CASE NUMBER: 22/2010
DATE OF HEARING: 01 OCTOBER 2010
1ST COMPLAINANT
2ND COMPLAINANT
3RD COMPLAINANT
4TH COMPLAINANT
5TH COMPLAINANT
6TH COMPLAINANT
DR K NAIDOO
T MOODLEY
P RAMKISSON
J PALAKDHARI
U SEWSUNKER
T RAMPERSHAD
vs
EAST COAST RADIO
RESPONDENT
TRIBUNAL:
PROF JCW VAN ROOYEN SC (CHAIRPERSON)
PROF HENNING VILJOEN (DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON)
MR BRIAN MAKEKETA
ADV ROBIN SEWLAL
Complainant:
The Complainants did not attend.
Respondent: Mr Naveen Singh, Programming Manager of East Coast Radio
________________________________________________________________________
Complaint against broadcaster for broadcasting a skit in which the Hindu religion was
ridiculed – context in which broadcast should be judged was one of humour but
limitations to humour considered in this case – found that broadcaster went too far on
the sensitive issue of religion and that broadcast constituted advocacy of hatred based on
religion – also that the broadcast constituted incitement to cause harm through the use of
words like “… kill the Hindus …” and “bullets” – contravention of clause 16.3 of Code
found and complaints upheld – in light of steps taken by broadcaster, reprimand
considered sufficient - Naidoo & Others vs East Coast Radio, Case No: 22/2010(BCTSA)
________________________________________________________________________
2
SUMMARY
This complaint concerns the broadcasting of a skit in which the Hindu religion was
ridiculed in a “sermon”. In the “sermon” the deities were mocked and it was stated
that it is no use to kill Hindus because they just come back, because of reincarnation. The broadcast was adjudged in context, in this case humour, but the
Tribunal considered that there are also limitations to humour, especially on the
sensitive issue of religion. It was found that the broadcaster went too far and that
the broadcast constituted the advocacy of hatred based on religion. As to the second
requirement of hate speech, namely incitement to cause harm, it was found that by
the use of words like “… kill the Hindus …” and “bullets” the broadcaster again
went too far. It was decided that the broadcaster contravened clause 16.3 of Code
and the complaints were upheld. In the light of the steps taken by broadcaster: By
apologising, taking the programme off the air and suspending the contributor, it
was considered that a reprimand would be sufficient.
______________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
PROF HP VILJOEN
[1]
At about 10:40 on Monday 16 August 2010, a parody on soap operas was
broadcast by the Respondent under the title “The days of our bold and restless
loving”. This broadcast was repeated on Saturday 21 August at about 12:00. In
these broadcasts a comic, in the person of John Vlismas, purports to preach from a
leaflet that he found on the way to the studio. In his “sermon” he makes some
very derogatory remarks about Hindus and their religion. Six adherents to the
Hindu religion complained about the broadcast and their complaints are set out
hereunder.
[2]
The complaints reads as follows:
K Naidoo:
“RE:DerogatoryContent-East Coast Radio-22/August 201012:00noon. I write with concern regarding the insensitive and derogatory content
of the midday show hosted by RaviR. The speaker went on a derogatory tirade
against the Hindu Religion and said amongst other things:
These Hindus have thousand Gods; They pray to elephants and monkeys with
many hands; They pray to cows and rats-siss; No use Christians killing Hindus
because they keep coming back(re-incarnation); No use shooting Hindus because
they come back and would be a waste of bullets;
3
This derogatory content cannot go unchallenged in terms of our democratic right
of religious freedom. The necessary sanctions against ECR MUST be instituted.”
T Moodley: “RE: COMPLAINT REGARDING CRITICISM MADE BY MR JOSHUA
NORMAN ON EAST COAST RADIO REGARDING HINDUISM.
As our constitution states that all religions should be respected and upheld, I would like to
place on record my disgust at the insults made against all Hindu’s by Joshua Norman
aired by Ravi.R on East Coast Radio dated 21.08.10 at approximately 12:05pm.
Mr Joshua Norman said that in Hinduism there are about 100 000 God’s and that would
be enough God’s for each Hindu in the world. He also said that Hindu’s pray for animals.
For example: A monkey that stands on two feet, a cow, rats, half human and half animal
bodied God’s and God’s with many hands. His remarks after that, was that he cannot
understand why Hindu’s pray for a cow as it is not God and he said ‘sis’ regarding the
fact that we pray for rats. He also said that the bible says all Hindu’s go to hell and if you
tell a Hindu to go to hell you would not be offending them but merely telling them where
their destiny is.
As a Hindu I take exception and offense to these statements made by Mr Joshua Norman
irrespective whether it was not intended to be offensive. Hinduism’s roots, dates back as
far as 2000BC, making it one of the oldest surviving religions in the world. All religions of
the world are unique and contribute to the shaping of mankind.
In Hindu mythology there is a great reverence for animals. They play an important role in
our religion as either a direct representation of, or God itself. The cow is considered to be
a living symbol of earth, which is very important in the life all Indian’s. Cow’s to date help
with ploughing of field’s which yield crops to sustain families in India and around the
world. The day to day to day work with the cow was much more important than eating its
meat. Over time the private respect that each family had this animal grew public and then
it became part of our culture and took form in our religion.
Just as a single force in space can be mathematically conceived as having various
spatial components, the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate
Reality, is conceived by Hindu’s as having various aspects. A Hindu deity (god or
goddess) represents a particular aspect of the Supreme Being. For example, Saraswathi
represents the learning and knowledge aspect of the Supreme Being. Thus, if a Hindu
wants to pray for acquiring understanding, he/she prays to Sarawathi. Just as sunlight
cannot have a separate and independent existence from the sun itself, a Hindu deity
does not have a separate and independent existence from the Supreme Being. Hindu’s
declare that there is only one Supreme Being and He is the God of all religions. There is
no other God but there are manifestations of God.
The Hindu religion is often labelled as a religion of many God’s. This misunderstanding
arises when people, such as Mr Joshua Norman, fail to grasp the symbolism of the Hindu
pantheon. According to the Hindu scriptures , all living things are not apart from God
hence he lives in each living thing which gave rise to the ‘manifestations’ of God. This
was simply used to give symbolic expression to the fundamental Hindu doctrine, that God
lives the hearts of all living things.
I request that BCCSA could issue a warning to Mr Joshua Norman not to use Hinduism
or any other religion as a basis for comedy as it was a clear sign of mockery towards my
right to religious belief and practises as a Hindu. Living so far on into Democracy, I felt
humiliated by the statements made by Mr Joshua Norman.
4
It would greatly be appreciated if the BCCSA could get Mr Joshua Norman to tender an
apology to all Hindu’s for the statements he made about the practices about Hinduism.
Looking forward to a favourable response from your office, regarding my compliant.”
P Ramikisson: “My complaint is directed at a program broadcast on East Coast Radio
th
on the 21 of August 2010, after 10:00am on Saturday. During a skit that was
considered funny by East Coast Radio, the practices and principles of the Hindu religion
were ridiculed. The skit went on to poke fun at Hindu gods, their appearances, etc. As far
as I am concerned, this program was a total insult to the Indian listeners of Eastcoast
Radio, many of whom are Hindu’s. The fact that the management and staff of the radio
station were not sensitive enough to screen the content before airing it, shows a total lack
of consideration for their listenership. Trusting you will investigate appropriately.”
The insults were contained in a feature called Days of Our Young and Restless
Loving, it aired between 10am – 10:30am. This feature was supposed to portray
Hinduism and its practices as a soap opera. What was contained was a far cry from
being a comedy sketch:
Issues trivialized:
•
The number of Hindu Gods prayed to.
•
Praying to cows and elephants; narrators tone came across as being incredulous
•
Appearances of gods, for example, eight hands.
J Palakdhari: “On Saturday (21/08/10) between 11am-1pm ECR DJ Ravi R, allowed a
Pastor to come on air and be blasphemous to the Hindu community. The Pastor, I didn't
get his name, basically told the listeners that the hindu community were 'stupid" because
we worshipped cows, elephants, stones, rats (eeew, he exclaimed). Firstly this
IGNORANT Individual, knows nothing about the Hindu religion to even have an opinion. I
cannot believe that ECR would allow something of this magnitude to be broadcast on
their radio station. I think that it is DISGUSTING that people have no respect when it
comes to religious matters. This "Pastor" that ECR thought was brilliant enough to air on
their station, has probably lost them more listeners than they care to admit, I certainly will
not be listening to this BIGOTRY radio station ever again. The Management of ECR
should ensure that an apology is made to the Hindu community at large.”
U Sewsunker: “It is with a profound sense of outrage that I bring to your attention the
malicious and bigoted views of a small minded “pastor,” that was allowed to be aired on
East Coast Radio on Saturday 21st August 2010.
I find it distasteful in the extreme that ECR DJ Ravi R saw fit to be party to insulting the
Hindu religion between 11am and 1pm, by allowing a “pastor,” with no sense of the
philosophical or theosophical precepts of Hinduism to level insults against us
as a community.
This “pastor,” with an obviously miniscule intellect, went on to launch a bitter tirade
against South African Hindus by attacking us for worshiping, “cows, elephants, and
stones,” and implied that we were a, “stupid,” race.
I, like other Indians, listened in disbelief and rage as the ECR sponsored hate speech
was broadcast to millions.
The “pastor’s” idiotic comments smack of prejudism and bigotry along racial lines, and
are an insult to the human rights of all South Africans, as enshrined in our constitution.
5
I find the ignorant and arrogant remarks, against the ancient religion of Hinduism, which
preaches love, tolerance and a universal respect for all living creatures, to be utter
distasteful..
Saturday’s debacle on East Coast Radio attacked the dignity of South African Hindus and
ultimately cast the image of cultural respect in the country, in a negative light.
Shame on East Coast Radio.
Please investigate as we as Hindu's deserve a public apology from the management of
East coast radio.”
T Rampershad: “Attack on the dignity of Hindus. I wish to register my utmost disgust a
the attack on the dignity of Hindus by Joan Vlismas on East Coast Radio and Jacaranda
94.2 on 16 August 2010 and repeated on August 21 on East Coast Radio. I take great
exception to this man’s christocentric arrogance and to his distortions and outright lies
about Hindus, which have been repackaged as “comedy”. The word “sies” and the
statement, “the Bible says that Hindu’s to hell” is hate speech against us.”
[3]
East Coast Radio responded as follows:
Re: Sacrilegious Content
This letter serves as a response to the complaints from Dr K. Naidoo and Mr T. Naidoo
st
about the comedy skit aired at 12h02 on Saturday 21 August 2010.
With regard to clause 16.3 of the code, the insert in question does not fall foul of this
clause. The key wording of ‘within context’ is extremely important. The insert is very
obviously a parody on soap operas and hence called “The days of our bold and restless
loving”.
The scene opens with a ‘pastor’ getting ready to deliver his sermon, which is from a
“leaflet I found on the way in here today”. This is the set up for the rest of the piece.
There is no advocacy of hatred based on religion, rather the highlighting the lack of
understanding within our communities. There is also no incitement to cause harm. The
quip about “Don’t shoot him – he’ll just come back” is a play on words around the Hindu
tenet of re-incarnation. He then goes on to say that in the bible if a Hindu is a Hindu, then
he will go to hell. This is a belief of Christianity.
I do not believe we have contravened the code.
However, I do believe it is important to inform the commission that as a radio station, we
do believe we erred in the broadcast of this material. We have subsequently made a
public apology on air and in a press release. The public apology aired at 12h02 on
Tuesday 24th August and repeated at the same time of the original flighting on the
th
Saturday. (12h04, 28 August). Further to this, every email complaint we received, a
personal apology from me as the programming manager was sent.
Herewith the text of the apology:
6
On behalf of East Coast Radio, I would like to humbly apologise for the airing of an insert
that insulted the Hindu community on Saturday morning.
East Coast Radio does not support the views made in the insert. It should never have
aired and we have put strong measures in place to ensure this never happens again. We
have also cancelled that programming insert on The Real Alternative and suspended the
contributor.
Once again, our sincerest apologies.
As can be seen in the apology, we have taken this incident very seriously and have
cancelled the feature, suspended the contributor and put stronger measures in place for
this not to happen again.
st
I will be present at the tribunal set for 1 October at 10h45.”
[4]
Religion is often a contentious subject as far as broadcasting is concerned.
Serious adherents to religious belief systems are mostly sensitive about their
beliefs and are easily offended. In this broadcast a mockery is made of the Hindu
manifestations of deities like elephants, cows, mice and the like. It is also stated
that it does not help to kill Hindus because they keep on coming back – a
reference to the notion of re-incarnation in which they believe. It is clear that the
Hindu religion had been ridiculed by this broadcast.
As to the wisdom to
broadcast such a programme on East Coast Radio where a sizeable number of
listeners are Hindus, according to Mr Singh, for the broadcaster, we will later
express an opinion.
[5]
This programme was clearly a skit on the Hindu religion. The tone of voice of
Vlismas when “preaching” against Hinduism, the clearly outrageous statements,
for example that it is no use killing Hindus because they keep coming back,
should have alerted the listeners that this should not be taken seriously. But, as
stated above, it is well-known that people easily become offended when their
religion is being ridiculed. Although it has often been stated by the Tribunal of
the BCCSA that the context in which something has been broadcast is all
important, we think that broadcasters should take special care when it comes to
broadcasting skits on religion.
7
[6]
At this stage we think that it would be conducive for clear and sober thinking if
we analyze the rights that are protected in this situation.
Seen from the
broadcaster’s point of view, it has the right to freedom of expression that is
protected in section 16 of the Constitution of South Africa. There is, however, a
limit to this freedom in that there may be no advocacy of hatred based on religion
(in the context of this case) and there may be no incitement to cause harm. This
freedom of expression, as well as the limitation placed upon it by the Constitution
is also contained in clause 16 of the Code of Conduct applied by this Tribunal.
Some of the complainants mentioned their democratic right to religious freedom
that had been violated. It is true that the right to freedom of religion is protected
in terms of section 15 of the Constitution. As we understand it, this right means
that everyone has the right to believe in, to worship and to pray to a Deity or
deities according to his or her own conscience and generally to freely practice his
or her religion. As far as broadcasting is concerned, the right to freedom of
religion is indirectly protected by clause 16.3 of the Code of Conduct applied by
the BCCSA. This clause prohibits the advocacy of hatred based on, inter alia,
religion.
[7]
We do not think that any of the complainants’ right to freedom of religion had
been violated by the broadcast in question. The fact that their religion had been
ridiculed by the broadcast, as stated in paragraph [4] above, does not mean that
they were in any manner obstructed in practicing their religion. The question
remains whether this broadcast constituted the advocacy of hatred, based on
religion, and this was the matter that was argued during the hearing.
[8]
Clause 16.3 of the Code mentions the following grounds on which the advocacy
of hatred is outlawed: race, ethnicity, gender and religion. This clause is a
verbatim repetition of section 16(2) of the Constitution of South Africa. One of
the latest decisions by the Tribunal of the BCCSA in which we had to decide
whether the broadcast constituted the advocacy of hatred based on religion, was
case no. 11/2010 Magee- Ferreira (High Priest of Starwolves Coven) v SABC2.
8
In this case a remark was made by the presenter of a documentary programme in
which a link could be drawn between witches and evil. The remark was made in
a jocular manner. It was decided that there was no advocacy of hatred based on
religion and the complaint was not upheld.
[9]
In another case, no. 10/2010 J Schutte v MultiChoice, a Tribunal of the BCCSA
found that the broadcast of a scene of a light aircraft pulling a banner on which
the words “Jesus sucks” appeared, constituted the advocacy of hatred based on
religion.
The context in which the scene was broadcast was also humour.
However, it could not find that there had been incitement to cause harm and the
complaint was not upheld.
[10]
In the present matter humour also plays an important part in adjudging the
contents of the words complained about: The mock seriousness of the “sermon”,
the outrageous statement that it does not help to kill Hindus because they keep
coming back, and other elements clearly point to a humorous skit on religion.
This humour was clearly not understood nor appreciated by the complainants.
The indignation of the individual listener to a programme, or, for that matter, the
subjective opinion of a commissioner sitting on the Tribunal, cannot be the norm
for adjudging whether a broadcast contravenes the Code or not. However, it
seems that a large proportion of the listeners did not appreciate the humour and
were seriously offended. We state this on the strength of the evidence of Mr
Singh, for the broadcaster, where he informed us of the large number of
complaints that the broadcaster received on account of this programme
[11]
The members of the Tribunal were in agreement that this programme went too far.
The derogatory reference to manifestations of the Hindu Deity exceeded the
bounds of humour. Although humour is a very important element in our human
existence, we accept that there are limits to what can be said in the context of
humour. It is especially so in the case of religion. Where remarks are made about
9
religion, they can be so derogatory that, objectively seen, they constitute the
advocacy of hatred. We find in this instance that this is indeed the case.
[12]
There is a further element to hate speech. Clause 16.3 requires that there must be
incitement to cause harm. “Incite” means to urge or to stir up. This can be done
in many ways. The use of words like “kill” and “bullets” in this skit are just the
kind of words that could incite listeners who are serious about their religion to
suffer harm.. We find that in this instance there was incitement to cause harm.
[13]
We find support for our decision in the letter by the Respondent (broadcaster)
included in paragraph [3] above. The Respondent states, inter alia, “… we do
believe we erred in the broadcast of this material.” It even went so far as to
broadcast an apology to its listeners on two occasions. In the apology it states the
following: “It (the skit by John Vlismas) should never have aired and we have put
strong measures in place to ensure this never happens again. We have also
cancelled that programming insert on The Real Alternative and suspended the
contributor”. This points to a realization that it contravened the Code and the
only possible contravention would have been the advocacy of hatred based on
religion. The broadcaster paid quite a price for the risk to broadcast a skit on
Hinduism to an audience of which a large part adhere to the religion.
[14]
Regarding the sanction, we have taken into consideration that the Respondent has
broadcast an apology, twice as a matter of fact; it has sent written apologies to all
complainants, cancelled the programming insert and suspended the contributor of
the programme. These are drastic steps taken by the Respondent. In the light of
this we have decided that a reprimand would suffice and we order accordingly.
In the result, we find that the broadcaster has contravened clause 16.3 of the Code
of Conduct by broadcasting a programme that constituted the advocacy of hatred
based on religion. The sanction imposed is a reprimand.
10
HP VILJOEN
DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON
Prof JCW van Rooyen SC, Chairperson and Commissioners Makeketa and Sewlal
concurred in the above judgment of the Deputy Chairperson.