BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A caller to the talkback programme Banksie on Sunday broadcast on the morning of 10

March 1996 suggested that a six inch piece of barbed wire should be put up the rectums

of sodomites, to which the host replied that it would be a waste of barbed wire, which

was necessary for rabbit control.

Mr Pegram complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remark was

offensive, especially if children were listening and, because it advocated violence

against gay men, discriminated against them.

Radio Pacific pointed out that it was the caller who had raised the issue and the host (Mr

Banks) clearly tried to make light of the suggestion before quickly terminating the call.

It agreed that had the host made the remark, it would have amounted to denigration, but

did not accept that his reply did so. Given the robust nature of talkback it concluded

that no breach had occurred. Dissatisfied with that response, Mr Pegram referred the

complaint 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 complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about and

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

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

During Banksie on Sunday broadcast on Radio Pacific on 10 March 1996 between

10am and 12noon, a caller suggested that a six inch piece of barbed wire be put up the

rectums of sodomites. As he terminated the call, the host responded that that was a

waste of barbed wire which could be put to use to control rabbits.

Mr Pegram complained to Radio Pacific that the remarks were offensive and promoted

discrimination and violence against gay men. He objected to the host's response which

implied that he was in agreement with the caller, and which, by suggesting the barbed

wire would be better used to control rabbits, implied that gay men were a lower form of

life than rabbits. Mr Pegram considered the remarks unsuitable for broadcast at a time

when children could be listening.

Radio Pacific responded by assessing the complaint under the standards of the Radio

Code of Broadcasting Practice which were nominated by Mr Pegram. The first three

require broadcasters:

R2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency

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

in which any language or behaviour occurs.

R3  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their generally accepted listening periods.

R14 To avoid portraying people in a manner that encourages denigration of

or discrimination against any section of the community on account of

gender, race, age, disability, occupation status, sexual orientation or as

the consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or

political beliefs. This requirement is not intended to prevent the

broadcast of material which is

i) factual

ii) the expression of serious opinion, or

iii) in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

The other standard reads:

R24 Ingenious and unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain or injury –

particularly if capable of imitation – should not be described without

the most careful consideration.

At the outset, Radio Pacific acknowledged that the caller's remarks were offensive and

clearly prejudicial to homosexuals. It observed that in such a situation it was the host's

responsibility to make a judgment on how best to handle the call, and that on this

occasion the host had decided to treat the call in a light-hearted manner, even though the

caller's remarks could be considered offensive to some. It emphasised that in

determining whether the remarks were offensive, an objective test had to be applied. It

considered relevant the fact that Mr Pegram's complaint was the only one received. In

addition, it submitted that the issue was dealt with responsibly by the host who made

light of the matter and swiftly brought the call to an end. Radio Pacific also emphasised

that freedom of speech was an important characteristic of talkback radio, and that it was

the host's responsibility to balance the views of some callers. Radio Pacific declined to

uphold the complaint, pointing out that every day on talkback radio there were hundreds

of calls which displayed extreme prejudice and caused offence to some individuals. It

regarded this call as being in the minor category of offensiveness and considered it part

of the robust nature of talkback radio.

The Authority notes Radio Pacific's acknowledgment that the remarks were offensive

and while it understands that one of the options would have been to dump the call, it

accepts that such a course of action is not always practicable because talkback does

attract a number of callers with extreme views and prejudices. In this case, it considers

the host managed to distance himself from the caller by showing his disapproval in a

light-hearted way, and by terminating the call.

Turning to the standards raised, the Authority agrees with Radio Pacific that the remarks

were offensive to some and considers that it was appropriate that the host terminated the

call. To the complaint that the broadcaster failed to be mindful of children, the

Authority decides that it is unlikely that children would be listening to such a

programme and, unlikely to understand what was meant by the comments. It decides

that standard R3 was not breached.

Accepting Radio Pacific's conclusion that the remarks were denigratory, the Authority

considers that because they were the genuinely-held views of the caller, the exemption

under G13 (ii) applies. It decides that although the remarks revealed much about the

caller's bigotry they did not pose a serious threat to homosexual people, because the

suggestion was so outrageous and, because the call was promptly terminated, it

concludes that the host dealt with the matter appropriately.

Finally the Authority examines the complaint that standard R24 was breached. That

standard provides a safeguard against describing ingenious or unfamiliar means of

inflicting pain or injury. While the Authority agrees that the suggestion was distasteful

and malicious, it does not consider that listeners would have understood the suggestion

to be a serious one which was capable of imitation. Accordingly it decides the standard

was not breached.

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

complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
20 June 1996

Appendix

David Pegram's Complaint to Radio Pacific Ltd - 12 March 1996

Mr Pegram of Wellington complained about the talkback programme Banksie on

Sunday broadcast by Radio Pacific Ltd on the morning of 10 March 1996, in which a

caller suggested that sodomites should have a six inch piece of barbed wire up their

rectums. The host (John Banks) agreed, he said, but added that it would be a waste of

barbed wire which could be used for rabbit control.

Mr Pegram suggested that the remarks breached standards R2, R3, R14 and R24 of the

Broadcasting Code.

He observed that gay men were aware of the threat of physical violence from sections of

society and that Ôgay bashing' occurred throughout the country. He considered that it

was not surprising that some callers to radio programmes advocated violence against

gay men. However, he argued, the host, by not countering the caller's comment,

supported the use of violence against gay men.

Radio Pacific's Response to the Formal Complaint - 2 April 1996

Radio Pacific maintained that in response to a caller's suggestion that a six inch piece of

barbed wire be put up the rectums of sodomites, Mr Banks did not agree, suggesting it

would be a waste of barbed wire. In Radio Pacific's view, he was clearly trying to

make light of the suggestion. It also noted that it was the caller who raised the issue and

that Mr Banks terminated the conversation quickly.

Commenting on each of the standards raised, Radio Pacific wrote:

R2 While the caller's remarks may have exceeded the boundaries of good

taste, the host responded by bringing the call to a close. While the

caller's remarks might have been offensive to some, nothing the host

said breached standard R2.

R3 The programme is not directed at children and therefore the standard

does not apply.

R14 Clearly the caller holds strong views opposing homosexuality (as does

the host). Radio Pacific accepted that the caller's remarks amounted to

denigration, but did not accept that the host's reply did so.

R24 The remarks were made by the caller - the host did not describe

ingenious methods of inflicting pain or injury.

Radio Pacific accepted that the remarks could themselves be a breach of the substance of

standard R14. It wrote:

John Banks holds strong views on the issue of homosexuality and this left him

with the option of either terminating the call quickly or seeking to limit the

remark and moving on. Given the robust nature of talkback and the

controversial nature of some of the content in the John Banks' programme, it is

my opinion that no breach has occurred.

Mr Pegram's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 17 April

1996

Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's response, Mr Pegram referred the complaint to the

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

He emphasised that regardless of what the host said, it was his impression from the

host's attitude and his tone of voice that he was in agreement with the caller.

He suggested that the Authority try to imagine if the comments had been made about

vaginal intercourse and had included the suggestion that women have a six inch piece of

barbed wire inserted in their vaginas. He wondered whether Radio Pacific would have

then said that the host thought it appropriate to "make light of the suggestion" and

would have excused his actions by saying that he "holds strong views on the issue".

Radio Pacific's Response to the Authority - 30 April 1996

Radio Pacific agreed that the caller's views were prejudicial to homosexuals. It noted

that in the circumstances, the host had the option to allow the caller to express the views

and make no comment, on the basis that other callers will balance those views;

to restrict the caller and move on to the next; or to "dump" the caller.

It noted that the host adopted the second option and restricted the call. Referring to a

previous decision (No: 53/94) involving the use of the term "bog Irish" by the host in

which the Authority had referred to both the "robust talkback environment" and the light

heartedness of the response on that occasion, Radio Pacific noted that again its host

made a judgment to treat the call in a light hearted manner even though the suggestions

could be termed offensive.

Radio Pacific proposed that the Authority apply an objective test as to whether the

remarks were offensive. It identified the following points as relevant. First, Mr

Pegram's complaint was the only one received. Secondly, that talkback radio involved

freedom of speech. Radio Pacific argued that the host's responsibility was to balance

the prejudice of callers and allow freedom of expression. It submitted that the subject

was treated light-heartedly and the caller meant no offence. It also suggested that the

remarks were so extreme that they really could not be taken seriously.

It concluded:

There are literally hundreds of calls on talkback radio every day that display

extreme prejudice and cause offence to certain individuals. This call falls within

the minor category and is part of the robust nature of talkback radio.

Mr Pegram's Final Comment - 3 May 1996

Mr Pegram asserted that in his view, the host's reply to the caller indicated that he was

in complete agreement with him. He suggested that the remark compared gay men with

vermin and implied that they were a lower form of life than rabbits.

He did not agree that the host's response was light-hearted. In any case, he wrote, a

light-hearted response was inappropriate to a caller who was advocating violence and

torture against a section of society.

The crux of the matter, in Mr Pegram's opinion, was not that the remarks were

offensive but that they advocated physical violence against gay men and lesbians. He

suggested that the caller's comments, and the host's reply condoned and encouraged

that violence.