Kevin Searle against The Press

The Press published a cartoon on June 19, 2026, in which the word “Jesus” was used as an expletive to describe reaction to reports of how public servants tried to hide the failure of a $32 million immigration technology upgrade.

Kevin Searle complained that using “Jesus” as a swear word was blasphemous and an insult to Christians as the third commandment, not to take the Lord’s name in vain, is a major precept of Christianity.

“To blaspheme simply for emphasis in a political cartoon is a step too far.”

It was gratuitous and therefore in breach of Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity.

The Press responded that “Jesus” was used as a swear word, not as an insult targeting Christians. It was not intended to offend.

The editor said she supported the free-speech rights of contributors, which included their right to be provocative and occasionally even offensive.

The Media Council notes this is similar to a complaint last year (Ruling No. 3729) in which a political cartoon referred to and depicted a figure of Jesus.

The ruling noted that blasphemy is not a crime and there is no reference to it in the Media Council’s Principles.

Nothing was advanced to show there was a breach of Principle (7) which says issues of religion are legitimate matters for discussion and publications can express opinions in these areas provided it is not given gratuitous emphasis.

The Media Council considered the complaint under its wider remit which states there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression.

Some people may consider any satirical reference to Jesus to be blasphemous. However, 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 Media Council has often stated, there is no right to not be offended.

It was widely reported that one of the Select Committee members repeatedly said “Jesus” when the committee was advised of the immigration system failure.  That makes it hard to argue its use in this cartoon was gratuitous. 

The Media Council has long held that editors have sole responsibility for the use of language and decisions relating to matters of taste. It is over to them to judge what their readers will accept, tolerate, or appreciate. That is not something that the Council can dictate.

There was nothing in this complaint to show any of breach of Media Council Principles.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.