Investigation report no. BI-205
SummaryLicensee / United Christian Broadcasters Australia Limited
Station / Vision Christian Radio
Type of service / Open narrowcasting—radio
Name of program / 66/40
Date of broadcast / 2 May 2016
Relevant code / Open Narrowcast Radio Codes of Practice
Date Finalised / 23 August 2016
Decision / No breach of clause 1.3 [religious vilification]
Breach of clause 2.4 [respond to complaint within 30 days]
Breach of clause 2.5 [advise right to refer matter to the ACMA]
Background
In July 2016, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 170 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into the radio program 66/40. The program was broadcast on Vision Christian Radio by United Christian Broadcasters Australia Limited on 2 May 2016.
The ACMA received a complaint alleging that theprogram contained material that ‘was likely to incite hatred against and to vilify adherents of the Roman Catholic faith on the basis of their religion’. The complainant also alleged the licensee did not respond to the complaint within the time limit specified in the Open Narrowcast Radio Codes of Practice (the Codes).
The ACMA has investigated the licensee’s compliance against clauses1.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of the Codes.
The program
66/40 is a Christian lecture program, described as:
66/40 is a Bible Teaching programme featuring Dr Chuck Missler of Koinonia House - an organisation dedicated to developingmaterials to stimulate and encourage serious study of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.[1]
The Vision Radio Australia program guide further describes the program as follows:
Innovative and exciting Biblical teaching that connects the Bible to science, prophecy, your life and the world events occurring around you.[2]
A transcript of the relevant excerpt of the program is at Attachment A.
Assessmentand submissions
When assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and any inferences that may be drawn. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener.
Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener to be:
A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.[3]
Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Codes.
The investigation takes into account the complaint (at Attachment B) and submissions from the broadcaster (at Attachment C). Other sources are identified below.
Issue 1: General guidelines for programming
Relevant Codes provisions
1.3Narrowcasters will not broadcast programs which are likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify any person or group on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, age, colour, physical or mental disability, transgender status or HIV/AIDS status. A narrowcaster may not broadcast a program which is likely in all the circumstances to seriously offend the cultural sensitivity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or ethnic groups in the Australian community.
[…]
1.6A narrowcaster will not breach clauses 1.2(b), 1.3, 1.4(a) or 1.4(b) if a program includes matter said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a)in broadcasting an artistic work including comedy and satire;
(b)in the course of any broadcast or statement, discussion or debate made or held for an academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other identifiable public interest purpose;
(c)in broadcasting a fair report of, or a fair comment on, any event or matter of identifiable public interest.
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 1.3 of the Codes.
Reasons
To assess compliance in this case, the following questions were addressed:
Did the program identify a person or group of persons on a relevant basis?
Was the program likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify the relevant person or group on that basis?
If so, was the conduct in the program said or done reasonably and in good faith (via the relevant exemption clause)?
The complainant submitted:
[…] Theprogram containedstronglyantiCatholiccontent.
The program discussed the 'Harlot' and the 'Beast', which are figures of evil described in Chapter 17 of the Book of Revelation. The program said "here it's presented as a scarlet-coloured beast. That's a very interesting colour.
That's the colour that's been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour" and (in relation to the 'harlot') "Scarlet is the colour that's been adopted by Roman Catholicism."
[…]
There was a real possibility that an ordinary reasonable listener would have understood the program to be speaking evil of members of the Roman Catholic Church (Church) on the basis of their religion.
The program expressly associated the Church of which Catholics are members with biblical figures of evil.
[…]
The program also drew upon and referred back to a culture of hatred of Catholics in which members of that Church are considered to be disloyal, satanic and potentially murderous.
The licensee submitted:
The core issue seems to be Dr Missler's assertion that the historical actions of theCatholic churchmay qualify it to meet the description of "the woman who rides the beast", in the Biblical book of Revelation. Dr Missler's conclusion was based on documented history including the persecution of large numbers of Protestant Christians in Medieval Europe at the hand of several successive Catholic Popes.
[…]
It is a very long bow to suggest Dr Missler's comments were a vilifying attack on the Catholic Church, rather they were a small part of a very objective commentary about the church through the ages in relation to biblical prophecy.
[…]
It is clear that [the complainant] hastaken personal offense to the material broadcast, which is regrettable. It is ourstrong belief that [the complainant’s] views do not represent those ofan ordinary reasonable listener, in that such a person would not consider the material broadcast as vilification of, orencouraging a strong dislike toward, members of the Catholic churchtoday. This is highlighted by the absence of any other complaints regarding the broadcast.
Did the program identify a person or group of persons on a relevant basis?
The broadcast materialwas a pre-recorded lecture by Dr Missler,an established biblical teacher and academic,on the interpretation of biblical prophecy. During the lecture, which focussed on chapters 17 and 18 of the Book of Revelations,Dr Missler suggested a connection between certain passages, and the Catholic Church.In doing so, hemade several explicit references to ‘the Vatican’, ‘Roman Catholicism’, ‘the Pope’ and the ‘Roman Catholic Church’.
Based on these references to the Catholic Church and its leadership, the ACMA is satisfied that for the purposes of clause 1.3, the group of persons identified is members of the Catholic Church and the relevant basis is religion.
Was the program likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify the relevant person or group on that basis?
Incite or perpetuate
To assess compliance, the ACMA asks if the relevant broadcast material was likely to have urged a reasonable person to share feelings of hatred against or vilify any person or group on the basis of religion. Conduct that merely conveys a person’s own dislike of a group of people is not a breach of the Codes.
The program contained phrases, including:
‘This beast, of course, is the one that was described in Revelation thirteen. It’s a political system on the one hand and/or the leader of that system on the other, and here it’s presented as a scarlet coloured beast. That’s a very interesting colour. That’s the colour that’s been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour.’
‘… many prophecy buffs that write books are insensitive to the fact that the Pope is not the Antichrist. The Vatican rides the beast, it isn’t the beast and so, but there is a clear linkage to the Vatican.That doesn’t mean it is limited to the Vatican but the Vatican certainly qualifies
‘The history of the Roman Catholic Church is part of what you need to acquaint yourself with if you’re going to understand your bible. There is no organisation on the planet earth that has murdered more Christians than the Roman Catholic Church. One Pope, one afternoon, murdered more Christians than all the Roman Emperors put together, and you need to understand that.’
The ACMA acknowledges that some listeners may have considered the statements to be critical of the Catholic Church by associating it with the Antichrist, blasphemy, a counterfeitreligion and claims of murder. However, the ACMA considers that the requisite elements of incitement or perpetuation of hatred, or vilification on the basis of religion were absent from the material broadcast in the program.
Dr Missler did not use explicit language during the program that would have been understood by an ordinary reasonable listener as directly urging, stimulatingor encouraging them to share feelings of hatred against or vilify a person or group on the basis of their religion or current religious practices and beliefs.
The program did make negative associations and contain criticisms of the Catholic Church, particularly in relation to the past persecution of people on the basis of their religion. Based on his interpretation of biblical passages which did not expressly refer to the Catholic Church or the Vatican but to, for example, ‘the woman who rides the beast’ and the colour scarlet,Dr Missler also associated the Catholic Church with a feigned religion and blasphemy.
The lecture was sectarian and to some extent critical. The audience would have understood that Dr Missler was presenting the Catholic Church in a negative light over past events. However, he did not describe Catholic religious beliefs or the tenets of Catholic faith. The program did not include explicit terms or inflammatory language promptingthe audience to share feelings of hatred, contempt or dislike of members of the Catholic Church on the basis of their religion.
Hatred or vilification – high threshold
The terms ‘hatred against’ and‘vilification’ in clause 1.3 contemplate the provocation of a very strong reaction in the audience. It is not sufficient that the broadcast induces a mild or even strong response.
To the extent that some listeners may have understood that the program was incitingthem to share feelings of hatred against or vilify of members of the Catholic Church on the basis of their religion, it was not explicit or extreme enough to provoke the strength of audience response contemplated in clause 1.3 of the Codes.
If so, was the conduct in the program said or done reasonably and in good faith (via the relevant exemption clause)?
As the broadcast material did not contain any incitement to hatred or vilification, there is no need to consider clause 1.6.
Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 1.3 of the Codes.
Issue 2: Handling complaints
Relevant Codes provisions
2.4Written complaints will be acknowledged in writing, within fifteen days from the receipt of the complaint and the narrowcaster will respond substantively to the complaint within thirty days of receipt. If the complainant has not received a response within sixty days or considers that a response within that period is inadequate he or she may refer the complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
2.5A complainant will be advised that he or she is entitled to refer the matter to the Australian Communications and Media Authority where the complainant is not satisfied with the response to a written complaint.
Finding
The licensee breached clauses 2.4 and 2.5 of the Codes.
Reasons
Acknowledge and respond to written complaints
It is a requirement of the Codes that written complaints be acknowledged in writing within fifteen days from the receipt of the complaint. A substantive response must be provided within thirty days of receipt.
On 1 June 2016, the complainant re-submitted to the licensee:
On 3 May 2016 I submitted a complaint regarding a broadcast via your website. I have not received a response.
The licensee submitted to the ACMA:
We concede that technically, [the complainant]did not receive a response within the prescribed 30 days from the point of his initial electronic lodgement, however as outlined above, this was due to a unique technical failure rather than us "sitting on our hands". Upon becoming aware of his complaint we responded very promptly and also acted swiftly to rectify the technical issue which led to the problem sothat it does not recur.
The ACMA accepts that the licenseeacknowledged receipt of the complaint the same dayit was re-submitted on 1 June 2016. Further, it provided a substantive written response addressing the complainant’s concerns four business days later.
The licensee has acknowledged that it failed to respond to the complaint dated 3 May 2016 within the time-frame set out at clause 2.4 of the Codes. It further submitted that the swiftness and manner in which it ultimately responded to the complainant is indicative of its complaint handling process.
The ACMA notes that the licensee promptly addressed the technical issue which prevented the licensee from receiving the initial complaint and that it has undertaken to manage any future complaints in a timely manner.
However, as the licensee did not to respond to the 3 May 2016 complaint within the time-frame specified, the ACMA finds that the licensee breached clause 2.4 of the Codes.
Advise complainant of the right to refer the matter to the ACMA
It is also a requirement of the Codes that a licensee, in responding to a complaint, advises the complainant that they may refer their complaint to the ACMA if they are not satisfied with the response. The licensee’s substantive response dated 8 June 2016 did not include a statement to this effect.
The licensee has undertaken that all future responses will advise complainants of the entitlement to refer the matter to the ACMA if dissatisfied with the licensee’s response. The licensee will also conduct refresher training to ensure all relevant staff fully understand the obligations under the Codes.
The licensee breached clause 2.5 of the Codes.
Attachment A
Transcript of 66/40, broadcast on Vision Christian Radio on 2 May 2016
Voiceover: 66/40. Your future lies in 66/40.Sixty six books by 40 authors and yet we now discover it’s an integrated message system from outside our time domain.
Introduction. Welcome to 66/40. The ministry outreach of Koinonia House and Koinonia Institute. Today’s bible teacher is Dr Chuck Missler, connecting the Bible to your life and the world around you. In today’s study, Dr Missler continues his teaching on the Book of Revelation Chapter 17 and 18.
Dr Missler:With whom the Kings of the Earth have committed fornication and the habitants of the Earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication” (a quote of Revelation 17:2). Now again, harlotry is a form of false devotion, that’s the way it’s being used here, and harlotry involves a feigned love, a pretended affection, an intimacy for favours and that sort of thing. So, four times we have the term harlot in this chapter, it’s called ‘the great city’ something like eight times, and Jerusalem is also called the harlot in Isaiah, and Tyre was called a harlot it it’s way in Isaiah 23 and so was Ninevah in the book of Nahum. But so those terms, while we tend to use them narrowly in a biological sense, they’re used in Scripture not to exclude that, but broader, so as to the whole idea of spiritual fornication.
”With whom the Kings of the Earth have committed fornication”, or false affection, “...and the habitants of the Earth have been made drink with the wine of her fornication. So He carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of the names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns”. Now these seven heads and ten horns are familiar idioms to the prophecy student, from Daniel chapter seven and other passages, and several times in the book of Revelation already. This beast, of course, is the one that was described in Revelation thirteen. It’s a political system on the one hand and/or the leader of that system on the other, and here it’s presented as a scarlet coloured beast. That’s a very interesting colour. That’s the colour that’s been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour. ”Whom the Kings of the Earth have committed fornication and the habitants of the Earth have been made drink with the wine of her fornication”, this is one of those places where Lennon was correct, he said “Religion is the opiate of the people”. Many Christians are offended by that but he actually is quite accurate. Let’s distinguish religion for what it really is – it’s man’s attempt to cover himself with God, to make things right and he can’t. God commented on that before the end of chapter three. Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves with aprons of fig leaves and God replaced them with coats of skins, and in the little one verse in Genesis three you don’t pick up on it until you’ve read the rest of your bible and come back there and you realise what God is doing. He’s teaching them that by the shedding of innocent blood they would be covered. It’s an object lesson. You say “the Holy Spirit’s dealing in puns”. Absolutely, he does that often. And, so, the control of state religion is one of the most dangerous trends in history and in the current day. Watch that, it’s going to increase. The enforced paganism of our government schools in this country are shredding the fabric of our heritage and destroying the character of our nation. And it’s just beginning.