Adjudication No. 790 (May 1995) [1995] APC 20

ADJUDICATION No. 790 (May 1995)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint against the (Adelaide) Sunday Mail for publishing in a by-lined column a vigorous attack on some Uniting Church ministers who opposed the employment by the church of a homosexual.

Peter Robins, who comments on social justice for a Uniting Church parish, complained that the article breached several Press Council principles, especially the one which strongly discourages the gratuitous emphasis on religion, among other things.

The article in the regular column written by Peter Goers, described as "appalling that 65 Uniting Church ministers in SA are threatening to stop sending offerings to their church's head office" because an avowed homosexual man was employed there.

The writer said that the situation "reeks of bigoted Bible-bashing blackmail and holier-than-thou hypocrisy".

He also said that "unfortunately, homophobia and pentecostal poofter-bashing" were facts of the man's life.

The complainant was particularly upset by the reference to "pentecostal poofter-bashing" and demanded that the newspaper retract on the grounds that nobody involved had ever physically attacked the man. He cites dictionary definitions to support his claim. The newspaper rejects this narrow version of the meaning of the phrase, and the Press Council agrees with it. Whatever a particular dictionary might say, "poofter-bashing" is now a common metaphorical phrase used to denote homophobia. Few readers would take it as literally meaning that this or any other homosexual was being physically assaulted.

Mr Robins also complained that there were errors of fact in the reporting of the ministers' attitudes. But the Press Council believes that the columnist came to a reasonable interpretation of a letter circulated by them on the issue.

Mr Robins also claimed that the man involved had not been employed by the Uniting Church for "years". However, he had been employed several times over a long period and, for five years, was studying for the church ministry. It is not unreasonable to describe that in the broad meaning of the word employment.

The complainant wrote a letter to the editor demanding a printed retraction. While the Press Council encourages disaffected readers to write publishable letters to editors in response to by-lined columns, and newspapers to print those which are reasonable and appropriate, Mr Robins' letter was a demand for a retraction, rather than a letter responding to the item. In these circumstances, the decision not to publish a letter was reasonable.

As for the column putting gratuitous emphasis on the religion of an individual or group, there was nothing remotely gratuitous about the religious reference. The entire column item was about religion and how attitudes to homosexuality equated with Christian teaching.