DEFAMATION OF CHRISTMAS
Peter
Stock
National Affairs Director
Canada Family Action Coalition
99 Fifth Avenue, Suite 225
Ottawa K1S 5P5
Thomas
Langan
President
Catholic Civil Rights League
1099 Danforth Ave.
Toronto, M4J 1M5
April 28, 2000
Françoise
Bertrand
Chairperson
CRTC
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Dear Madame Chairperson,
This
letter is written by the Catholic Civil Rights League(“The League”) and the
Canadian Family Action Coalition (“CFAC”) as a complaint against a Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“the CRTC”) licensee
CFNY-FM(“CFNY”) in response to the radio station’s morning show “Humble
and Fred” broadcast of April 1,
1999 and shows in the weeks preceding the 1st Annual Jesus
LOOK-A-LIKE contest promotion, held on that day.
The League would also like to comment upon the following:
·
the “Chocolate Jesus” giveaway promotion Easter 1999, held in
conjunction with the aforementioned promotion,
·
the “Danger Boy on a Cross” promotion held by the same radio station
on April 9th 1998, and
·
the CFNY Christmas song “Jesus was a Fetus”.
As
the Commission may not be aware, the Catholic Civil Rights League wrote letters
to the Toronto Mayor and City Councilors concerning the bigotry with which CFNY
was branding and promoting itself, through its contest and activities directly
relating to these contests and promotions, it’s timing and pertinence to the
Toronto Christian community. We
will restrict our comments to the seven specific issues, each is dealt with in a
this complaint to the CRTC. The League and CFAC have identified these issues as
directly relating to the status of CFNY as licensee to which we draw your
attention, namely:
n
The contest promotion and both
the “Chocolate Jesus” and the “Danger Boy on a Cross” promotions were in
direct contravention of Clause 11 - Radio Station Contests and Promotions,
all three promotions were excessive in their use of costly airtime and
secondly, they were neither conceived, nor conducted in good taste, or
sensitivity to Christian beliefs, and no care was taken to ensure that it was
not likely to give rise to a public inconvenience or disturbance.
Rather the intent was the opposite, to create an inconvenience,
disturbance, defame and exploit the central figure of a religion for profit and
needless controversy.
n A promotional giveaway leading up to the contest used Chocolate Jesus’(chocolates in the shape of Jesus Christ) as free incentives to attract listeners. As prizes, the station gave away a set of patio furniture, 50 “Chocolate Jesus’”, a “natty pair of Sandals”(Mr. Glassman Wednesday March 31, 1999~5:40am), a loaf of bread and a fish as prizes to the winner. The final three are all Christian symbols, the mockery of which and specifically the exploitation of the central figure of Christianity, in the form of the sub-promotion of the “Chocolate Jesus”, the event timing(Holy Thursday), the event promotion and its myriad humiliating references to Christian biblical stories and scripture, together constitute a blatant abusive attack on serious Toronto Christians and a violation of Section 3 of the Radio Regulations and Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics: Human Rights.
n It was the second such promotion held on the Thursday before Easter, know to Christians as Holy Thursday and it was also presented as being first in an annual tradition of these promotions. This ongoing tradition of anti-Christian broadcast and exploitation of Christian traditions has no place in Canadian broadcasting, and by doing so should be considered an ongoing breach. As a promotion the effects are two fold:
1. The many weeks leading up to the Easter event are filled with daily abusive reference to the promotion. In the case of the combination promotion for both the “Chocolate Jesus’” and the “Humble and Fred Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE contest”, the opportunity for, and execution of abusive remarks was myriad.
2. The second form of ongoing breach is the now annual tradition being established by the radio station for the abuse of Christian beliefs. As Mr. Glassman said at 8:54 on April1, 1999, “…come back and crown this year’s Jesus Look-a-Like Contest winner.”, it appears they plan to have this contest annually. Please note that it was not held this Easter, but the seriousness of the previous two must be addressed. Their detrimental effects are now ingrained in all broadcasting decisions concerning anti-Christian content.
n Some of the most abusive commentary on the show about Christians and relating to Jesus came from the callers who had been screened for their content through either the Input 102 system or directly preceding or during the Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE contest promotion. The seeds for this were sown by the staff and advertising for the Chocolate Jesus’ or the contest and there was no demonstrable deterrent nor display of dismay towards these insults. The self celebrated “Input Humble and Fred” talk-back system was abused to the point that it’s reason for existence should be questioned. These callers, in voicing concern became the object of a number of jokes themselves. It is also the case that at the end of the show a number of calls were spliced together into a joke medley. This defeats the objective of the entire “Input 102” system and creates an environment of overt hostility toward those with an opposing view and dissent. That opposing view being an honest defense of a serious belief in the sacredness of the objects of their denigrating promotion.
n
The “Jesus was a Fetus” song
has aired on numerous occasions leading up to and including the Christmas 1999
holiday season. It is a
disrespectful an insulting song that in conjunction with the stations previous
contests paints an abusively discriminatory picture of Christians.
There is no media balance to this discrimination.
Licenses of religious broadcasters to
balance these overt attacks have been denied for years.
The CBSC has used previous decisions concerning CFNY to defend attacks on
Christians and in doing so has sent a clear message of
the open season for attacks on Christianity.
The song is being played repeatedly in the says leading up to Christmas
and as such it also be seen as a promotional tool creating controversy for
recognition and profit at the expense of Toronto’s Christian community.
There is no balance on the station, to be there would have to be equally
disgusting treatment of other religious and socio-cultural groups, the likes of
which the CRTC has shown no tolerance of or for in the past.
n
In the CAB Code of Ethics Clause 4 Community Activities states: “It shall
be the responsibility of each member station to serve to the utmost of its
ability the interests of its particular community and to identify itself
actively with worthwhile community activities.” A fictitious crucifixion promotion, having the show’s
producer duct taped to a cross on one Holy Thursday and a Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE
contest on the next do not constitute situations that are in any way either
serving interests of the community, or worthwhile community activities and
serves only to alienate members of its community.
The only representation on this show or station of the Christian
community has been is a negative capacity.
The hosts of the show are admittedly originating from non-Christian
backgrounds. The opposite would not
be tolerated.
n The station argued that the historical record of Jesus was vague and inaccurate, but there is strong evidence to the contrary. The station has based the whole concept of the contest on the premise that they were committing an act of community awareness raising and providing listeners with information. Their entire contest was based on an falsehood which mytholigizes Christianity. Their contest and accompanying promotion conveyed a series of misstatements that should have been acknowledged at the time and have yet to be seriously corrected. To utter a falsehood about a specific group is a defamation and a libel.
Since
the original CFNY “Danger Boy on a Cross” has become the yardstick by which
all other types of anti-Christian bigotry are treated and viewed at the Canadian
Broadcast Standards Council, it is now possible for all broadcasting stations to
hold month long contests denigrating Christianity for profit with the blessing
of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in obvious conflict.
The Broadcasters of Canada may be exempt at the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, but they are not exempt on the individual provincial commission
level. “Community standards”
for Christian intolerance must not be up to the CBSC.
Background
On
April 9th 1998, the Thursday before Easter of last year, the radio
station aired a promotion in which a member of the CFNY morning show “Humble
and Fred” was ceremoniously duct taped to “A. Cross”. The promotion which invited listeners to come and donate
money, to see the producer “put up on a cross” was conceived out of contempt
for the Christian community. The
promotion was successful on only a single level, it raised the anger of the
Christian community that it was holding up for ridicule.
It failed in all other respects, particularly financially.
The charitable guise, under which they had attempted to justify the
entire event, was a flop. Of the money they did raise, $100 dollars was donated by Mr.
Glassman himself. The total sum,
which did not exceed several hundred dollars, was refused for donation by many
charities and the final recipient was never acknowledged.
No charity would associate itself with the event.
This
hateful mockery of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was called the “DANGER BOY
ON A CROSS” promotion. This
promotion was very well advertised in the weeks leading up to the event.
There was an excessive number of telephone calls of complaint to both the
station and the Canadian Standard Broadcast Council. Mr. Glassman boasted on the
air that the promotion caused “the most number of calls that the CBSC has ever
received in volume concerning a radio show.”
As a matter of policy, the CBSC will not release that information but
acknowledges that the broadcaster is privy to every complaint.
The actual mock crucifixion consisted of the producer of the show, Jason
Barr, who uses the on-air name of Danger Boy, being duct taped to a life size
cardboard cut-out of Alan Cross(“A.Cross). Mr. Cross was and continues to be
is the drive time deejay for the station. It
was conducted at the time of peak listening audience and took place on the
corner of Young and Dundas. As far
as can be determined, the promotion took place without any type of permission
from the City of Toronto. The Eaton
Center management was not consulted or warned about that event, nor this
year’s “Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE” contest, despite proximity and potential for
association.
The
promotion of the event consisted of it’s being talked about and advertised
extensively on the radio station for a number of weeks leading up to the actual
event which occurred on the Holy Thursday before Easter.
The promotion included the “Input 102” calls which were used as
emotional fodder to enflame both detractors and defenders of the event. The
actual event drew security and 3 police vehicles, the cost of which far exceeded
the charitable amount raised. The explained excuse for the event was that of a
charitable fund raiser.
The
true cost can not be measured in adverse publicity and humiliation of the
Toronto Christian community. It was
an example of abuse of the sensitivities of the Christian community, the likes
of which have not been reported elsewhere in this Country or even the United
States. According to the
advertising agency, Crichton Kim-Kirkland Company of Toronto, which conducted
the transit and outdoor advertising campaign titled “Everyone
has some edge in them!” for CFNY, the listener base as of September 7th,
1998 was 750,000. That is a large
percentage of the 4.8 million people in Toronto & GTA Region.
The
station has a history of humiliating and degrading remarks about Christians and
the Church. Favorite targets
include the Pope, priests, the burning of churches and institutions, at on point
likening Catholic schools to “cult” schools.
On their self celebrated compact disc “Humble and Fred #1 in 97”,
which was a compilation of their favorite comedic sketches, there was an entire
section dedicated to “Religion”. Of
the six selections, five are aimed at either the Pope, the apostles or Jesus.
The 1997 Easter was remembered by the show by saying how Jesus’
apostles held a garage sale after Easter and the seeds for the “Chocolate
Jesus” were sown. There is also
another section that celebrates the death of Mother Theresa.
Background
to Code of Ethics
In
the background to the CAB code of ethics the following is clearly stated:
“The electronic form of publication known as private commercial broadcasting is a highly competitive business devoted to provision of service to the public in all its interests - business, political, recreational, informational, cultural and educational - for profit.”
The
length to which stations are going to achieve profit is extremely disturbing.
What happens now that the drive for profits encroaches on the religious
freedoms of Canadians? In
attempting to create a controversial subject, which must be clearly
differentiated from a previously existing controversial subject(as defined in
the CAB Code of Ethics), for broadcast through a promotion, they have
successfully held an identifiable group up to abuse and ridicule on repeated
occasions for weeks for at a time for the second successive year.
Even holding the Christian clergy and ministers up for repeated insults.
The
“Chocolate Jesus’ and the “Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE” promotions were being
investigated as a hate crime by the Toronto Police. Under the criminal code of Canada, it is a crime to hold an
identifiable group up for abuse in public.
The Toronto Christian community was held up for abuse by this radio
station on the days leading up to and including the 1st of April.
They even managed to spill the effects over to City Television’s
Breakfast Television Show on the 29th of March, when Mr. Barr gave a
“Chocolate Jesus” to Ann Rohmer, a host of Breakfast Television.
The Financial Editor of the Toronto Sun was ambushed at the Toronto Sun
building and said she was “unaware that she was on the air” while speaking
with the show staff. The
anti-racism group Artists Against Racism(AAR) has removed CFNY as a sponsor, and
has removed CFNY from their web site for their insensitivity and hypocrisy:
hypocrisy, because CFNY had been running AAR’s public service announcements
which condemn racism and bigotry in all forms.
Radio
Promotions
Clause
11 - Radio Station Contests and Promotions
(a)Broadcasters recognize that whereas station contests and promotions are legitimate and useful methods of attracting audiences, they should be conducted in such a manner that the cost of any such contest or promotion is not excessive, particularly in relation to the station's programming budget.
(b)All station contests and promotions should be conceived and conducted in good taste, and particular care should be taken to ensure that they are not likely to give rise to a public inconvenience or disturbance.
There is no question of this being a promotion, the following conversation took place during the actual Jesus Look-Alike contest:
Mr. Glassman-“We finally now have more contestants than security!”
Mr. Patterson-“Which is our benchmark, it is what we shoot for in each one of our promotions.”
Unlike
in the “Larry and Willy Contest” case, there is little doubt that the
promotion called the “Jesus Look-A-Like Contest” was anything other than
just that. In the decision by the
Council concerning the “Larry and Willy Contest” case, three main factors
concerning contest promotions were addressed
among others. These include the requirement that: i) "the cost of any
such contest or promotion is not excessive"; ii) "all station contests
and promotions should be conceived and conducted in good taste"; and iii)
"particular care should be taken to ensure that they are not likely to give
rise to a public inconvenience or disturbance."
To
address the issue of cost is a difficult one, but not impossible.
We offer that the actual costly air time dedicated strictly to the
“Chocolate Jesus” promotion and the “Jesus Look-A-Like Contest” was
excessive. When promotions are
conducted by broadcasters, the goals are generally clear.
Usually there is a major sponsor that is attempting to increase product
awareness through a promotion of this nature.
In this case the only product being promoted here was the “Chocolate
Jesus”. The goal appears to be to
create controversy to increase listenership by exploiting a religious figure.
Controversy, due to the timing, symbols, commentary and history.
The effectiveness of the previous year’s “Danger Boy on a Cross”
promotion. in creating public backlash, used substantially less actual air time.
This year was a combination of two promotions, each with the same
ultimate goal, exploit the figure of Jesus for commercial gain.
It attempts to commoditize a religious figure.
They in essence packaged a religious figure and sold it for greater
listening audience. Religion is not
a business. Jesus is not for sale,
but that is the message that CFNY has sent out.
If it were a political figure that was being packaged and sold, this
would be considered defamatory. Jesus
is not a brand that can be marketed for a single broadcaster’s financial gain.
Were
the League or CFAC were to attempt to purchase time during the promotion, it
would cost upwards of $250 per 30 second segment. Over the final two days of the
contest alone, without commercials and music, over an hour of time was spent on
the two promotions. We find that
volume of time dedicated to the exploitation of a particular religious group to
be costly. This does not factor in
the cost of damage to the sensitivities of the Christian Community. CFNY has clearly started a promotional broadcasting trend in
exploiting religion and it is a trend that must be addressed.
In
the second matter of taste, the Council deemed the yardstick to be the prevailing
standards of good taste. And
according to the Prairie Regional Council:
The
Council understands this to be a higher test than merely being characterisable as good
taste. In a sense, the wording suggests that the material questioned must not be
the opposite of good taste to be in breach; it must actually offend
prevailing standards to be sanctionable.
CFNY
contends that its because its “audience is young, progressive and demanding of
irreverent humor and satirical analysis of contemporary issues”, but it is not
exempt or immune from religious abuse. Over the last two years, the radio
station, Mr. Glassman and Mr. Patterson specifically, has progressively
increased the frequency and forcefulness of their attacks on Christians.
On
the “#1 in 1997, Best of Humble and Fred” compact disc the subject of
Chocolate Jesus was first addressed:
Mr.
Glassman-“Because Easter is a
very significant holiday surrounding Jesus, why don’t they not have any
Chocolate Jesus’, “
Fred-“Here’s
Chocolate Lord. I’m sure that you can get them some place.”
Mr.
Glassman-“Here’s your Chocolate Lord. You
know you disrespect these people and they’re
going to come and get you. I said
Chocolate Jesus, not Chocolate Lord. I‘m going to stand aside when the hoards
of angry Christians come to get you. I
said Chocolate Jesus, not Chocolate Lord, remember leave the Jew alone.”
Mr.
Glassman acknowledges the disrespect and abusive nature of a single piece of
commentary. But, did prevailing
standards for the level of good taste change enough over the next year to 1998
to merit the disrespect of the “Danger Boy on the Cross” promotion.
Then there were two separate promotions of disrespect and abuse in 1999,
the “Chocolate Jesus” and the “Jesus Look-A-Like Contest.”
In
the promotion of the “Chocolate Jesus’”,
the station tried to give a “Jesus” to Mr. Robin Ward of the Weather
Network. Here is the exchange that
took place on-air on Tuesday March 30 and replayed on the Wednesday show:
Mr.
Glassman-“Will you accept our gift of a lovely ‘Chocolate Jesus”?
Robin
Ward-“Well your associate already presented us with that very tasteful gift
for the Easter season and on behalf of my camera man, Mark (name), and I, would
like to thank you so much for your sensitivity!”
Mr.
Patterson- “That’s right”
Laugh
by Sandra Plagakis, Humble Howard and Fred Patterson.
Mr.
Patterson-“Robin tell us will you keep it or will you eat it!”
Robin
Ward-“I will eat it because I will tell you chocolate is good for you and an
aphrodisiac. I will put bad taste aside and just go for it!”
Mr.
Patterson-“To have his holiness inside of you would really mean a lot!”
Laughs
all around.
Robin
Ward-“Well coming from you that’s quite a statement!”
Mr. Patterson-“Its an
aphrodisiac, especially since you’re hanging around with a cameraman, that
will be good for the two of you!”
Mr.
Ward acknowledges that the Chocolate Jesus is of questionable “sensitivity”
to Christians and specifically used the term ‘bad taste’ when he said “bad
taste aside”. He also refused to
go on air with the “Chocolate Jesus.” In
even worse taste, was the association of Jesus with an aphrodisiac.
Some
other quotes from the final two days of the promotion include:
Mr.
Glassman- “What’s your idea to sell the Chocolate Jesus?”
caller-
“To sell these in stores you could use lines like:
“The
Saviour really satisfies.”
“Melts
in your mouth so you don’t have to in Hell!”(Laughs)
Mr.
Glassman-Although, you know this is just the type of blasphemous conversation
we’ve tried to avoid, young man.”(joking voice)
Although
Mr. Glassman admits that it is wrong, he doesn’t condemn it, nor discourage
it. He allows him to say it again:
Caller
Mike “Melts in your mouth so you don’t have to in Hell.”
Mr.
Glassman-“Okay thank you my friend.”
At
the Toronto Sun building, with Linda Leatherdale the audience hears:
Linda Leatherdale-“We’re
squeezing Jesus under the door. Jesus is delivered”
At
the end of the Wednesday March 30 show, we hear:
Mr.
Glassman-“ And we’ll have more Chocolate Jesus for the people tomorrow. And
our Jesus Look-a-Like contest at the edge of Bay and Dundas”
F-“AN
ALL JESUS WEEKEND!” They both break out
laughing
HH-“MORE
JESUS MORE OFTEN.” More laughs
Mr.
Patterson and Sandra Plagakas April 1st, between 8:05 and 8:15a.m.:
Mr.
Patterson-“What about that guy pacing in front of that building across the
street.”
Ms.
Plakakis-“I don’t think he’s well.”
Mr.
Patterson -“Well that’s just what we need.
Jesus wasn’t well.”(All Laugh)
Show
ending jungle includes:
“Oh Humble and Fred, Who art in Heaven , Hallowed be thy name. Humble. Humble, Fred, Fred.”
Mr. Glassman then attacks Crossroad Television Service and incorrectly identifies it as Christian Television Station (it is Crossroads Television Service) and goes on to attack one of the only openly Christian broadcasters in Canada:
Glassman-“Not
to be confused with the Melissa Gilbert virus, which is a email from Melissa
Gilbert asking you to watch reruns of Little House on the Prairie on Channel 9,
what is that CTS, Christian Television Station?”(Sandra Laughs)
Patterson-“Yeah
and it offers other family fair like reruns of Happy Days”
Glassman-“So
she emailed me personally this week and she said watch Little House followed by
Michael Coren for Auto Depot”(last part
done with a British accent like Coren)
Patterson-“He
wouldn’t endorse them unless they were good, he wouldn’t do that you
know.”(more accent)
Glassman-“I’m
Michael for Auto Depot”
Patterson-“They
have to have a reputation or I wouldn’t have anything to do with them.”
Glassman-“I’m
Michael Coren and there is something wrong with my mouth.
Ever seen him, he’s almost like one of those old Japanese horror
movies, he says something and his mouth keeps on moving”
Patterson-“You
better watch out or will write an editorial about you.”
Glassman-“I
can only hope, I can only hope”
Patterson-“I’m
Michael for Auto Depot and Love Craft”
Plagakis-“He’s
always so pissed”
Glassman-“Well
you would be too if you looked like him, have you ever seen what he looks like.
Every morning he wakes up and says oh my God I‘m Michael Coren..”
Plakakis-“I’m
Hideous”
Glassman-“I’m Hideous, my
mouth wont stop moving”
At
the beginning of the contest:
Glassman-“Sandra is coming
down with us to the corner of Bay and Dundas, our Humble and Fred show will be
there after 8:00 and we invite you to come and be part of the Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE
contest. No matter what you look like, at least you will have the chance at the
very least to win a “Chocolate Jesus”, and the grand prize winner will get a
set of patio furniture, sandals, a loaf and a fish.”(Oooh! From Sandra)
Laughs
Glassman-“Do
you understand the fish and loaves symbolism Sandra P.”
Plagakis-“Why
don’t you explain it to me?”
Glassman-“Well
you know what it is all about Sandra, feeding the masses with the loaves and
fishes.”
Patterson-“Did
you know that Sandra?”
Plagakis-“You
know I don’t know any of that stuff.”
Glassman-“You
know it!”
Patterson-“I’ve
heard it”
Glassman-“It’s
one of the great biblical stories, its a great story.”
Patterson-“That’s
why I don’t know it”
Plagakis-“ditto!”
Glassman-“If you were more
like me and embraced all religions(mocking tone)” Sandra and
Fred laugh at the comment.
And
finally the issue of public
inconvenience, the council stated that "particular care should be taken to
ensure that they are not likely to give rise to a public inconvenience or
disturbance." In the “Danger
Boy on a Cross” promotion, there were 3 police cars and 2 private security
cars. It was the expectation that a
discriminatory promotion will lead to a potential for violence.
No
community groups were consulted as to what would constitute light hearted fun
versus offensive and abusive commentary. Unlike
their previous Humble and Fred J&B Scotch Wedding promotion (pictures in
appendix) where professional wedding consultants were interviewed on-air and
ministers were consulted on every wedding detail.
This promotion took no such precautionary measures.
The test by the radio station appears to be only precautionary measures are taken when the liabilities of a sponsor are taken into consideration. When a sponsor is not involved, the sensibilities of the community do not merit concern.
Not
Blasphemy but Hate
The
League and CFAC acknowledge that the CFNY morning show known as “Humble and
Fred” does not constitute what is commonly known as religious programming.
That the blasphemy depicted by the station, despite it’s obvious
nature, is an issue, but not a major issue that will be addressed by the groups
party in this complaint. It is not merely a “tickle” or a challenge to an
“outdated value system” as has been the case with previous CBSC complaints.
Do the central figures of Judaic scriptures also represent outdated
values that should be defamatorily depicted? It is a full frontal assault on the
central figure of Christianity, symbols, freedom of religion, all on one of the
most holy days on the Christian calendar. Christ
is not a political figure. Easter is not a controversial date and there exists
no valid explanation for this attack.
In
Comedy Network re: Bill Maher Special (CBSC Decision 97/98-0560, July
28, 1998), the Ontario Regional Council dealt with the issue of blasphemy. The
complainant stated that using "God's name in vain is no laughing
matter". The Council did not, however, conclude that the broadcast in
question breached the Code.
While the CBSC has previously considered matters not distant from the question of blasphemy, it has not dealt with the question head on. Since this is the issue of principal concern to the complainant, it provides the Council with its first opportunity to come directly to grips with the issue. "Blasphemy" is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "Profane speaking of God or sacred things; impious irreverence." The adjective "profane" is itself defined as "Characterized by disregard or contempt of sacred things; irreverent, blasphemous; impious, irreligious, wicked." Finally, "irreverence" is defined as "disrespect to a person or things held sacred or worthy of honour."
It may be that the Church has a strict and conservative view or definition of the foregoing words but it is not such definitions which the CBSC considers applicable in defining broadcast standards. For that purpose, the Council begins, as always, with the principle that freedom of expression is the basis of broadcaster entitlements. Indeed, since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is at the root of all Canadian speech. Article 2(b) of the Charter provides that "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" are fundamental attributes of Canadian society.
... the CBSC considers that blasphemy alone would not be sufficient to constitute a violation of the CAB Code of Ethics. It would need to be hateful, not merely irreverent, comment, abusively discriminatory, not merely impious or irreligious. At this point in the 20th century, the CBSC expects that comedians are entitled to question tradition and to tickle formal and possibly outdated values without finding themselves, for that reason alone, exceeding Canadian broadcast standards.
In the view of the Council, the jokes did not even attain a level which could be characterized as disdainful, much less hateful.
There is undeniably a level of irreverence but it is light-hearted, not heavy-handed. It is flippant and casual but not disrespectful. Maher finds fresh and amusing comments to make about Jesus but not one of them reflects anything other than the significance of His contribution to this world.
Unlike the Bill Maher special, the “Humble and Fred” Show was abusively discriminatory. The promotions did not challenge outdated value systems, but instead attacked the core beliefs of Christians. “Values” were not the issue, a “promotional branding” campaign was the core objectiveIt went far beyond the “tickle formal and possibly outdated values” found in the previous decision, by attacking the core religious figure, symbols and scriptures, for the mere fact that they were there to attack can be easily seen as “exceeding Canadian broadcast standards.”
It
has a cumulative negative effect, it is a combination of the following:
·
timing(Holy Thursday)
·
the “Chocolate Jesus” giveaway
·
the Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE contest promotion
·
the symbolic nature of the prizes and biblical reference
·
the on-air comment by both the staff and the guests
·
the “Input 102” calls
·
the abuse of the “Input 102” system.
These
factors combined with the fact that this was the second year in a row for such
an event. Also this years event was described as the “1st annual”
by Mr. Glassman and there is a very
reasonable expectation that there will be a repeat of this abuse for years to
come.
The
show went to great lengths to set up the giveaway and contest promotion and the
-comments of Mr Patterson that attack without reason:
Patterson-“What
about that guy pacing in front of that building across the street.”
Ms.
Plagakas-“I don’t think he’s well.”
Patterson-“Well
that’s just what we need. Jesus
wasn’t well.”(Laugh)
If
follows that the stage was set for comments such as these and no attempt was
made to thwart them. To accuse the central figure of Christianity of being unwell,
as in mentally ill is of hateful proportions.
They
next chose central symbolic symbols as prizes and discussed it:
HH-“Sandra is coming down
with us to the corner of Bay and Dundas, our Humble and Fred show will be there
after 8:00 and we invite you to come and be part of the Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE
contest. No matter what you look like, at least you will have the chance at the
very least to win a “Chocolate Jesus”, and the grand prize winner will get a
set of patio furniture, sandals, a loaf and a fish.”(Oooh! From Sandra)
Laughs
HH-“Do
you understand the fish and loaves symbolism Sandra P.”
S-“Why
don’t you explain it to me?”
HH-“Well
you know what it is all about Sandra, feeding the masses with the loaves and
fishes.”
F-“Did
you know that Sandra?”
S-“You
know I don’t know any of that stuff.”
HH-“You
know it!”
F-“I’ve
heard it”
HH-“It’s
one of the great biblical stories, its a great story.”
F-“That’s
why I don’t know it”
S-“ditto!”
HH-“If you were more like me
and embraced all religions(mocking tone)” Sandra and
Fred laugh at the comment.
They
admit to the paramount importance of loaves and fish as a central to Christians,
but chose to mock them by giving them away as prizes in a contest promotion.
Just as Jesus should be held to a higher expectation of respect, or on
the contrary expectation of being free from unwarranted attack, the same can be
said of the symbols of Christianity when placed in combination with the central
figure.
Also
the very reasonable expectation that a duplication of such an event is likely
due to the “1st annual” nature of its presentation. It must again
be noted that such a contest did not take place this year, but the effects of
the “Danger Boy on a Cross” promotion are the yardstick by which all
other radio or television broadcast anti-Christian bigotry
is now measured.
Ongoing
breach by a series
The
Humble and Fred Show for the weeks leading up to the Thursday April 1 Jesus
LOOK-A-LIKE contest, they gave away what they repeatedly called “Chocolate
Jesus’”, which were 500 chocolates in the shape of Jesus Christ.
As Mr. Glassman stated on the morning of Wednesday March 31st,
1999 at approximately 5:40 a.m., “They were originally made for the Greek
Orthodox Church and they’re sanctioned.”.
These chocolates were made for Christian believers, and their original
intent was for the private use of these Christians.
The public use as giveaway promotional items in a radio station was in no
way sanctioned by any Church in Toronto.
The
chocolates were given away to callers and were used as an excuse to make jokes
about Christian traditions. It was
a repetitive breach of the Code of Ethics, for there was a reasonable
expectation that not only would these “Chocolate Jesus’” be given out in
the days following, but that the frequency would increase as had been the
pattern until Easter. The way in which the chocolates was advertised was also
abusive. CFNY advertised their giveaway in the Now and Eye Magazines(see
appendix) as follows:
“Coming Soon- Humble and Fred’s Chocolate Jesus Giveaway - He’s the saviour AND a deliciously chocolatey treat as well!”
Specifically
in the week leading up to the contest, the show had the producer “Danger
Boy”(Jamie Watson) travel around the city of Toronto seeking out other media
personalities to endorse these Chocolates.
The personalities included Robin Ward of the Weather Network, Linda
Leatherdale of the Toronto Sun and Ann Rohmer, a Chum/City Breakfast Television
Host and CityPulse at noon newsreader. Ms.
Rohmer took the chocolate and showed it to the audience on the air Monday, March
29th .
Mr. Watson neglected to inform Ms. Rohmer as to the nature of the rest of
the promotion, nor their radio history. Once
again the chocolate in the shape of Jesus was used as a promotional tool by the
radio station. Mr. Ward, who made
the comment “Thank you for your sensitivity...” on the Thursday morning
March 31 realized the damaging nature of the hateful representation and refused
to go on the Weather Network to promote the giveaway item.
CFNY,
while travelling across Toronto to give-away these chocolates, gave them away at
King’s College Circle, University of Toronto and Nathan Phillips Square, having
obtain no permit for either activity. The
morning show has gone to court over just such an issue in a fake candidacy
promotion in an election campaign where they received no City of Toronto permit
to distribute the french fries. There
was a fine imposed on the station for this promotion. The station obviously has
not learned that official permits are necessary when conducting a business
promotion on City property.
With
reference to the repeat nature of the offence, it is two-fold, there was a
reasonable expectation of anti-Christian jokes leading up to an including the
day of the Jesus Look-a-like competition, since each contestants received a
“Chocolate Jesus’ as an entry permit and the winner received 50 of these
chocolates.
Secondly,
there has been a tradition set for the repeat of a Christian slur on the
Thursday before Easter. This does
not include the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigoted jokes that have become
commonplace and even celebrated. They
are so proud of these attacks that they were included in a released promotional
compact disc last year. For five of
the six celebrated jokes under the section of the “Religion” section were
about the pope, the apostles or Jesus. There
was also a sickening song celebrating the death of Mother Teresa.
Christmas
1999
The
song “Jesus was a Fetus” is being played repetitively in the days leading up
to Christmas. It is a tool designed
to further display contempt and condone the spread hatred against an
identifiable group in Canada.
We
would like to submit a comparison between this case and CBSC Decision
95/96-0008, 0060 and 0061, March 26, 1996:
In
radio, where there is no video component, words are, if not everything, nearly
everything. Poor or unskilled choices reflect on the person broadcasting.
Thoughtless or wrong choices which are abusive or discriminatory reflect on the
person listening. The broadcaster's liberty of expression does not extend that
far.
In
this case, the entire promotion had been thought out thoroughly in advance.
It was an expensive task to have 500 chocolates made up.
There was the purchase and time spent to purchase the patio furniture.
The amount of air time devoted to the giveaway and contest in the final
two days alone accounted for nearly an hours worth of expensive air time.
The equivalent cost to purchase as an advertiser would have been very
expensive.
In
CHOM-FM and CILQ-FM re Howard Stern Show(CBSC
Decision 97/98-0001+, October 17-18, 1997), the Quebec and Ontario Regional
Councils also considered that the review of the first two weeks of the show's
broadcast in Canada would be a fair reflection of what could be expected
consistently thereafter. They said:
The Quebec and Ontario Regional Councils consider that the complaints covering the episodes for the first two-week period can be considered together. In fact, for reasons which will be discussed at greater length below, the Councils are of the view that, while the subject matter of the daily Howard Stern Show episodes of course varies from day to day, the presentation of the content which is the principal subject matter of this decision remains systematically similar in approach from one day to the next. As in the case of CIII-TV re Mighty Morphin Power Rangers(CBSC Decision 93/94-0270 and 0277, October 24, 1994), the two weeks of episodes reviewed will be a fair reflection of the type of approach and attitude which the show could be expected to reflect on an ongoing basis.
Referring to the first CBSC ruling relating to the Howard Stern Show, CHOM-FM and CILQ-FM re Howard Stern Show (CBSC Decision 97/98-0001+, October 17-18, 1997), the Ontario Regional Council explained in CILQ-FM re the Howard Stern Show(CBSC Decision 97/98-0487, 488, 504 and 535, February 20, 1998) that the assumption regarding the similarity of subsequent shows cannot, of course, constitute a conclusive determination that breaches will occur.
The
League and CFAC submit that for the duration of a specific promotional campaign
and based on the history of previous CFNY radio campaigns that unlike the Howard
Stern show, when the specific nature of the promotion is being addressed there
is the creation of an environment in which insults are more easily delivered.
If the seeds are sown for such commentary, as was the case in this
instance, the venom of some listeners had been offered a public platform to vent
hostile words, commentary and abusive jokes.
A hostile environment was created by the station against Christians and
welcome were words of encouragement. It
was the premise that anyone speaking out against such a campaign, in which the
station could find no offence, must by their very nature be a wacko or zealot.
The
repetitive nature of the hype for the “Chocolate Jesus” giveaway and the
Jesus LOOK-A-LIKE contest was cumulative in its nature. Each time there was a new insult, some seemingly benign,
there was a reinforcement of the idea that it is quite acceptable for a
broadcaster to single out a Christian for abuse.
This abuse was conducted over a number of weeks, each with an end result
that on the Holy Thursday before Easter, acknowledged by Mr. Glassman as the
“…this is the most holy of Days on the Christian calendar…”(Wed Mar 31,
5:30-5:40), there would be an event that would belittle another aspect of the
Christian faith.
The
Responsibility
to
the Community
Each
has its content limitations but what those limitations are will vary
according to the nature of the broadcast in question.
The Council believes that it is essential to draw a distinction between a broadcast which is intended to be serious or at least leaves the impression that it intends to be serious and one which clearly does not. It is not that the standard to be applied to the potentially offending statement will be different. It is rather the question of audience perception. The Brian Henderson and Dick Smyth commentaries foundered on that rock.
The situation is different where the context is clearly comedic. After all, where the audience is given no reason to expect that the substance of the comments made is serious, their attitude could reasonably be expected to be different. A remark which might reasonably be assessed as abusive in a serious context and thus in breach of the Code of Ethics may not be so viewed in the comedic environment.
In CBSC Decision 97/98-0001+, October 17-18, 1997, the Quebec and Ontario Regional Councils jointly concluded that the September 1997 broadcasts of the Howard Stern Show contravened the Code of Ethics and Sex-Role Portrayal Code. The stations defended the show as satire/comedy and Stern raised the issue that he is not a head of state and ought not to be taken seriously. The Councils made the following comments regarding the comedic defence.
The fact that no-one mistakes him for a head of state does not mean that this gives him the entitlement to say whatever comes into his head and out of his mouth. The Regional Councils cannot comment on whether he might have such a privilege in the United States but, in their view, he cannot expect such a free rein in Canada. There are in this country limitations on what a broadcaster is free to air and the use of abusively discriminatory language such as he used on September 2 clearly surpasses the permissible. Even had his comments been understood as comedic by some elements of his audience, they would be excessive by Canadian standards.
With respect to the standards it administers, it referred to a public address given by the late Supreme Court Justice John Sopinka on the difference between politics and law and the relevance of this distinction to the responsibility of decision-rendering. The Council concluded:
The Council no more reviews or evaluates the standards which it is called upon to apply than, as Mr. Justice Sopinka explained, any interpretive body second-guesses the creations of the statutes, rules or standards it applies. In the broadcast code area, the CBSC merely interprets adherence to these standards in as fair-minded and impartial manner as possible. Decisions from the CBSC are not challenges to freedom of speech and expression, but rather a judgment of how successfully its members have addressed their responsibilities to their communities, in meeting standards which have been agreed upon by the broadcast industry and endorsed, in some cases, by the federal regulator.
The
radio station has failed in its obligation to the Christian community, unless it
is licensed to marginalize and defame the community.
Mr. Patterson’s comment and listener comment about Jesus were extremely
abusive. Jesus is a religious
figure, the central religious figure to millions of Canadians.
The questionable nature of the competition itself, the prizes and the
Chocolate Jesus promotion amplify the effect of his words and compound its
offensiveness. As Mr. Justice
Sopinka explained, CFNY is responsible in meeting standards which have been
agreed upon by the broadcast industry and CRTC judgment of how successfully its
members have addressed their responsibilities to their communities.
CFNY not only fails the Christian community, but it holds it up for
repetitive and annual abuse.
CFNY
was severed for a time as a sponsor of the group Artists Against Racism, which
found the bigotry broadcast by CFNY to be intolerable.
The Metropolitan Toronto Police Intelligence Unit investigated and handed
its findings over to the Provincial Crown Attorney’s Office for its
assessment. As the Canadian
Broadcast Standards Council has made obvious that community standards are
playing a role of greater importance to the decision making process, a
disturbance based on a pattern of abuse that creates this type of community
backlash and is left to fester by the overseeing body is unconscionable.
In
a Toronto Star Article from November of 1998, the following passage can be found:
Take
last Easter's charity promotion. For weeks leading up to Good Friday, listeners
were told Danger Boy (Jason Barr, 25, the show's producer) would be crucified.
Hundreds
of deeply offended people called and wrote.
``That
was the single biggest reaction, positive or negative, we have ever received on
anything,'' recalls Glassman, 38.
So
big, in fact, that they had to rethink the plan.
``It
was one of those things that needed a final step, and we hadn't quite come up
with it,'' adds Patterson, 42. ``And then the heat was on so much, we started to
think, `Where exactly is this going to go?' ''
Somebody
came up with the Alan Cross solution. Instead of strapping Danger Boy to a
cross, they would attach him to a giant cut-out of A. Cross - another jockey at
the station.
It
worked - and defused a potential powderkeg.
``What
eventually happened was kind of cute,'' says CFNY general manager Hal Blackadar.
``However, the price we probably paid, where advertisers were calling and
asking, `Did you really nail somebody to a cross?' wasn't worth it.
``We
won't be doing that next year.''
Listeners
were left with the impression that a crucifixion would take place.
The author reiterates the depth of offense taken.
The suggestion that a mock crucifixion could be “cute” is disgusting.
But there was a repeat of a serious slur on Christianity with the Jesus
Look-Alike Contest in insulting after Mr. Blackadar’s line that “We wont be
doing that next year.”
It
is time that the CRTC recognizes the fundamental rights of the Christian
community. In Toronto radio there
is no counterbalance to this type of bigotry.
Until one exists, it is the duty of the CRTC to uphold these basic
principles.
There
must also be a recognition that the same radio group, Shaw Radio, recently named
CORUS Entertainment, now either owns or controls the majority of the competing
stations to its own CFNY. These
include Q107, Energy108, and 95.3 Hamilton.
There is no competing “modern rock” station in Toronto, CFNY controls
the franchise. When one station
holds that distinction, why should it be offered a greater degree of freedom to
defame and attack a specific community group?
The
format and community standard
We
wish to refer to an article in Marketing Magazine “by Patrick Bohn
The
Big Three Formats Rule(August
17, 1998)
Adult
Contemporary, News/Talk and Contemporary Hit Radio are bigger than ever
“Three
formats stand alone with just one station each. Modern Rock is heard only on The
EDGE (CFNY-FM) Toronto, and its 1.6% share hasn't changed in three years. All
Sports on The FAN (CJCL) Toronto held steady, with a 0.8% share. Easy Listening,
heard on CFMO-FM Ottawa, had a 0.3% share.”
PATRICK BOHN is president of
Bohn and Associates Media of Vancouver.
Our
reason for its inclusion is twofold, first to show that it is a ‘stand
alone’ format in the Toronto Radio landscape and secondly, to demonstrate its
large listening audience.
In
emphasizing the format, we would like to offer that the radio station is first
and foremost a “modern rock” station. The
commentary is of a secondary or tertiary level of importance where the radio
station’s federal broadcasting license is concerned, but it appears to be the
tool by which the station is using to increase its level of importance, branding
and recognition as a by-product. Note the use of anti-Christian promotions to brand and
promote the station’s identity.
There
is no alternative choice if a listener desires the music for which it is
licensed. There is no other choice.
Selection is limited. When
talk, commentary and promotion are not the primary mandate of the format
license, it should not be granted of broader latitude for offensive and
defamatory speech. But rather the
opposite should be the case that being the sole franchise of a particular
market, community sensitivities should be heightened and respected.
The size of a community, nor the size of the audience need be taken as
consideration. Under the Canadian
Charter, equal treatment is guaranteed.
The
argument for commercial public radio generally is that there is a quid pro quo
between the broadcaster and the listener as consumer. Under this unwritten contract, the station sells advertising
and promotional time to offset costs and make a profit. The listener is willing to listen to 8-10 commercials every
half hour, on top of the promotions, station identifications, contests and other
promotional incentives.
The listener is now being told by the radio station that it must accept attacks on specific core beliefs of a great number of listeners.
The
following excerpt is from Marketing Magazine and it describes the solitary
nature of the programming:
The “choice” argument that is offered by the radio station concerning alternatives programming choice on the dial is not an option in this case. But the point must be made that programming bigotry of this nature is unacceptable on any publicly licensed and regulated airwaves.
With a self professed listening base of 750,000, it also must be made clear that despite “audience demands”, community standards for CFNY are of no different standards than those for CFRB or CBC radio. Community standards are the same community wide. This programming is unacceptable on any station.
Clause 10 - Advertising on AM and FM Radio Broadcasting Stations
(a)
Broadcasters recognize that they are responsible for the acceptability of advertising material which they broadcast. All commercials should be in good taste and should conform with applicable laws and regulations.
(b)
Broadcasters should adhere strictly to the provisions of all industry codes or guidelines relating to advertising, such as those pertaining to children's advertising, feminine hygiene products and the advertising of alcoholic beverages.
(c)
Broadcasters should ensure that the time allocated to commercial messages is not excessive at any period during the broadcast day, and particularly during high audience periods. The total quantity of commercial messages broadcast on a given station in one week should not, in any event, exceed 1750 minutes.
(d)
Broadcasters should ensure in the scheduling of commercial messages that they are appropriate for the likely listening audience at the time the commercials are scheduled, and that they are both scheduled and inserted in a manner that will not detract from the effectiveness of the programming broadcast by the station.
The League and CFAC would also like to make clear that the recent advertising campaign for the station has included these same types of bigotry. A letter has been written to Advertising Standards Canada and in response, the ASC has declared that any programing sensitive advertising is the responsibility of the CBSC or CRTC.
Also as part of the “Everyone has some edge in them!” campaign, the following commercial was aired on CFNY:
A
discussion between two police officers:
First-“I
can’t believe she was caught peeping into the windows of Gord Downie’s
house”
Second-“Yeah”
Backgraound
voice-“Could you please state your name for the record?”
Peeping
Tom(read by Danielle Holk)-“Sister (?) of the Sacred Heart.”
Tag line by Mr.
Glassman “Everyone has some edge in them!”
This is an attack on an order of existing nuns with a strong presence in Montreal. If there exists a Sacred Heart nun with the same name, it is a slanderous fraud. Even as such, chosing to use an order of nuns for such an attack is abhorrent and once again discriminates against a visible group within the Christian community.
The
song “Jesus was a Fetus” is also a form of promotion and advertising.
It is also being played in conjunction with the other song at the station
“The Chrstmas Song”. This is a
disgusting portrayal of an insane “Santa Clause” shooting people for fun at
Christmas time. The words to both
songs are as follows:
Jesus
was a Fetus
When
Jesus was a fetus
I wondered what he thought when he was in the womb
I wonder if he knew all the good things
that he would have to do
and if he did
was he nervous
Jesus
was a fetus
just like you and me
unborn in a sea
of amniotic fluid
When Jesus was a fetus
I
wonder what he thought
when he was all confined
I wonder if he knew
that he could turn water into wine
and would his friends abuse that privilege.
Jesus
was a fetus
just like you and me
unborn in a sea
of amniotic fluid
When
Jesus was a fetus
I wonder what he thought
in his nest of flesh
I wonder if he knew
he could water-ski better than the rest
I’m sure he never did
he was modest
Jesus
was a fetus
planted immaculately
here for you and me
by the Big Guy.
Happy birthday Jesus!
Christmas Song
Snow
is falling, voices calling
getting louder in my head,
these shoppers will be dead before I’m done,
kill everyone!
Every
Christmas, old St. Nicholas,
in the malls with all those kids,
makes me flip my lid,
I want him dead.
Bullet in the head
(Sounds: bang bang oof.)
I
know its not the traditional way,
to want do harm to the man in the sleigh
I want to kill at Christmas,
I want to kill at Christmas.
(screams and shooting sounds)
Sorting
letters,
There are better,
things
to do with my time,
commit a major crime on this town.
Mow them down.
Come
ye faithful,
this will be painful
When I get you in my sight
it will be a silent night when you’re shot,
you’ll bleed a lot!
I
know that Christmas should be full of cheer,
but I snap and want to wipe out all the reindeer,
kill at Christmas
Kill at Christmas!
(Brief renditions of Christmas songs)
Good
king Wencelas last looked out and no one was standing because..
I killed at Christmas
Deck
the halls with rounds of gun fire
Kill at Christmas!
Jingle
Bells Santa’s dead Ha ha ha ha!
Kill at Christmas
Kill at Christmas!
(more sound effects of screaming and killing)
This
was an extremely disturbing set of songs with which the station continues to
brand itself. No consideration was
taken for the recent shootings, nor the climate of violence in the schools of
the young listening audience. CORUS
is projecting this to the youthful market and it is at odds with the “family
friendly” image that it attempts to convey elsewhere. To condone the disturbing nature of the events through
glamorization of violence and bigotry in such an overt way is an affront to all
community standards.
A
Series of Misstatements
The
station has attempted to defend its actions in attacking Christians with an
argument that the historical record of Jesus was vague and at best
inaccurate(see transcript of show and TVO interview).
Not
only were there a series of misstatements made about Jesus and Christians during
the promotions, the entire concept of a “Jesus Look-Alike” contest was based
on non-factual grounds. Where in
CKTB-AM re the John Michael Show (CBSC Decision 92/93-0170, February 15, 1994),
the Ontario Regional Council viewed a series of misstatements of fact and
inaccuracies regarding French-Canadians as being made to further discriminatory
objectives, they concluded that the broadcaster had breached Clause 2 of the
Code of Ethics .
[T]he
Regional Council considered that the multiplicity of inaccurate statements of
the host were used by Mr. Michael to disparage or abuse the reputation of
French-speaking Canadians as a group or expose them to the contempt of other
listeners. Consequently, the Regional Council concluded that the statements
collectively amounted to a breach of Clause 2 of the Code of Ethics .
The
Concept
When
historian Jason Everet of Catholic Answers in San Diego was asked about the
physical Jesus, his answer was the following: “Most cultures aim to depict
Jesus as bearing some similarities to their nationality. However, we know from
plenty of secular sources that Jesus was a first century Palestinian (male) Jew.
He would have had a dark
complexion,
and would not look American. According to Scripture, which is a reliable
historical source, he would have had a beard, and he died at roughly the age of
33.”
During
the actual contest Mr. Glassman said “We
will have the winner in about 15 minutes time. Remember if you believe that you
look like Jesus, man, woman, boy, girl, child whatever. The winner will get a
lovely set of patio furniture ”
In
choosing a winner, on host says-“The criteria for the Jesus we pick is quite
frankly who Fred and I think most embodies the spirit of Jesus on this Easter
weekend. We will have our winner
right after this.”
In
an interview about the Contest with a Television Ontario (TVO) camera crew for
Sdudio 2, the following exchange took place:
Mr.
Glassman-“I don’t think we ever intend to piss anybody off, here’s the
thing. If we think that something is amusing amongst ourselves.
He and I first, and then the rest of the people we work with.
That’s pretty much our litmus test, then we go ahead and do it if we
think it’s pretty neat. And
sometimes we’re completely wrong, but not very often are we way off base.
Clip
Mr.
Glassman -“Well this year, ah we
were going to have a Jesus look-a-like contest where we are going to combine the
religious aspect of Easter with the hallmark aspect of the bunny and chocolate
and give away Humble and Fred Chocolate Jesus’.”
Patterson-“A Humble and Fred Jesus Look A-Like contest. On the surface it may look like we’re being disrespectful…
Mr. Glassman“Trivial!”
Patterson
-“…, but think about it no one really knows what Jesus looks like do they,
whether it’s a man or a woman or what race.
It will be fascinating to see what people interpret as a Jesus
Look-Alike!”
The
secular listeners of the radio station were never at any point advised by the
station or any of its employees that Jesus did exist and there is historical
documentation. Such documentation
is easily available from any number of sources.
The contest was obviously planned carefully and to overlook facts
such as these is an injustice. It
makes the implication that Jesus was only a mythical creation of a scripural
writer.
We demand that the station make an on air serious clarification from historical sources what the physical Jesus looked like. This should have been done originally to put the contest into the proper conte