22 November 2008
‘Bloody Mary’ appeal may stir fresh headlines
1 May 2007
Commentary by Charlotte Coyle: Te Waha Nui Online
South Park’s episode with the menstruating statue of the Virgin Mary stirred New Zealanders into examining their beliefs and standards. Free speech and what this should mean for New Zealand’s media also became an issue.
 |
| The statue of the Virgin Mary in the South Park episode “Bloody Mary”. Image: About:Animated TV |
The heated debate surrounding the screening of South Park’s “Bloody Mary” episode may soon hit the headlines again.
An appeal against the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s controversial ruling on the programme is due to be heard in the High Court this month.
South Park’s episode with the menstruating statue of the Virgin Mary stirred New Zealanders into examining their own beliefs and standards.
Free speech and what this should mean for New Zealand’s media also became an issue.
One week after the BSA decided not to uphold any of the 35 complaints it received about the episode, the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference announced it would appeal against the decision.
Chairperson of the BSA Joanne Morris said in a New Zealand Herald article that the BSA would benefit from the court’s ruling.
“We believe we got it right, but it will be really interesting to see what the court says," she said.
Second screening
The “Bloody Mary” debate started for New Zealand in early 2006 when the Catholic League of Religious and Civil Rights persuaded Comedy Central to pull a second screening of the episode in the United States.
This left C4TV, owned by CanWest TV Works, questioning whether it too should pull the episode, which depicts a statue of the Virgin Mary menstruating on the Pope.
The New Zealand Catholic Church immediately opposed the screening.
Director for Catholic communications Lyndsay Freer said in a Sunday Star-Times article that the episode “oversteps the line” and was deeply offensive to the Catholic faith.
The ethical predicament for C4 came in the middle of the controversy over the publication of Danish cartoons lampooning the prophet Mohammad, and straight after the Catholic Church had made objections about another C4 programme, Popetown.
On one hand, C4 did not wish to screen a programme that would severely offend many New Zealanders, as well as anger the Catholic Church even further.
But on the other hand, as a broadcaster it stood for freedom of expression and the public’s right to know.
C4 spokeswoman Amanda Wilson told the New Zealand Herald: "We need to really sit down and think about whether to run the episode.”
Fast forward screening
C4 eventually decided it would screen “Bloody Mary” in May 2006.
But after much public debate, hundreds of complaints and a planned boycott of the channel, C4 decided to move the screening forward.
During this time public opinion was split. Hundreds of people emailed their views to the New Zealand Herald.
Michael Stevens wrote: “I want to see this episode of South Park that they (the Catholics) find so upsetting, and I have the right to watch it. They have the right not to turn on their televisions at that time.”
John and Kerry Williams said in their email: “CanWest will deeply insult regular viewers of TV3 by the misuse of its channel to promote derision and intolerance based on religion.”
While Christians united for a prayer vigil outside the Auckland C4 offices, the episode was screened on February 22, 2006.
Two hundred thousand people tuned in to watch the programme - six times the normal number of South Park viewers.
On the BSA website, C4 listed the reasons for its decision to screen.
The main reasons were that it believed it had not breached any of the broadcasting standards. And it felt there could be no public debate about the show unless people had actually seen it.
The complaints
Following the screening, 35 formal complaints were laid with the BSA - the largest number ever received about a single episode.
The BSA said on its website that most of the complaints fell into two categories: the breach of the BSA’s standard for good taste and decency, and the standard for fairness.
The first argument was that the programme’s portrayal and description of menstruation, and especially of the blood squirting characters in the face, was offensive.
They argued the programme also demeaned Catholic practices and icons such as the Virgin Mary.
Freer said in a New Zealand Herald article: “If the Bloody Mary episode (doesn’t) breach the standards of decency and good taste, then what does?"
The argument for fairness was that the programme belittled all Christians, Muslims, Jews, and women.
A letter that Father James Lyons wrote to operations manager of TV3 and C4TV Richard Friesen portrays the passion behind some of the complaints.
Father Lyons said that Catholics feel the same amount of love and respect for Mary as they do for their own mother.
“She is part of who I am. What would your personal reaction be to a public presentation that ridiculed or insulted your own mother?”
Drawing the line
Given the intensity of feelings behind the complaints, the BSA was faced with a difficult decision. It was left to draw the line between the right to protect and uphold religious values, and the right for freedom of expression.
The BSA eventually ruled that after taking into account the “adults only” rating, the screening time, and the programme’s specific adult target audience, the episode was too absurd to offend.
"The material in the cartoon was of such a farcical, absurd and unrealistic nature that it did not breach standards of good taste and decency within its context.”
In the BSA’s ruling it acknowledged that many people may have been offended by the show, but decided that the right to ridicule and laugh at society’s institutions is the “very essence” of free speech.
A comedy, it ruled, would have to revolve around hate before it crossed the line of freedom of expression.
The BSA went on to say it could not restrict a broadcaster’s freedom simply to avoid offending different sectors of society, as this would mean countless other programmes would also have to be pulled.
In an article by Southland Times, regular South Park watchers said that this episode was much less offensive to Catholics than other episodes have been to other groups such as African Americans and Mormans. Yet none of these groups had complained to the same extent.
‘Bias’ accusations
But was the BSA’s ruling fair? Not all New Zealanders seemed to think so.
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards was outraged at the decision, accusing the authority of blatant bias.
“No offence is troublesome to (the BSA) unless it impacts PC-sensitive collectives such as Maori activists, Muslims or ‘gay-rights activists’.”
Family Life International also claimed that the BSA was guilty of double standards.
Freer announced to the press that the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference was very disappointed with the result and they would start planning their appeal against the decision immediately.
These accusations bring to light the question, how balanced is the BSA really?
The debate between respect for religion and freedom of expression will with no doubt linger long after the BSA’s upcoming lawsuit.
However the lawsuit could allow the BSA to look critically at its own practices and views.
The appeal will also help to determine where that invisible line in the sand actually lies and set a new precedent for similar future cases.
Links:
- Broadcasting Standards Authority’s decision
- Father James Lyon’s letter to Richard Friesen
- Society for Promotion of Community Standards
- Family Life International
- Bloody Mary page at About: Animated TV
