BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A 20/20 item entitled "Satanic Panic" reported the story of four women who worked

in a child-care centre and who had been accused but later cleared of child abuse. The

item which was broadcast between 8.30–9.30pm on 20 March, also reported that a

man at the centre had been convicted and imprisoned for that behaviour.

On behalf of the Coven of Natural Law, Magnus Shalaufi complained to TV3

Network Services Ltd that linking Satanism with child abuse encouraged

discrimination against Satanists.

Referring to dictionary definitions which defined "Satanism" to include the pursuit of

evil and "satanic abuse" as mental and physical abuse, TV3 declined to uphold the

complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Shalaufi on the Group's behalf

referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

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

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

has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

"Satanic Panic" was the title of an item on 20/20 which interviewed four women in

Christchurch who, while working at a childcare centre, had been arrested for child

abuse. They were later acquitted. The item referred to the similarity between the

various matters raised by one of the central complainants and a book which described

ritual child abuse.

Priest Magnus Shalaufi of the Coven of Natural Law complained to TV3 (through the

Authority) that there was no evidence to link, and no justification in linking, Satanism

with child abuse.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standard G13 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

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, occupational 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

Referring to dictionary definitions which defined Satanism as the pursuit of evil and

Satanic abuse as the physical and mental abuse of adults and children, TV3 maintained

that the title "Satanic Panic" was an appropriate and legitimate use of words.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Shalaufi argued that the use of

the title encouraged discrimination against Satanists when there was no evidence that

Satanists were involved in child abuse. Satanism, he wrote, was an official religion in

some countries and child abuse was more likely to occur in a Christian home than in a

Satanic one. A definition of Satanism, he added, should come from those who called

themselves Satanists rather than from a dictionary which could either be out of date or

originally written by Christians.

In its report to the Authority, TV3 acknowledged that Mr Shalaufi held a different

definition of Satanism from the accepted one but until his definition gained widespread

acceptance, it argued that the item's title used was appropriate given current usage.

In his final comment on the Coven's behalf, Mr Shalaufi argued that the title had been

used to catch viewers' attention and had reinforced the widespread but incorrect idea

that Satanism was connected with child abuse. Over the years, he concluded,

Christians had discriminated against all non-Christian groups and as one would not go

to a Satanist for a definition of a Christian, one should not go to a Christian for a

definition of a Satanist.

In its assessment of the complaint, the Authority decided that the phrase "Satanic

Panic" did not necessarily equate with child abuse. It could refer to a number of

matters although, because of the accepted community concept about Satanism, each

one would involve the pursuit of evil. Thus, although the item's title did not

immediately conjure up any images of child abuse, it was not surprising when the item

connected child abuse with Satanism. Accordingly, in the Authority's opinion, the

linkage between child abuse and Satanism did not encourage discrimination against

Satanists as a section of the community beyond any opprobrium already felt. Thus, it

concluded, the broadcast did not breach standard G13.

The Authority noted the emphasis placed in the complaint on what was described as

the unjustified linkage between Satanism and child abuse. The complainant advanced

the claim that there was no connection and while the Authority has no statistics on

which to judge its accuracy, it accepted that even should it be substantiated – and thus

the programme contravened the principal contained in standard G13 – the title of the

item would be acceptable as an expression of genuinely-held opinion under exemption

(ii) of the standard.

For above the reasons, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
15 June 1995

Appendix

The Coven of Natural Law's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 21

March 1995

In a letter of complaint sent to the Broadcasting Standards Authority and forwarded

to TV3 Network Services Ltd, Priest Magnus Shalaufi of the Coven of Natural Law

complained about an item on 20/20 broadcast between 8.30 - 9.30pm on Monday 20

March entitled "Satanic Panic".

Mr Shalaufi complained about the "slanderous and discriminating" use of the word

Satanism and its connection with child abuse and sexual deviancy.

He issued a challenge to TV3 to find a single proven instance of a satanic ritual

involving child abuse.

In a letter to TV3 dated 15 April, Mr Shalaufi explained that the complaint alleged the

item involved religious discrimination and was unbalanced.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 April 1995

Assessing the complaint under standard G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TV3 began by citing an Oxford Dictionary definition of Satanism as "the

pursuit of "evil". The Chambers Dictionary, it continued, defined "Satanic Abuse" as

the "mental and physical (esp sexual) abuse of adults and children".

Given the nature of the allegations contained in the 20/20 item entitled "Satanic Panic"

and the above definitions, TV3 maintained that title was appropriate and legitimate.

Declining to uphold the complaint, TV3 added:

It is clear that the whole thrust of the item is to show that the allegations of

"Satanic Abuse" did not in fact happen. Therefore the Committee feels your

complaint is negated on that basis alone.

The Coven's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - Received 4

May 1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Magnus Shalaufi on the Coven's behalf referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Shalaufi maintained that the item slandered the name of "Satanism" by linking it to

child and sexual abuse. "Satanism", he stated, had never been proven to involve child

abuse. Referring to the item called "Satanic Panic", he wrote:

This is clearly unfair to the people in the public that call themselves Satanists,

and I as a Satanist get continually asked why I abuse children, which of course

they believe Satanists do because of a) movies b) stories like this one linking the

word Satanism to Child abuse. The title was clearly using the fear the public

have of Satanism, and child abuse to publicise its story, but this has been done

by encouraging the discrimination against Satanists in the community.

The item, he said, breached standard G13 as it encouraged discrimination against child

abuse. Moreover, Satanists were the appropriate source of a definition of the term

Satanism rather than a dictionary which could be out of date and which was probably

originally written by Christians.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 10 May 1995

In its report to the Authority on the complaint, TV3 pointed out that contrary to the

allegations in the complaint, the item had not referred to allegations of Satanic abuse

against a colleague of the women who was currently in prison for child abuse. It

showed that the four women at a child care centre who were accused of child abuse

were innocent.

As for the definition of the terms, TV3 wrote:

Mr Shalaufi may, as is his right, hold a definition of Satanism that differs from

the accepted meaning. However, until such time as Satanism and Satanic abuse

acquire a more widespread acceptance as meaning that which Mr Shalaufi

believes to be the case, the Complaints Committee feels, given the current usage,

that the words Satanic Panic are entirely appropriate given the nature of the

charges and accusations.

The Coven's Final Comment - 21 May 1995

On the Coven's behalf, Magnus Shalaufi argued that the item "either directly or

indirectly" connected Satanism with child abuse while Satanism was legally accepted,

in many countries, as just another religion. Public opinion, he added, did not

necessarily contain an accurate view about any religion.

Maintaining that the item's title was slanderous and reinforced the conception that

Satanism was connected with child abuse, Magnus Shalaufi stated that Christians

discriminated against Satanists and gave them a bad name. The easily purchasable

Satanic Bible, he added, would explain the truth about Satanism.

In conclusion, he averred that a Satanist had never anywhere been convicted of child

abuse.