BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The scrotum was described as detestable, vile to touch and ridiculous-looking in Billy

Connolly's World Tour of Scotland broadcast by TV3 at 9.30pm on 5 April 1995.

Mr Ceramalus complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the comments breached

the broadcasting standards as they were factually incorrect and encouraged the

denigration of males.

Arguing that most New Zealanders would find the comments amusing and would not

take offence, TV3 said that they did not encourage denigration. Furthermore, they

were made in the legitimate context of a satirical work and it declined to uphold the

complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Ceramalus 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.

Billy Connolly's World Tour of Scotland, broadcast by TV3 at 9.30pm on 5 April,

included both comments on the history and scenery of different parts of Scotland and

extracts from his show performed in various places. One extract from the show

included a description of the scrotum as detestable, vile to the touch, ridiculous-

looking and made from left-over elbow skin.

Mr Ceramalus complained to TV3 that the comments were, first, factually incorrect

and unbalanced and secondly, degrading and denigratory to males. They were

incorrect and unbalanced, he wrote, in view of the biblical comment that all body parts

were equal. As for the denigratory aspect, Mr Ceramalus asked what would have

been the reaction if the comment had been racist or had referred to the breast.

Connolly's "sneering scrotum-sequence", he argued:

... was yet another example of the mental sex-abuse with which our society is

riddled and raddled, an abuse that is the fundamental source of the

psychological climate in which the rape impulse and other anti-social impulses

grow and flourish.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standards G6 and G13 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. They require broadcasters:

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

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

Standard G6 was not applicable, TV3 maintained, as the item did not deal with a

controversial issue. As for standard G13, TV3 expressed the opinion that the item

was unlikely to encourage denigration and discrimination, and furthermore, the

standard was inapplicable in view of the exception in standard G13 (iii) for satirical

work in a legitimate context.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Ceramalus emphasised what he

described as the justifiable outrage which would have occurred should "scrotum" be

replaced by "female pudenda" or "breasts" or by a racist remark. Describing

Connolly as "very funny", Mr Ceramalus nevertheless abhorred his use of "cheap,

puerile" and "lavatory-type shock tactics". Most males, he insisted, would have been

offended.

An article entitled "Rape: the primary cause, the social cure" from Naturist Life in

New Zealand dated September 1994 accompanied the referral. Mr Ceramalus is the

editor of the magazine.

The Authority first dealt with the press clipping which had been forwarded by TV3

and which referred to Mr Ceramalus. As the contents of the clipping did not refer to

the item which was broadcast, which TV3 acknowledged, the Authority put the

clipping aside as being of no relevance in its determination of the complaint.

In his initial complaint, Mr Ceramalus raised standards issues in addition to

denigration. However, that was the only issue referred to the Authority.

Accordingly, the Authority was required to decide whether the uncomplimentary

remarks about the scrotum encouraged discrimination against men or portrayed them

as inherently inferior. If it so decided, the Authority would then be required to rule

whether the objectionable remark was acceptable as being in the legitimate context of

humour or satire.

In reaching its decision, the Authority concluded that it was not dealing with a remark

which could be construed as either racist or sexist. Rather, it was a wry observation

about an aspect of the male anatomy. Accordingly, it considered that Mr Ceramalus'

claim that a parallel could be drawn between such remarks and Billy Connolly's

comment was not applicable. Indeed, on this occasion, the Authority was dealing

with a complaint by an acknowledged talented male comedian who had referred to the

scrotum in a way which could be considered as offensive (according to the

complainant) or hilarious (as advanced by the broadcaster). In deciding which

adjective was applicable, the Authority rejected the former and concluded that Billy

Connolly had neither suggested that men were inferior nor had he encouraged

discrimination against them. Accordingly, standard G13 had not been contravened. In

those circumstances, the Authority felt that there had been no need to consider the

applicability of the exemption in standard G13 (iii).

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 July 1995

Appendix

Mr Ceramalus' Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 7 April 1995

Mr Nobilangelo Ceramalus of Auckland complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd

about a sequence in Billy Connolly's World Tour of Scotland broadcast at 9.30pm on 5

April. He argued that the sequence which said that the scrotum was detestable, vile to

the touch and ridiculous looking, strongly discriminated against men, was unbalanced

and breached standard G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

First, Mr Ceramalus wrote, the description was factually wrong as the scrotum was

no less healthy than any other part of the body and he cited the Bible in support.

Secondly, Mr Ceramalus contended that, like all males, he had felt degraded by the

remark as, he added, would have women if the description had been applied to a

breast. Should "nose" or "elbow" be substituted, the sequence was seen as not funny.

It was an example, he wrote, of the "detestable ploy of using lavatory-type shock

tactics".

Enclosing the magazine "Naturist Life" which he edited, Mr Ceramalus referred to an

article on rape and concluded:

... Connolly's sneering scrotum-sequence was yet another example of the mental

sex-abuse with which our society is riddled and raddled, an abuse that is the

fundamental source of the psychological climate in which the rape impulse and

other anti-social impulses grow and flourish.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 28 April 1995

TV3 reported that it had assessed the complaint under standard G13 of the Television

Code, adding that balance was not an issue as comments about the scrotum did not

raise new medical biological points.

TV3 considered that most males would have found the comments amusing, not

offensive, and therefore they were unlikely to encourage denigration. Furthermore,

they had been made in the legitimate context of a satirical work.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Ceramalus' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 15 May

1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Ceramalus referred his complaint to the

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

Had "scrotum" been replaced by "female pudenda" or "breasts", he argued, every

woman would have felt justifiably offended, adding:

But because it is part of a man's body, it is not seen as a problem. So much for

equality.

Pointing out that it was similar to Billy Connolly making a racial jibe, he deplored Mr

Connolly's use of puerile jokes. He concluded:

I do not accept that most ÔNew Zealanders, particularly male' would truly find

his comments in this sequence amusing, or not feel some offence. They may be

unwilling to show it, they may try to conceal it. Hamlet's line - Ôthere is a kind

of confession in your looks which your modesties have not craft enough to

colour' - applies.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 24 May 1995

When asked for comment on the referral, TV3 said it had nothing further to add other

than enclosing a clipping from the "NZ Herald" dated 6 May. It reported that Mr

Ceramalus had been convicted and fined $200 on a charge of disorderly behaviour. It

also reported that Mr Ceramalus - a naturist and born-again Christian - was "obsessed

with making his point" when he had walked naked along a street near his home. The

article noted that Mr Ceramalus had been found guilty of offensive behaviour in 1990

while nude at Fitzpatrick Bay but that that conviction was overturned by the High

Court on appeal.

TV3 expressed the opinion that the article demonstrated Mr Ceramalus' extreme

views on matters of taste and decency.

Mr Ceramalus' Final Comment - 29 May 1995

In response, Mr Ceramalus described the press clipping as irrelevant, adding that he

had appealed the conviction. He pointed to his earlier successful appeal. Further, he

described TV3's response as an example of argumentum ad hominen and thus flawed.

He continued:

But for human beings to regard the human body as intrinsically decent cannot

logically be called Ôextreme', unless sense has been moved so far to the opposite

pole as would make it so. Which is precisely my point: Connolly's degrading

mockery would not be possible if our attitude to the body had not been allowed

to become grossly discriminatory.

He referred to an article in the "Listener" of 7 January 1995 which showed that only a

minority of the population was opposed to beach nudity and thus his views were not

extreme. The Bible, he concluded, was the ultimate authority on the human body and

he referred to Corinthians 12, among other passages.