The first complaint read as follows:
“On the morning of 8th September during the airing of the Gareth Cliff Show Mr. Cliff had occasion to interview a young woman about her humanitarian activities. It transpired that this young woman now 27 years old had started her humanitarian programme as a 22 year old. During the course of discussion Mr. Cliff made mention of her very young age and remarked that to have started her programme at such an early age was commendable because as he stated “girls of 22 usually do nothing but lie on their backs with their legs open”
The second complaint was in the same vein.
The main question which the BCCSA Tribunal considered was whether the statement amounted to the advocacy of hatred based on gender and constituted incitement to cause harm, which is prohibited by the Constitution of the Republic and clause 4 of the Broadcasting Code.
The Tribunal concluded as follows:
- The reference to “girls” or “women” by the complainants may possibly have been inspired by at least eight newspaper articles where the term “girls” was incorrectly substituted for “most 22-year-olds”. Whatever the presenter said, he did not make a sexist reference. One might infer that he referred to females since the person interviewed, Ms Larkan, is a female. But that is not the only reasonable inference that may be drawn from the facts, judged as a whole. It would amount to a stereotyping of sexual activity if one were to draw only one inference from the remark and conclude that it must have referred to women. The phrase, “most 22 year olds are laying [sic] on their backs with their legs open at 22, or else they are drinking”, is nothing more than an outrageous, probably ill-chosen, comparison. Yet however outrageous the phrase may be, it is not gender insensitive, and nor does it even amount to discrimination based on gender.
- The words, in any case, do not even come close to hate speech as defined in the Broadcasting Code and section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic. For a finding of hate speech, there must be language that objectively advocates hatred based on gender, which constitutes incitement to cause harm. There is no suggestion of harm being directed at a specific gender, nor of discrimination based on gender, in the current instance. All 22-year-olds, of whatever gender, are included. The hyperbole implicitly included men and women in its sweeping declaration.
To interpret the presenter’s verbal image of young people engaged in sexual activity (or drinking) as constituting hate speech would be a gross overreaction. Indeed, to do so would trivialise the very notion of hate speech. If the hate speech alarm is sounded indiscriminately, it will lose its efficacy and power in cases where hate speech genuinely exists, and where it needs to be dealt with according to the Broadcasting Code, section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic and the Promotion of Equality and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. In this instance, advocacy of hatred based on gender is not present. The complaint already fails on the gender requirement. In fact, there is also no advocacy, but simply an opinion which is aired.
The Complaints were accordingly not upheld.
[2012] JOL 28444 (BCCSA)CLICK TO VIEW FULL JUDGMENT case-no-33-2011