Ken Orr against The Press and Roxanne Grace against The Post
Case Number: 3729
Council Meeting: 28 April 2025
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication:
The Post
The Press
Principle: Discrimination and Diversity
Ruling Categories:
The Press, The Post and other Stuff publications ran a cartoon on March 20, 2025, titled Seymour putting “Act supporter” Jesus to work….
The cartoon, which was prompted by ACT Party leader David Seymour’s claim that Jesus would have been an ACT supporter, depicts Mr Seymour standing by a figure of Jesus and saying “Thank you white Jesus for turning that water into a delectable bottle of carbonic maceration pinot noir from Central Otago...now, if you could turn our school lunches into something edible. That would be a true miracle or, you know, break off a few pieces of bread from that body of yours.”
Ken Orr complained the cartoon was offensive, blasphemous, treated Christians and Christianity with contempt and failed to respect the diversity of religious belief and viewpoints in the community. He said blasphemy was a crime in New Zealand and the cartoon also violated the second commandment - “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
“Freedom of speech is important in a democracy. However, it does not permit blasphemy. We mock God at our peril.”
Roxanne Grace asked why Christianity was targeted and called for the removal of this “disgusting blasphemous content.”
Stuff’s opinion editor said he recognised that some readers would take offence at cartoons which sought to satirise religion in some way.
“We do not set out to cause such offence; however, we have to balance that risk with our wish to provide our opinion contributors - particularly our cartoonists - with significant latitude to express their views and to decide how they wish to portray current issues.
“In this case, the (satirical) reference to Jesus and his supposed interest in politics was made by the ACT leader, David Seymour, and the cartoonist is playing off those widely reported comments. I believe Seymour, not Jesus, is the cartoonist's target.”
The Media Council notes that blasphemous libel was removed from the Crimes Act in 2019 and there is no reference to blasphemy or the second commandment in the Council’s Principles.
These complainants cited Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity. That Principle says: “Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest and publications may report and express opinions in these areas.”
Nothing was advanced to show a breach of that Principle. The Council considered this under its wider remit which states there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression.
Cartoons regularly celebrate that by ridiculing politicians and this one was clearly aimed at Mr Seymour for his alleged mishandling of the school lunch programme and his controversial comment that Jesus would have been a member of his party. It did not say or show offensive things about God or religion, which is the common definition of blasphemy.
While some people may consider any satirical reference to Jesus to be blasphemous or offensive, there are no universally accepted standards on how religious figures can or cannot be depicted. Indeed the cartoon figure of Jesus is recognisable as Jesus because it follows his image as depicted in religious art, Jesus appears to be looking sideways in some surprise at Mr Seymour. Further, in a society where freedom of expression is valued it is impossible to lay down a rule that could protect everybody from everything that may offend them. As the Council has often stated, there is no right to not be offended.
It is always a matter for editors to decide what their readers will accept, tolerate or appreciate. That is not something the Council can dictate, and here no breach of the Principles can be seen.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.
The cartoon, which was prompted by ACT Party leader David Seymour’s claim that Jesus would have been an ACT supporter, depicts Mr Seymour standing by a figure of Jesus and saying “Thank you white Jesus for turning that water into a delectable bottle of carbonic maceration pinot noir from Central Otago...now, if you could turn our school lunches into something edible. That would be a true miracle or, you know, break off a few pieces of bread from that body of yours.”
Ken Orr complained the cartoon was offensive, blasphemous, treated Christians and Christianity with contempt and failed to respect the diversity of religious belief and viewpoints in the community. He said blasphemy was a crime in New Zealand and the cartoon also violated the second commandment - “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
“Freedom of speech is important in a democracy. However, it does not permit blasphemy. We mock God at our peril.”
Roxanne Grace asked why Christianity was targeted and called for the removal of this “disgusting blasphemous content.”
Stuff’s opinion editor said he recognised that some readers would take offence at cartoons which sought to satirise religion in some way.
“We do not set out to cause such offence; however, we have to balance that risk with our wish to provide our opinion contributors - particularly our cartoonists - with significant latitude to express their views and to decide how they wish to portray current issues.
“In this case, the (satirical) reference to Jesus and his supposed interest in politics was made by the ACT leader, David Seymour, and the cartoonist is playing off those widely reported comments. I believe Seymour, not Jesus, is the cartoonist's target.”
The Media Council notes that blasphemous libel was removed from the Crimes Act in 2019 and there is no reference to blasphemy or the second commandment in the Council’s Principles.
These complainants cited Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity. That Principle says: “Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest and publications may report and express opinions in these areas.”
Nothing was advanced to show a breach of that Principle. The Council considered this under its wider remit which states there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression.
Cartoons regularly celebrate that by ridiculing politicians and this one was clearly aimed at Mr Seymour for his alleged mishandling of the school lunch programme and his controversial comment that Jesus would have been a member of his party. It did not say or show offensive things about God or religion, which is the common definition of blasphemy.
While some people may consider any satirical reference to Jesus to be blasphemous or offensive, there are no universally accepted standards on how religious figures can or cannot be depicted. Indeed the cartoon figure of Jesus is recognisable as Jesus because it follows his image as depicted in religious art, Jesus appears to be looking sideways in some surprise at Mr Seymour. Further, in a society where freedom of expression is valued it is impossible to lay down a rule that could protect everybody from everything that may offend them. As the Council has often stated, there is no right to not be offended.
It is always a matter for editors to decide what their readers will accept, tolerate or appreciate. That is not something the Council can dictate, and here no breach of the Principles can be seen.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.