Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'

[boyfriday]

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

 

You have to go to church first easty, and the only one local to you is down Bramall Lane

[purdyamos]

I can't read this story without the wider context intruding on my perspective.

 

An advert makes a joke about one aspect of a religion.

 

The head of that religion is being welcomed as an official visitor to the country at the height of an international scandal involving many thousands of instances of child rape and cruelty in his organisation, with documentation implicating him directly as part of the intentional systematic cover up.

 

Which one is the more offensive, really? The juxtaposition of these issues really shines a light on how distorted some people's ethical priorities are. I know the Advertising Authority in itself is just doing its job and that's all its job is, but in terms of the overall picture, what all of it together says about the prevalent zeitgeist makes me feel ill.

 

There's something ludicrous and obscene about it all.

[boyfriday]

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

 

I always thought it was a compliment when my mum said I was immaculately conceived, took me years to work out it was because she didn't know who my dad was!

[quisquose]

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.

Even if I was to accept your premise, which I'm not, that it is the intent of the offender which is important, then the subjective nature of the offence, as seen by a third-party, is impossible to determine.

 

Was the intent to deliberately cause offense, or was it simply to make people laugh or challenge their thinking? Was it simply to sell ice-cream? Who knows. The whole idea that offence has currency at all concerns me, but the idea that some offense is more important than other types, or that some vague third-party interpretation of intent can be thrown into the pot, is simply ammunition for those that would like to see freedom of speech restricted.

 

What was the intent of the Father Ted writers? Was it just to make us laugh, was it that they were atheists with an anti-catholic agenda, or was it in response to their catholic indoctrination? Does it really matter?

 

In this case it is simply the ASA, who can make up the rules however they see fit, who have ruled against the ad, so this decision has no relevance to the wider society. But imagine a society where the law had intervened, which could have happened with the blasphemy law. My offense trumps your offense, my god is bigger than your god. I don't want to live in such a society.

[boyfriday]

Even if I was to accept your premise, which I'm not, that it is the intent of the offender which is important, then the subjective nature of the offence, as seen by a third-party, is impossible to determine.

For various reasons society moves on, not necessarily because satirising certain subjects is prohibited but because we become informed, through discussions like this amongst other things.

 

During my own lifetime, Ive seen the portrayal of many subjects change in advertising, we no longer see colourful images of grinning piccanninies selling hot chocolate, advertising of tobacco products or half naked women draped suggestively across the bonnet of cars.

 

None of these may have caused offence or been intended to, but commonsense would suggest that an advert depicting an image of a pregnant nun scheduled to coincide with a visit by the Pope is highly likely to aggravate any offence that the followers of that religion might experience.

Was the intent to deliberately cause offense, or was it simply to make people laugh or challenge their thinking? Was it simply to sell ice-cream? Who knows. The whole idea that offence has currency at all concerns me, but the idea that some offense is more important than other types, or that some vague third-party interpretation of intent can be thrown into the pot, is simply ammunition for those that would like to see freedom of speech restricted.

The intention may not have been deliberate, but a drunk driver doesn't deliberately set out to kill someone, but recklessness doesn't diminish the negative aspects of the outcome. I believe the advertisers in this instance are being cavalier.

What was the intent of the Father Ted writers? Was it just to make us laugh, was it that they were atheists with an anti-catholic agenda, or was it in response to their catholic indoctrination? Does it really matter?

No, it doesn't really matter, but we developed a relationship with the characters, we came to understand they were hapless and irreverent..but I believe cracking jokes about a paedophile amongst them might not have been well received.

In this case it is simply the ASA, who can make up the rules however they see fit, who have ruled against the ad, so this decision has no relevance to the wider society. But imagine a society where the law had intervened, which could have happened with the blasphemy law. My offense trumps your offense, my god is bigger than your god. I don't want to live in such a society.

Nor do I, however I still believe those freedoms should be enjoyed responsibly, pushing the envelope works but we shouldn't always try to rip the bloody thing.

[Suffragette1]

Even if I was to accept your premise, which I'm not, that it is the intent of the offender which is important, then the subjective nature of the offence, as seen by a third-party, is impossible to determine.

 

Was the intent to deliberately cause offense, or was it simply to make people laugh or challenge their thinking? Was it simply to sell ice-cream? Who knows. The whole idea that offence has currency at all concerns me, but the idea that some offense is more important than other types, or that some vague third-party interpretation of intent can be thrown into the pot, is simply ammunition for those that would like to see freedom of speech restricted.

 

What was the intent of the Father Ted writers? Was it just to make us laugh, was it that they were atheists with an anti-catholic agenda, or was it in response to their catholic indoctrination? Does it really matter?

 

In this case it is simply the ASA, who can make up the rules however they see fit, who have ruled against the ad, so this decision has no relevance to the wider society. But imagine a society where the law had intervened, which could have happened with the blasphemy law. My offense trumps your offense, my god is bigger than your god. I don't want to live in such a society.

Well put, I couldn't agree more. I would loathe to see such a 'taxonomy of offensiveness', where religion would no doubt always rank as the most grievous, within in which there would no doubt be a 'sub-taxonomy'.

 

Interestingly, I wonder if there would have been the same outcome had the papal visit not been imminent? Would the ad ever have been made had His Holiness and his men in frocks not been about to descend?

[quisquose]

Well put, I couldn't agree more. I would loathe to see such a 'taxonomy of offensiveness', where religion would no doubt always rank as the most grievous, within in which there would no doubt be a 'sub-taxonomy'.

Well thank you, and I agree with your summary which is much more succinct than my ramblings.

 

Interestingly, I wonder if there would have been the same outcome had the papal visit not been imminent? Would the ad ever have been made had His Holiness and his men in frocks not been about to descend?

You need not wonder. I thought this all sounded familiar, since the ad is the latest in the company’s controversial “Ice cream is our religion” campaign. Last year the ASA banned an ad by the company which showed a nun and a half-naked priest about to kiss.

[quisquose]

During my own lifetime, Ive seen the portrayal of many subjects change in advertising, we no longer see colourful images of grinning piccanninies selling hot chocolate, advertising of tobacco products or half naked women draped suggestively across the bonnet of cars.

 

None of these may have caused offence or been intended to, but commonsense would suggest that an advert depicting an image of a pregnant nun scheduled to coincide with a visit by the Pope is highly likely to aggravate any offence that the followers of that religion might experience.

But neither would we have had adverts that depicted the splattered wounds of crash victims to educate on seat-belts, or mangled children to send the message that speed kills.

 

Or this, or this for example.

 

Just as some things weren't offensive but now are, there are some things that were offensive but now are not. Much, if not most, of that evolution has happened because offense has been caused.

 

Most of us, it would seem, think the preggers nun advert is quite amusing, but 40 people complained. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years time you look back on your comments here with some bemusement.

[taxman]

She's a bit of a fox. I wonder if all nuns are as sexy........just checked, they aren't

[boyfriday]

But neither would we have had adverts that depicted the splattered wounds of crash victims to educate on seat-belts, or mangled children to send the message that speed kills.

 

Or this, or this for example.

 

Just as some things weren't offensive but now are, there are some things that were offensive but now are not. Much, if not most, of that evolution has happened because offense has been caused.

But the public information films you highlight serve a purpose, the shocking imagery is intended to moderate peoples behaviour for their own safety and well being.

Most of us, it would seem, think the preggers nun advert is quite amusing, but 40 people complained. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years time you look back on your comments here with some bemusement.

..lol, did you miss my comment wishing none of us found offence in anything? I also suggested that the pace of change is important, too much change too quickly entrenches the view of the entrenched, we see that particularly with religious groups.

 

I sincerely hope I'm able to reflect on this in 10 years time with bemusement, but we won't be seeing pregnant nuns discreetly attending family planning clinics any time soon