Editorial: Indecent? It depends on context

Opinion

Bare breasts in Queen St. Blasphemy approved by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It has been a bad week for those who consider themselves the defenders of public decency.

Or has it? Sometimes a discussion is more important than its conclusion. The fact that a subject is debated can tell us more than a particular decision. Many on the liberal side sense this when they adopt an attitude that even to make an issue of a minor indecency is ridiculous. They were wrong about that even though the decision not to bar the erotica parade was right.

The BSA ruling was in a narrow context, finding the phrase "for Christ's sake" justifiable in a promotion for the unsuccessful TV One drama Orange Roughies. But these issues are well worth highlighting. They help to clarify public values and standards.

In both cases this week an indecency was found excusable in a particular context, nothing more. It was ludicrous of some reports to suggest that the words approved by the broadcasting watchdog were found "not to be blasphemous", or that the police had decided topless street displays were "no longer indecent".

Blasphemy is simply a fact for religious believers, especially when the saying carried the alternative meaning given by the Concise Oxford Dictionary and cited by the BSA, "expressing surprise, anger, etc". But when people routinely blaspheme for that purpose they are not intending to give offence. The intention makes the difference. Even habitual blasphemers are usually more careful when unsure of their audience.

In a fictional context, a blasphemous remark is a representation of the reality the fiction reflects. It would be different if the same oath was broadcast by, say, a radio breakfast host, whose position is comparable to the conversationalist who fears some in his audience might be offended. The BSA's decision is not, and should not be seen as, a blank cheque.

Likewise, the indecency of "boobs on bikes" was an objective fact. Many find such displays indecent. But the parade was saved, perhaps, because its indecency was in the character of the event it was intended to promote. Again, the intention counts. The decision might not be the same if the parade was to promote cars or cigars.

In any case, the discussion matters more than the decision. It tells all concerned that the subject remains sensitive and leaves nobody with any illusions that anything goes. Rulings on public taste are always going to be easier to make than to rationalise.

The Auckland City Council ducked the task this week, deciding that it had no power at present to do anything about the parade. Its bylaw gives it the power to refuse a permit if it believes there are "objectively justifiable and reasonable grounds" for doing so. Its chief executive saw no such grounds and told the elected members that if they wanted to prevent a repeat they would need a new bylaw. That could be interesting.

Mayor Dick Hubbard and a majority of the council seemed determined to put an end to such display. Mr Hubbard thinks it bad for Auckland's image. Really? It was a good deal more mild than the homosexual exhibitionism of the "Hero" parades that were patronised by previous mayors and councils.

Perhaps public taste is becoming less tolerant, but councils need to be careful. While people have a right not to be offended, they also have a right to enjoy harmless frivolity. The council needs to ask itself what harm is being done. If the only harm is to Mr Hubbard's idea of the city's "image" then it is not sufficient to justify the restrictions he wants. He and the council ought to be satisfied with the fuss they have made. It was a reminder nobody can take even minor indecency for granted.