
Atheist Ireland letter to BAI about ‘blasphemous’ RTE comedy sketch
Atheist Ireland has sent the following letter to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.
Dear BAI,
We understand that RTE is reporting itself to the BAI for breaching your Code of Programme Standards regarding a comedy sketch broadcast on its New Years Eve Countdown show. While RTE has its own internal editorial guidelines, we understand that your consideration should be whether the BAI requirements alone would forbid the sketch from being shown.
You may also have other complaints about this sketch. As RTE is not defending its own sketch, we would like you to consider these defences of the sketch from Atheist Ireland. They are based on arguments that RTE itself has previously made to you while defending itself against similar complaints, and on your agreement with those arguments from RTE. These include the nature of undue offence in the context of satire, the timing of the broadcast, and that the target of the sketch is not religion or religious people.
We would also like you to consider the following issues:
- The bar as to whether something is “undue offence” evolves over time. You should consider the passing of the blasphemy referendum when considering the recent evolution of this bar. This is the first high profile case arising from complaints of blasphemy since the law against blasphemy was removed.
- There is a difference between (a) broadcasting the sketch in the first place live on the television, and (b) having it available with a warning on the RTE online player where nobody will unexpectedly come across it. Your ruling could have consequences for an unknown amount of material that is currently available on the RTE player and YouTube Channel.
- Under Section 9 of the Code, as well as the requirement to tolerate the diversity of religious belief, RTE also has a positive duty to ensure that “diverse religious voices should be part of the national conversation reflected in RTÉ’s content, including those of people who are agnostic or atheistic.” One such atheistic belief is the sincerely held philosophical conviction that certain religious beliefs are harmful (including stories about underage children being made pregnant on the word of a stranger) and that RTE has a positive duty to reflect this conviction, including through satire, as part of the diversity of the national conversation.
1. The BAI Code of Programme Standards in relation to material that causes “undue offence”
In complaints 10-32/17 (about describing the Eucharist as “haunted bread” and “cannibalism”), RTE made the following defences that are relevant to this case:
- The phrase was certainly provocative. The contributor used it to get a reaction, and indeed it did.
- In attempting to hear new voices, it is inevitable that some will not like what they hear.
- Uncomfortable or unpopular opinions are part of debate as are views that clash or disagree with mainstream consensus.
- The preamble to the BAI Code states: Those matters which cause offence can, and frequently do, differ from person to person and are largely subjective in their nature. Acknowledging this, there can be no guarantee that programme material will be free from offence. There is no right not to be offended and, for broadcasters, it is to be expected that, in fulfilling their duty to provide a diverse range of programming that caters to a diverse audience, there will be programming that causes offence to some members of the audience.
- The broadcast began at 11.20pm, significantly after the watershed which marks the transition to purely adult viewing.
In complaint 138/15 (about a parody of the Biblical Last Supper story), RTE made the following defences that are relevant to this case:
- While, as comedy, its content may not be to the taste of all listeners, and indeed may offend some, it is not beyond the bounds of acceptable community standards.
- The BAI has previously acknowledged the role of satirical comedy, including in response to BAI Referral No 88/15: It is common for [satirical comedy programmes] to treat topics in a humorous and sometimes vulgar manner. It also common for such programmes to push the boundaries of acceptable content and this is a well-established aspect of comedy programming.
In complaint 88/15 (about a song describing God as a right feckin’ bollix), RTE made the following defences that are relevant to this case:
- While always mindful that comedy, and particularly satire, is a matter of taste and mindful also of the sensibilities of viewers, RTÉ believes that in providing a satirical view of contemporary life and culture in Ireland the series contributes to RTÉ’s delivery of its public service remit.
- Community standards, the focus of Principle 1 of the Code, do not prevent the broadcast of satirical comedy. RTÉ believe it could be argued that iconoclastic comedy is a long-established tradition in Irish life and in Irish broadcasting which audiences in Ireland appreciate, understand and welcome.
The BAI rejected each of these complaints, using the following arguments that are relevant to this case:
- The timing of the programmes, after the watershed, a time at which content with a higher likelihood to offend may be broadcast.
Audiences would have been familiar with the comedic/artistic style of the Rubber Bandits and the comments made were aligned with their comedic/artistic style. - RTÉ took steps to address the concerns of the complainant and offered, as part of their response to their letter of complaint, an apology for the offence that they had experienced.
- Callan’s Kicks is a satirical comedy programme. As a satirical programme, it treats the subject of its comedy in a broad range of tones, from the mocking to the sardonic to the derisive.
- Irish Pictorial Weekly is a satirical comedy and it is common for such programmes to treat topics in a humorous and sometimes vulgar manner.
- It is also common for such programmes to push the boundaries of acceptable content and this is a well-established aspect of comedy programming.
- The programme was broadcast at 9.30pm and that it is common for programming at this time of day to be targeted at adult audiences and to provide content that will not be to the taste of all viewers and that some viewers may find offensive;
- In this context, a key consideration is whether the content is unduly offensive and is such that it is likely to widely offend. This level of offence can occur because the content is beyond the bounds of acceptable community standards or it is broadcast at a time that is inappropriate for general audiences.
The BAI also rejected complaint 52/16 against TV3 (about calling the Eucharist “that fucking thing”), using the following arguments that are relevant to this case:
- The reference was made in the context of a comedy routine and one of the functions of comedy is to push the boundaries of acceptable speech. Comedy content, therefore, may be offensive to some viewers or listeners.
- As such, what is of concern to the Forum is whether the content was offensive in a manner that would infringe general community standards and infringe respect for person and groups in society. The Forum did not agree that this was the case in respect of this programme.
2. Principle 5 in the BAI Code (Respect for Persons and Groups in Society) regarding “due respect” for religious beliefs
The focus of the humour in the sketch in question was not aimed directly at religion, or at any group of religious people, but at lenient attitudes towards sexual assault. This is clear from the overall context of the sketch:
“In another shocking revelation this year, God became the latest figure to be implicated in ongoing sexual harassment scandals. The five-billion-year-old stood accused of forcing himself on a young middle-eastern migrant and allegedly impregnating her against her will. [Footage: God character being arrested, and saying “It was 2,000 year ago”] He was sentenced to two years in prison with the last 24 months suspended. Following the news, movie producer Harvey Weinstein requested a retrial in Ireland.”
There is editorial justification for using the Bible story as a vehicle for this satire about lenient attitudes towards sexual assault. In the Bible story, a stranger comes into an underage child’s bedroom and tells her she is to become pregnant, and the child agrees despite being afraid, confused, and not understanding the situation.
Many people today defend this Bible story on the basis that it (supposedly) happened 2,000 years ago, when moral standards were different. In the comedy sketch, the person who impregnates the child is arrested, but he goes free after his court case. The religious story is the vehicle for the satire, not the target of the satire.
RTE has made similar arguments, and the BAI has sided with RTE, in the following complaints:
In complaint 138/15 (about a parody of the Biblical Last Supper story), RTE made the following defences that are relevant to this case:
- BAI decision 88/15 noted that: “The Committee found that the focus of the humour was not aimed at religion or those who held religious beliefs.” The broadcaster states that, similarly, the material complained of in the edition of Callan’s Kicks of 3rd April 2015 was targeted at the political travails of the Fianna Fáil political party.
In complaint 88/15 (about a song describing God as a right feckin’ bollix), RTE made the following defences that are relevant to this case:
- RTÉ claim that religious beliefs were not the subject of the sketch that is the topic of the complaint. The parodic country and western singer ‘Dominic Walsh’, featured in the sketch, is a regular character on the programme and the comic target of the sketches in which he appears is the combination of conservatism and sentimentality in his performances.
In relation to Principle 5, the broadcaster states that no group is identified in the section of the sketch which is complained of.
The BAI rejected both of these complaints, using the following arguments that are relevant to this case:
- The focus of the satire was the Fianna Fáil political party, including its leader, Mr. Micheál Martin T.D. This was done by drawing on the biblical story of The Last Supper of Jesus Christ and using it as a basis to satirise the political future of Fianna Fáil and its leader.
- While some listeners may have found the use of images from the story of The Last Supper offensive, the Forum found that the content was not directed at religious views, practices or beliefs and for this this reason the item did not infringe the requirements upon broadcasters to show due respect for persons and groups in society (as set out in Principle 5 of the BAI Code of Programme Standards).
- Concerning the language in Irish Pictorial Weekly, the Committee found that it had a context in the satirical song featured in the programme. In particular, the item juxtaposed the archetypical image of the clean-cut and twee Country and Irish singer with songs that were cynical, misanthropic and vulgar.
- Further, the Committee found that the focus of the humour was not aimed at religion or those who held religious beliefs but rather at the character portrayed in the programme and his perspective on life and God.
The BAI also rejected complaint 52/16 against TV3 (about calling the Eucharist “that fucking thing”), using the following arguments that are relevant to this case:
- In terms of the specific remarks, the Forum found that while the comedian made reference to the Eucharist, the focus of the remarks was not on this religious practice but rather on the comedian’s personal reflections on his own upbringing in a Catholic country, his own experience as an altar boy and the manner in which Irish society and its social and religious beliefs have changed.
3. Other factors to consider
Diverse religious voices should be part of the national conversation, including those of atheists
- Under Section 9 of the Code, as well as the requirement to tolerate the diversity of religious belief, RTE also has a positive duty to ensure that “diverse religious voices should be part of the national conversation reflected in RTÉ’s content, including those of people who are agnostic or atheistic.”
- One such atheistic belief is the sincerely held philosophical conviction that certain religious beliefs are harmful (including stories about underage children being made pregnant on the word of a stranger) and that RTE has a positive duty to reflect this conviction, including through satire, as part of the diversity of the national conversation.
Council of Europe’s Venice Commission
The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission has said that it must be possible to criticise religious ideas, even if such criticism may be perceived by some as hurting their religious feelings.
The Council of Europe in its Handbook of Freedom of expression stated that:
“Satirical expression has also been granted special protection by the Court. Satire is a form of artistic expression and social commentary and, due to its inherent features of exaggeration and distortion of reality, naturally aims to provoke and agitate. Any interference with an artist’s right to such expression must be examined with particular care.”
There are more than 150 different religions in Ireland, and several nonreligious philosophical convictions that have the same status as religious beliefs under human rights law. It is impractical to give respect to each of these beliefs, and it undermines freedom of conscience and expression.
Other offensive comedy that RTE has broadcast
We include in Appendix 3 examples of RTE broadcasting similarly offensive jokes. These include
- Other jokes on the same New Year’s Eve Show
- Regular jokes in the Young Offenders
- Tommy Tiernan mocking Islam
- The Savage Eye mocking Catholic priests
- The Savage Eye mocking Islam
- Irish Pictorial Weekly song about immigrants
- Irish Pictorial Weekly song about rape
In particular, some people have argued that RTE would never broadcast jokes about Islam. This is not correct. Even on the show that people are complaining about, the Islamic Allah is theologically the same character as the God that is the target of the sketch.
Among the examples linked to in Appendix 3, Tommy Tiernan starts an interview by mock-worshipping Imam Umar Al-Qadri, then later when Umar says he will recite something from the Quran, Tommy says “You’re not going to blow up now after this, are you?” David McSavage in the Savage Eye mocks Islam for the cruelty of Halal meat and not eating ham, then does a ventriloquist act while wearing a niqab.
Ireland has moved on from the days of the Bishop and Nightie and the Spike, and Ireland has moved on from the days of being offended by Monty Python’s Life of Brian. We will continue to move on, and we hope that the BAI decision on this issue reflects that evolution.
Attached appendices:
- RTE’s reasons for removing the sketch
- Similar complaints that the BAI has rejected
- Other offensive comedy that RTE has broadcast
- List of religions and beliefs in Ireland
2 Comments
Since I’m offended at the removal of the video where do I complain and on what grounds. The video should be rebroadcast daily instead of the angeles as far as I can see. In fact I’m offended that others are offended.
How can one be offended by a sketch drawing derision of rape and child abuse?
Why is it important to protect the sactity of child abuse and rape? This sketch driver both of those.
If one cannot see that and is subsequently offended then is that offense even notable or considerable in this case? If I am offended because I didn’t understand the content surely this is not a complaint to be considered. We can’t be considering people who are offended because they completely misinterpreted something.
In this case I’m not offended by the sketch, I’m offended by those claiming to be offended. They clearly are not offended anyway since I’m not aware of any such complaints when actual child abuse and rape occurs within the organisation they insist is being criticised.
In fact one Bishop companies and insisted he was offended, but was not also offended, nor were any letters forthcoming when non-satirical and real life cases of rape and child abuse occurred.
There is no right in this country to not be offended. And in being offended by anything conceptual such as comedy no harm is actually done.
Or are we to believe that the reason complainers are offended is because of the current discourse in society allying the Catholic institutions with actual child abuse, actual harm to children and the rape and sexual abuse of minors. In other words the offence ouldnt occur if the complainant didn’t draw a correlation based on factual and numerous cases of actual harm.
Well that fine but if so the complaints were sent to RTE which is the wrong organisation. Such complaints shiuldminstead have been levied by those offended at the Catholic institutions that left themmopen to being offended by engaging in criminal, immoral and reprehensible behaviour to begin with. It really is not my fault if large numbers of clergy abuse children and a given Catholic viewer is then reminded of this in a comedy sketch. That’s surely not the fault of the broadcaster or producers of the sketch, that just cognitive dissonance on thenpwrtmof the religious adherent with their own church wthorities where a mistargetd feeling of offence occurs.
Personally I’m offended by this. It tells me that after decades of abuse by this csthokicmkrganisation its own adherents are wrongfully offended by a TV sketch yet not by actual harmful and criminal cases of abuse. That is highly offensive to me, and I’m sure most of this nation.
Holy crap stupid android keyboard… You correct my spelling of Epigenetics to Entertainment… Yet a pile load of random keystrokes get a pass? When did this become professional machine learning models?