What would Jesus ban?

What is more offensive, a cartoon Jesus or the Advertising Standards Authority's decision to ban it?

In 2006, during the run-up to Christmas, the Grocer magazine ran an advert for the Big Prawn Company. The ad featured a Nativity scene, but with the traditional baby Jesus replaced by an edible crustacean. The slogan read, "A King is born. Order now to ensure a Christmas delivery". Twenty-eight people complained. The Advertising Standards Authority rejected the complaints, accepting that the scenario "would be seen as light-hearted by most readers of The Grocer" and was thus "unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence."

In 2011, just before Easter, the Metro carried an ad for the mobile company Phones 4U. It featured a winking, thumbs-up Jesus and the slogan "Miraculous deals on Samsung Galaxy AndroidTM phones". Almost a hundred people complained. This time, the ASA has rejected the company's (admittedly absurd) contention that the image presented "a light-hearted, positive and contemporary image of Christianity relevant to the Easter weekend."

Instead, the regulator concludes that the adverts "gave the impression that they were mocking and belittling core Christian beliefs", "were disrespectful" and "were likely to cause serious offence, particularly to Christians".

Clearly something has changed. There were more complaints about the second ad, but given the much larger circulation of the Metro compared to the Grocer, not enough to indicate that widespread offence had been caused. Indeed, the ASA does not usually take the number of complaints it receives into account at all, even when judging whether an advertisement is likely to cause "serious and widespread offence".

Nor is it obvious why depicting Jesus as a prawn -- and the use of a non-kosher foodstuff seems especially inappropriate given Christ's Jewish background -- should be considered less offensive than a smiling, recognisably human cartoon-character offering "miraculous" deals on mobile phones. Both images are somewhat crass and likely to offend the humourless. But neither poses a serious threat to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

It also strikes me as somewhat over-the-top of the ASA to claim that the image of Jesus emplyed in the Phones 4U ad was "mocking and belittling core Christian beliefs". The cartoon Jesus may have been based ultimately on the Roman Catholic icongraphy of the Sacred Heart. Its immediate source, however, is to be found in the 1999 film Dogma, in which a marketing-obsessed cardinal introduces the figure of a winking, thumbs-up "Buddy Christ" as an antidote to the "wholly depressing" crucifix.

"Buddy Christ" figurines and tee-shirts remain on sale, and the film, far from being banned, is shown regularly on Channel 4. The similarity between the Phones 4U advert and the Buddy Christ figure, moreover, is no accident: the one is clearly derived from the other and the cartoon would make little sense to anyone unfamiliar with the film.

It's likely that the Big Prawn complaint would have been decided differently today. In the past few years, the ASA has been taking an increasingly strict, some would say humourless, line on suggestions of religious offensiveness. It has, for example, banned a series of ice-cream adverts featuring pregnant nuns and gay priests, and even one for curling-tongs which employed the slogan, "a new religion for hair". One of the adverts deemed likely to cause "serious or widespread offence" triggered a mere six complaints. The decision led the National Secualar Society to accuse the ASA of surreptitiously re-introducing the blasphemy law.

At the very least, the ASA seems to have an alarmingly low threshold as to what constitutes "offence" where religion is concerned. An advert, it seems, need not be objectively outrageous; it's enough that someone somewhere might potentially take exception to it. The ASA's code, it is true, states that "particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age." But it does not explain why this should be necessary, and it's hard to see why advertising should be subjected to restraints that would be considered intolerable in literature, film, art or even television.

Does it matter that the ASA is now over-protective of the supposed sensibilities of believers, the great majority of whom will at most have been mildly irritated? Perhaps not to the phone company concerned, for whom today's ruling will provide a welcome shot of free publicity. But advertising is not purely commercial. It is also public art. Its ubiquity makes it the most pervasive modern art-form, with an influence on public consciousness and the popular culture going far beyond the product being sold. The best adverts provoke thought and debate, comment on and contribute to the world we live in, and stay in people's memories long after the product being pushed has been forgotten.

Banning an advert robs people of the opportunity to have their thoughts provoked by it. Potentially it impoverishes culture. The ASA should realise that it owes greater duty to society as a whole than to the unrepresentative and eccentric handful who take the trouble to complain.

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief
Getty
Show Hide image

What does the working-class boxing community think of the Labour party?

Traditional boxing gyms are often the only refuge and means of empowerment left in communities. How do they feel in these places about each of the leadership candidates?

After Brexit sucker-punched the political establishment, many have been looking for a counter shot. For some in the Labour party (I could say in the blue corner, but I won’t throw any low blows), the idea has been to elect Owen Smith. They feel that Jeremy Corbyn, in the far left corner (sorry), is not a proposition traditional working-class Labour voters can support.

Leeds is a tricky southpaw of a city, substantial affluent patches alongside some of the most deprived areas in the country. The majority of the council is Labour, as are its MPs. The latter range from the likes of Smith supporter Rachel Reeves to Corbyn-supporting Richard Burgon. Yet it is also a city that only just voted to remain in the EU, and has three Ukip MEPs compared with its two from Labour.

I often say one of the few places you’ll find all of the city's myriad social groups in one place is in the city’s high-quality boxing gyms, be they Irish traveller, black British, Asian or white working class. I have spent a large amount of time in them as a practitioner, trainer and journalist. Boxing gyms are almost always in a city’s less glamorous location and Leeds is no different, located at various points within the "circle of deprivation" around the city centre. These gyms are often the only refuge and means of empowerment left in communities long ago stripped of communal centers, libraries or efficient transport links to the wider area.

I know a large number of people who voted leave – not because they are racists, bigots, idiots, or any other accusation levelled at them. But simply because they feel abandoned and ignored by the status quo.

People in boxing are self-made, be it due to dedication to training around working a day job, volunteering time to train the next generation or setting up there own community gym. They are the kind of individuals Corbyn or Smith need to inspire when the leadership election is over. 

In its current guise however, the party as a whole is a disorganised mess, which offers little incentive to support it. I truly don’t believe, from conversations I’ve had, that people care about Blarites, Trots or any of the numerous other examples of incessant petty name-calling. The suggestion from die-hard supporters of either leadership candidate that one could suddenly sweep the board and regain or retain votes simply isn’t realistic. Boxers, and by extension, working people, are not ignorant or stupid. But few know or care who either candidate even is – not very dissimilar to Corbyn not knowing who Ant & Dec are.

Dave Allen, a title contender heavyweight from South Yorkshire, another area with pockets of deprivation and a huge tradition of voting Labour, expressed a common opinion. A Labour supporter, his main wish is that the winner is someone who is actually honest with voters, and provides factual information from which to make opinions. “I would to think that Labour, moving forward, will do all they can to support working-class people by giving them an opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns and that these are listened to and acted upon,” he says.

My personal opinion is that Corbyn at least offers an alternative to people who have long lost interest in career politicians, and an ideology upon which campaigners can hang their hat when in the community. Smith is the kind of identikit politician who people I speak to believe is parachuted into areas, unleashes some soundbites like a quick one-two punch and then bounces out of range, unaccountable. At least Corbyn has a substantial supporter base within his own party, who can try and campaign on his behalf within these communities and try and turn that tide of apathy.

Complacency is a boxer's biggest enemy – it really can only take one shot. As a Labour supporter and voter, I hope many in the party don’t succumb to being knocked out for the count.

James Oddy is a freelance sports writer, boxer and trainer. He tweets @Oddy1J.