Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'

[mj.scuba]

I know And it's been done and re-done time and again, it's a really old joke.

 

that's brought a tear to my eye with laughter, those costumes are terrible

[boyfriday]

I know And it's been done and re-done time and again, it's a really old joke.

It seems we're getting our communication knickers in a twist, I realise it's a joke, and an unoriginal one, but it's never been used to sell a product in mainstream media.

Again, I realise that - I'm simply trying to play down the "It appears being gratuitously offensive to religious groups is the sport for Autumn" angle, as I really do not believe this is the case at all. IMHO, the ban is an overreaction by the remnants of an 'over-PC-fied' system.

The ban may be an over reaction, but I'm really questioning why advertisers believe controversial 'jokes', that depict something quite sacred to a large number of people are appropriate.

 

It reminds me of the gratuitous and overuse of 'swearing' in comedy, it was funny for all of five minutes, and that's coming from someone who swears like a trooper

[quisquose]

Personally I believe we're all too ready to cause offence, although I agree with your second statement.

 

I think we are all too ready to cause offense, and take offense. Which is why the words of PZ Myers are so important to remember:

 

"Grown-ups compensate for differences between people that cause no physical harm. There is a principle of tolerance at work here, of real tolerance, where we permit others to do as they will, as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others … and being offended or desiring to impose your morality on others is not an excuse to violate that principle."

 

I think it's impossible, even inhuman, to attempt to draw the line. Which is why the concept of tolerance, rather than respect, and the principle of harm has to take precedence. In a healthy society it is accepted that offence is both caused and taken all the time.

 

If we ignore this, or if we pander to the idea that offence holds currency, or that religious offence holds more currency than say political offence*, then it's a very slippery slope indeed. There are many people that find the very idea of homosexuality offensive, we cannot deny that this offence is real, but this does not mean we have to take any notice of it.

 

 

 

* Your point in the OP that the offence might be valid cause to ban something because it is only selling ice-cream doesn't make sense to me, it's double standards, and exactly the sort of logic that the professional offence takers want, because their offence is so much more important than everybody else's.

[sccsux]

I think we are all too ready to cause offense, and take offense.

 

Whereas I feel people are too quick to take offence.

[boyfriday]

* Your point in the OP that the offence might be valid cause to ban something because it is only selling ice-cream doesn't make sense to me, it's double standards, and exactly the sort of logic that the professional offence takers want, because their offence is so much more important than everybody else's.

 

I didn't say it was a valid cause to justify banning the advert, I'm not a huge fan of banning things-my point is a wider one, with the freedom to express ones self comes the responsibility to behave 'properly'.

 

I wish we lived in a world where any insult, offence, indiscreet joke could flow like water off a duck's back, but I doubt there's any of us here who hasn't been offended by something throughout our lifetimes.

 

Personally, I find the image potentially hilarious-I can imagine an episode of Father Ted putting it to great comedic effect, but it's ill conceived to indiscriminately place it into a wider, public environment (billboards), where the intention is to create a negative reaction, which appears to be the case in this instance.

[Suffragette1]

I didn't say it was a valid cause to justify banning the advert, I'm not a huge fan of banning things-my point is a wider one, with the freedom to express ones self comes the responsibility to behave 'properly'.

 

I wish we lived in a world where any insult, offence, indiscreet joke could flow like water off a duck's back, but I doubt there's any of us here who hasn't been offended by something throughout our lifetimes.

 

Personally, I find the image potentially hilarious-I can imagine an episode of Father Ted putting it to great comedic effect, but it's ill conceived to indiscriminately place it into a wider, public environment (billboards), where the intention is to create a negative reaction, which appears to be the case in this instance.

 

My bold - no it isn't, it's immaculately conceived. Get with the programme, BF.

[mj.scuba]

Correct me if I'm wrong BF, your contention is not that such adverts incidentally or co-incidentally cause offence, but that it was designed to cause offence in the first place? Almost like poking fun at the minority to pander to the majority?

[L00b]

It seems we're getting our communication knickers in a twist, I realise it's a joke, and an unoriginal one, but it's never been used to sell a product in mainstream media.

Looks like it's been used awhile to sell fancy dress costumes at least

The ban may be an over reaction, but I'm really questioning why advertisers believe controversial 'jokes', that depict something quite sacred to a large number of people are appropriate.

Advertisers have been using controversial material for decades to grab punters' attention. It's the name of the game. Based on precedents, at times it doesn't seem to matter much whether the joke is based on religion, poverty, animal cruelty, etc, etc. Remember the John West canned salmon adverts? Somehow I can't remember the ASA pulling their adverts for displaying cruelty to animals/mocking animal conservation policies

 

Whether it is appropriate or not is a matter of fact, degree and context, and whilst you certainly have a point about the base issue (needlessly involving personal beliefs), I very much doubt that you have a point in relation to this specific advert / Catholicism, in the UK. I'd gladly revisit my opinion in the case of different countries (e.g. Brazil, Italy, Spain) with a much higher percentage of the population not only Catholic, but also much more devout.

[eastbank]

An ice cream company banned from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun has vowed to position similar posters in London in time for the Pope's visit.

 

Antonio Federici's advert showed a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line "immaculately conceived".

 

The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered it to be discontinued, saying it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11300552

 

It appears being gratuitously offensive to religious groups is the sport for Autumn.

 

The image of the 'nun' is pretty sacred to Catholics, and obviously is a representation of that woman's dedication to chastity. So to depict a nun in the latter stages of pregnancy in order to sell ice cream is taking satire a little too far in my opinion.

 

Of course, those with a commercial interest only consider the bottom line in terms of publicity generated and uplifts in sales, but if the advert had some political message it might at least have a moral imperative.

 

where can you get this ice cream from...it looks tempting

[boyfriday]

Correct me if I'm wrong BF, your contention is not that such adverts incidentally or co-incidentally cause offence, but that it was designed to cause offence in the first place? Almost like poking fun at the minority to pander to the majority?

 

Thanks scuba, I think you've pretty much summarised what I was unable to.

 

Yes that's pretty much my point-as you know, Ive no particular affection for religion, but it's an easy target to people who don't care, so are cavalier in their attitudes to it.

 

It's important to millions of people, if they want to share a joke about pregnant nuns, fine, if they want to include me in their joke about pregnant nuns that's fine too, I'll laugh with the rest of them. But to gratuitously use the image to sell a product, and deliberately schedule it to coincide with the Pope's visit is cheap in my opinion and creates discord when none needed to have existed.