30 June 2006

Outrage over BSA Ruling on "Bloody Mary"

The Society submitted a comprehensive written complaint to the broadcaster over the screening of the highly offensive "Blood Mary" episode of South Park. The broadcaster made no effort to interact with the details of the complaint other than send back to us a superficial stock reply sent to all complainants. There was at least some satisfaction that the broadcaster made a commitment not to re-screen the objectionable episode in the light of the record level of complaints it received. There was no acknowledgment of wrongdoing or any breaches of the Free-to-air Broadcasting Code.

The Society having observed the cavalier manner in which the inept and morally moribund BSA treats complaints over indecency and objectionable content - including gratuitous and graphic sexual violence - felt it was a complete waste of time pursuing the matter of its dissatisfaction with the bradcaster's response, with the BSA. It is not at all suprised that the BSA has dismissed the 35 complaints it received from other complainants dissasisfied with the broadcaster's decision.

BSA members probabably fell over themselves laughing at what they consider to be legitimate "satire" represented by "Bloody Mary". In their view it does not injure the public good. No offence is troublesome to them unless it impacts PC-sensitive collectives such as Maori activists, Muslims or "gay-rights activists". No BSA members giggled over the 'sight of 'Mary's' menstrual blood, propelled with audible rectal emissions, squirting over the face of the Pope and church leaders.

The present Chief Executive of the BSA, Jane Wrightson, a former Chief Censor, has publicly castigated our Society for seeking classification reviews of films containing lengthy, gratuitous depictions of necrophilia, sodomy, incest and rape. She has damned the Society for its role as public watch dog and yet she heads an authority that is supposed to play a similar role and safeguard the public good. She is paid a fat salary to do her job, The Society receives no direct public funding. She has used her position to belittle a Society seeking to uphold the public good.

Recently, the Society received an invitation from the Minister of Broadcasting, the Hon, Steve Maharey, to submit to him a nomination for a BSA position that becomes vacant later this year, He notified that he may choose to reappoint the person already holding that position. The Society has concluded that it would be a complete waste of time to put forward a nomination.

Why? Because late last year the Society received a similar request for nominations from the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. Rick Barker, for eight positions on the Film and Literature Board of Review. The Society assisted in 12 of the 35 nominations that were put to the Minister. This took an enormous amount of time. Not one of the well-qualified nominees was successful. The Minister chose to reappoint all the eight existing board members whose positions had been expired almost two years before he got around to re-appointing them to their cosy well-paid positions.

Those who dare to raise serious concerns over the injury to the public good caused by the growing volume of indecent and morally depaved fiilth that is invading all forms of media in New Zealand, are treated with disdain by the censorship authorities. Their concerns fall on deaf ears because the censors appointed by the present government hold to extreme liberal values and refuse to acknowledge the negative impact on audiences of constant exposure to indecent and morally corrosive objectionable content.

If the BSA had been confronted with a 'satirical' image of the present Governor-General squirting menstrual blood over her husband Peter, whiile he was considering a film censorship decision, would they have given it the thumbs up, giggled, and moved on to their next censorship task. It is noteworthy that Peter Cartwright and his eight fellow Film and Literature Board of Review members were happy to pass the film "Anatomy of Hell" for cinema screenings, following a review initiated by the Society.

In that film a woman who is sexually violated in every possible way by a homosexual, drinks her own menstrual blood after having a broomstick inserted into her anus, The Board in their collective wisdom decided to alter the censor's warning note and alert viewers to the fact that the film featured a scene involving menstrual blood.

If the offence involving menstrual blood had been directed at Allah's Prophet Mohhamed, or against the Moari Queen, the BSA would have had no difficulty upholding the complaint. They would have fallen over themselves to apease outraged Muslims or aggrieved Maoris, lamenting with them over the grievous injury inflicted.

ENDS

© Scoop Media