authority takes into account the context of a

programme when assessing whether it breaches standard G2. On this occasion, given

the context within which the skits were broadcast, the Authority decides that standard

G2 is not contravened.

With respect to the standard G13 complaint, the Authority does not consider the sketch

of The Last Supper encouraged discrimination against Christians. That type of

unsophisticated humour is, in the Authority's view, relatively innocuous and is most

unlikely to encourage viewers to think of Christians differently.

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

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
16 May 1996

Appendix I

Mr Crafts' Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 9 February 1996

Frank Crafts of Te Puke complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about four aspects

of Comedy Central broadcast at 8.00pm on Wednesday 31 January 1996.

First, he had taken offence at the way child sponsorship advertisements were portrayed.

He considered that it was humiliating to say "it is the thought which counts" when an

inappropriate gift - a jet ski - was sent to an inappropriate - inland - place.

Secondly, many would have been offended on religious grounds by the parody of The

Last Supper.

The portrayal of a dog licking its own faeces and then its master's face was said to be

revolting, and was the third aspect of Mr Crafts' complaint.

Finally, he described the programme's portrayal of domestic violence as very bad. He

concluded:

I feel very unhappy about this programme and that such rubbish is being shown

on television. I think the fee they get for it could be better used in helping

support the child sponsorship programme.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 23 February 1996

TV3 assessed each aspect of the complaint under standards G2 and G13 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

As the satirical sketch of the child sponsorship advertisement did not contain offensive

language, TV3 maintained that the standards were not contravened. Similarly, as the

satirical skit on Leonardo da Vinci's interpretation of the Last Supper did not include

offensive material, it had not breached the standards.

TV3 said Mr Crafts' response to the dog obedience class item was a personal and

subjective opinion which, although the skit might be seen as puerile, did not allege a

transgression of the standards.

Lastly, because of insufficient detail to identify the skit about domestic violence, TV3

responded that it was unable to determine that aspect of the complaint.

Mr Crafts' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 15 March

1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Crafts referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

He dealt again with the four points raised in his original letter of complaint.

First, as starvation was not funny, he argued that it was degrading to include a sketch

based on human suffering.

Secondly, he described the reference to The Last Supper as a "straight out attack on

Christians", and asked:

Is there nothing sacred that these skit people can't touch.

He did not accept TV3's response to his complaint about the dog sketch.

Finally, one skit involved the man talking abusively to a woman and, he said, it was

unnecessary to put that sort of thing on television.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 29 March 1996

TV3 advised that it did not wish to comment further on the referral.

Appendix II

Rev Milne's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 2 February 1996

G H Milne of Wainuiomata complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about a sketch

included on Comedy Central broadcast at 8.00pm on 31 January 1996. He described

the item as a blasphemous allusion to and portrayal of The Last Supper.

Mr Milne maintained that the item breached the standard requiring good taste and

decency and the standard prohibiting the portrayal of a section of the community in a

manner which encourages discrimination. He wrote:

The Lord's Supper, to which this programme alluded, is an event where Jesus

farewells His disciples prior to His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. In this

Supper the Lord Jesus Christ initiates one of the two sacraments of the New

Testament Church. And in doing so he makes it clear that he is about to shed his

precious blood for sinful men.

However, the item suggested that Jesus Christ was not without sin and, Mr Milne

continued:

The shallow and cheap parody of the Last Supper seeks to raise a laugh at the

discomfort of true believers of the Lord Jesus Christ and at the cost of the

integrity of Almighty God Himself.

Describing the item as deeply offensive, Mr Milne sought a public apology.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 23 February 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TV3 said that it did not contain

material which could be regarded as offensive and in breach of standard G2.

As standard G13 was not intended to prevent the broadcast of satirical material, it had

not been contravened. TV3 commented:

You also state that the sketch suggested that the character Jesus "would

compromise his person by a sinful liaison". In fact the character "Jesus" as

depicted in the sketch, does not in anyway condone, partake or even seem to

enjoy the arrival of the female character, and the sketch does not imply that the

character "Jesus" condones, partakes or enjoys the female character.

Rev Milne's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26

March 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Milne referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. By telephone, Mr

Milne explained that he had ensured that the referral complied with the time limits in the

Act.

He did not accept the argument that the skit focussed on the painting, pointing out that

the parody involved a biblical event. He also did not accept that the item had not alluded

to a sexual liaison and maintained that a sexual relationship was being suggested. He

added:

The ground, G13, is in my opinion breached because Christians who believe that

they are united to the Lord Jesus Christ spiritually, and whose own acceptance by

God is conditional on the sinless substitutionary sacrifice of this Lord Jesus

Christ. Our religious belief is therefore being ridiculed because it cannot be

separated from the person, life and work, the major aspect of this being portrayed

in da Vinci's ÔLast Supper', of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The item, Mr Milne concluded, was deeply offensive in that it blatantly ridiculed the

basis of his religious belief and the belief of thousands of others.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 2 April 1996

TV3 advised that it did not wish to comment further on the complaint.