4956

THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

No. 185

the 11th day of October 1986, on a proposal to change the system
of rating based on capital values to one based on land values within
the Karoro Division of the Grey County (as defined in Valuation
Roll 2549) to be as follows:

For land value rating .. 145
For capital value rating .. 94
Informal .. 2

I therefore declare the proposal to rate on the basis of land value
to be carried.

Dated at Greymouth this 3rd day of November 1986.

J. G. STEPHENS, Returning Officer.

Notice of Confiscation of Motor Vehicle

TAKE notice that pursuant to section 84 of the Criminal Justice Act
1985 an order has been made for the confiscation of the following
motor vehicle: 1972 Chrysler Charger DM. 9747; owner Wayne
William Anderson; registered owner Sheryl Ann Mathews. Date of
Order: 5 November 1986.

Dated at Dunedin this 11th day of November 1986.

A. J. HERRING, Registrar.

Confiscation of Motor Vehicle

PURSUANT to section 84 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, notice
is hereby given that Clinton Clay Martin of Maketu Camping
Ground, Maketu, millhand, was convicted of 2 charges of driving
whilst disqualified in the District Court at Tauranga on the 28th
day of October 1986. An order for confiscation of a motor vehicle,
namely a 1984 Ford Cortina motorcar, registration No. JE 5692,
was made.

Dated at Tauranga this 28th day of October 1986.

K. P. NALLY, Registrar.

Decision No. 22/86
Com. 1/86

Before the Broadcasting Tribunal

IN the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the matter of
a complaint by WILLI HELGE FREY:

Warrant Holder: BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF NEW
ZEALAND (TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND):

Chairman: B. H. Slane.

Member: Robert H. Boyd-Bell.

Co-opted Members: Brian W. Stephenson and A. H. Kocabas.

DECISION

THIS complaint arises from a statement about Islam in "News
Review", Television New Zealand's weekly news programme for
hearing-impaired viewers.

The Programme

"News Review" on Saturday, 30 November 1985 carried an
extended item on terrorism and aircraft hijackings. According to
the apparently incomplete script supplied to the Tribunal (the BCNZ
said that a recording of the programme was no longer available)
the item dealt first with an attack by Egyptian commandos to end
the hijacking of an Egyptian airliner at Malta. The script said that
the hijackers, when they realised they were being attacked, threw
three hand grenades at the passengers: 10 minutes later, 59 people
were dead and 27 were injured.

The item went on to review other recent hijackings and terrorist
incidents dating back to the assassination of Egyptian President
Anwar Sadat. It propounded a common thread of Moslem
fundamentalism connecting several of these events. It then focussed
on Moslem fundamentalist opposition to western trends in the
Egyptian Government. At this point the script said:

"Islam speaks of violence and bloodshed in the name of
religion."

The item ended less than a minute later, having indicated that
Moslem fundamentalism was gaining support in Egypt but that
journalists there believed that change would be slow.

The Complaint

Mr Frey complained in writing to the BCNZ 3 weeks later, on
20 December 1985. His letter also complained of another item
broadcast on 8 December but he has not referred that second
complaint to the Tribunal.

His objection to the 30 November programme was directed at
the general statement about Islam. He said that the statement was
biased. He said it could be argued that Christianity and Judaism
are at least equally violent when one looks at the Old Testament
or the Torah but it is not claimed that those religions "speak of
violence and bloodshed in the name of religion."

Mr Frey felt that the statement did not conform to the
requirements of Television Programme Rule 5.1 (b) of objectivity,
impartiality and accuracy.

The Corporation's Reply

The BCNZ Board considered the complaint on 26 February 1986
and the secretary of the corporation, Mr Ian McLean, wrote to Mr
Frey on behalf of the board on 5 March. The thrust of the
corporation's reply was that the statement was made in context of
an item about Moslem fundamentalism. The intent, Mr McLean
said, was to make the point that, for the violent fringe of the
fundamentalist movement, Islam was interpreted as providing
justification and support for their actions. He said that the association
between the statement and the group of Moslem fundamentalists
was made by implication and it was apparent that the comment
was part of a description of the extremist fundamentalist movement.

Reference to the Tribunal

Mr Frey was not satisfied. In his formal complaint to the Tribunal
he argued that there is a difference between making a statement
about some Moslem fundamentalists and about all of Islam. He
described the statement as an extreme generalisation which lacked
accuracy, objectivity or impartiality, added nothing to the rest of
the item and was an attempt to defame Islam.

The corporation in reply submitted that, because the programme
is for the hearing-impaired, it is necessarily a very much abbreviated
form of the previous week's major news developments world wide.
The corporation expanded on the "context" argument, saying that
one could reasonably infer from the rest of the item that it was the
extreme terrorist fundamentalist that was being singled out. The
statement was not derogatory about Islam in general but about the
faction which was referred to right throughout the item. The
corporation submitted that Mr Frey's interpretation of the item as
defaming Islam and by implication all those who practised that
religion was rather extreme.

Finally, the corporation noted that the words "fundamentalist"
or "fundamentalism" were used 11 times within 3 pages of the
transcript and that this could leave no fair-minded viewer in any
doubt that it was a faction of the religious movement that was being
identified.

Mr Frey submitted that the fair-minded viewer would take the
statement to be referring to Islam in general. He suggested that the
average fair minded viewer has not met a Moslem, has never lived
in a Moslem country, has never looked at the Koran and knows
little about Islam. He thought that such a person would take the
statement to be referring to Islam in general.

Mr Frey said that anti-Islam bigotry cannot be excused by claiming
that the item was a summary: Summaries must also be impartial,
objective and accurate.

Decision

The Tribunal accepts that the script writer did not intend to
defame Islam or its adherents. Nor does the statement in our view
amount to a display of bigotry. The corporation's own submissions
are open to the interpretation that what was said was not what was
intended and we consider that this was probably the case.

Nevertheless, the statement that "Islam speaks of violence and
bloodshed in the name of religion" was too broad. It was capable
of meaning, and may have been taken to mean, that violence is a
theme of Islam. The Corporation argued that it was saved by the
context—that in an item about fundamentalists, the meaning of
"Islam" would be narrowed by implication to cover only those who
interpreted their religion as calling for violence and bloodshed.

We do not think that the context necessarily narrowed the meaning
in the manner suggested. The statement came after a long pause in
the script. It stood out from the context and therefore has to be
judged on its plain meaning. "Islam" is not synonymous with
fundamentalism. Five dictionaries which we consulted give it a broad
primary meaning of "the Moslem religion." Two give an expressly
all-embracing secondary meaning—"all Moslem believers and their
civilization (Heineman NZ 1979) and "Moslems collectively and
their civilization" (New Collins Concise NZ 1982). The breadth of
the meaning of the statement, although unintended, is inescapable.
A small change would have saved the situation. For example, "To
the fundamentalists, Islam speaks of violence and bloodshed in the
name of religion," or "The fundamentalists speak of violence and
bloodshed in the name of religion," would have been beyond