media/Broadcasting... Web view” in the Greek is a little different than our word...

Investigation report no. BI-205Summary

Licensee United Christian Broadcasters Australia Limited

Station Vision Christian Radio

Type of service Open narrowcasting—radio

Name of program 66/40

Date of broadcast 2 May 2016

Relevant code Open Narrowcast Radio Codes of Practice

Date Finalised 23 August 2016

Decision No breach of clause 1.3 [religious vilification]

Breach of clause 2.4 [respond to complaint within 30 days]

Breach of clause 2.5 [advise right to refer matter to the ACMA]

BackgroundIn July 2016, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 170 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into the radio program 66/40. The program was broadcast on Vision Christian Radio by United Christian Broadcasters Australia Limited on 2 May 2016.

The ACMA received a complaint alleging that the program contained material that ‘was likely to incite hatred against and to vilify adherents of the Roman Catholic faith on the basis of their religion’. The complainant also alleged the licensee did not respond to the complaint within the time limit specified in the Open Narrowcast Radio Codes of Practice (the Codes).

The ACMA has investigated the licensee’s compliance against clauses 1.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of the Codes.

The program66/40 is a Christian lecture program, described as:

66/40 is a Bible Teaching programme featuring Dr Chuck Missler of Koinonia House - an organisation dedicated to developing materials to stimulate and encourage serious study of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.1

The Vision Radio Australia program guide further describes the program as follows:

Innovative and exciting Biblical teaching that connects the Bible to science, prophecy, your life and the world events occurring around you.2

A transcript of the relevant excerpt of the program is at Attachment A.

Assessment and submissionsWhen assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and any inferences that may be drawn. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.3

Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Codes.

The investigation takes into account the complaint (at Attachment B) and submissions from the broadcaster (at Attachment C). Other sources are identified below.

1 https://vision.org.au/radio/shows/6640-chuck-missler/, accessed on 2 August 2016.2 https://vision.org.au/radio/coming-up-today/, accessed on 2 August 2016.3 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.

ACMA Investigation Report—66/40 broadcast by Vision Christian Radio on 2 May 2016 2 of 19

https://vision.org.au/radio/coming-up-today/

https://vision.org.au/radio/shows/6640-chuck-missler/

Issue 1: General guidelines for programming

Relevant Codes provisions 1.3 Narrowcasters will not broadcast programs which are likely to incite or perpetuate hatred

against or vilify any person or group on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, age, colour, physical or mental disability, transgender status or HIV/AIDS status. A narrowcaster may not broadcast a program which is likely in all the circumstances to seriously offend the cultural sensitivity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or ethnic groups in the Australian community.

[…]

1.6 A narrowcaster will not breach clauses 1.2(b), 1.3, 1.4(a) or 1.4(b) if a program includes matter said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in broadcasting an artistic work including comedy and satire;

(b) in the course of any broadcast or statement, discussion or debate made or held for an academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other identifiable public interest purpose;

(c) in broadcasting a fair report of, or a fair comment on, any event or matter of identifiable public interest.

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 1.3 of the Codes.

ReasonsTo assess compliance in this case, the following questions were addressed:

Did the program identify a person or group of persons on a relevant basis?

Was the program likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify the relevant person or group on that basis?

If so, was the conduct in the program said or done reasonably and in good faith (via the relevant exemption clause)?

The complainant submitted:

[…] The program contained strongly anti Catholic content.

The program discussed the 'Harlot' and the 'Beast', which are figures of evil described in Chapter 17 of the Book of Revelation. The program said "here it's presented as a scarlet-coloured beast. That's a very interesting colour.

That's the colour that's been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour" and (in relation to the 'harlot') "Scarlet is the colour that's been adopted by Roman Catholicism."

[…]

There was a real possibility that an ordinary reasonable listener would have understood the program to be speaking evil of members of the Roman Catholic Church (Church) on the basis of their religion.


The program expressly associated the Church of which Catholics are members with biblical figures of evil.

[…]

The program also drew upon and referred back to a culture of hatred of Catholics in which members of that Church are considered to be disloyal, satanic and potentially murderous.

The licensee submitted:

The core issue seems to be Dr Missler's assertion that the historical actions of the Catholic church may qualify it to meet the description of "the woman who rides the beast", in the Biblical book of Revelation. Dr Missler's conclusion was based on documented history including the persecution of large numbers of Protestant Christians in Medieval Europe at the hand of several successive Catholic Popes.

[…]

It is a very long bow to suggest Dr Missler's comments were a vilifying attack on the Catholic Church, rather they were a small part of a very objective commentary about the church through the ages in relation to biblical prophecy.

[…]

It is clear that [the complainant] has taken personal offense to the material broadcast, which is regrettable. It is our strong belief that [the complainant’s] views do not represent those of an ordinary reasonable listener, in that such a person would not consider the material broadcast as vilification of, or encouraging a strong dislike toward, members of the Catholic church today. This is highlighted by the absence of any other complaints regarding the broadcast.

Did the program identify a person or group of persons on a relevant basis?

The broadcast material was a pre-recorded lecture by Dr Missler, an established biblical teacher and academic, on the interpretation of biblical prophecy. During the lecture, which focussed on chapters 17 and 18 of the Book of Revelations, Dr Missler suggested a connection between certain passages, and the Catholic Church. In doing so, he made several explicit references to ‘the Vatican’, ‘Roman Catholicism’, ‘the Pope’ and the ‘Roman Catholic Church’.

Based on these references to the Catholic Church and its leadership, the ACMA is satisfied that for the purposes of clause 1.3, the group of persons identified is members of the Catholic Church and the relevant basis is religion.

Was the program likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify the relevant person or group on that basis?

Incite or perpetuate

To assess compliance, the ACMA asks if the relevant broadcast material was likely to have urged a reasonable person to share feelings of hatred against or vilify any person or group on the basis of religion. Conduct that merely conveys a person’s own dislike of a group of people is not a breach of the Codes.

The program contained phrases, including:

‘This beast, of course, is the one that was described in Revelation thirteen. It’s a political system on the one hand and/or the leader of that system on the other, and here it’s


presented as a scarlet coloured beast. That’s a very interesting colour. That’s the colour that’s been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour.’

‘… many prophecy buffs that write books are insensitive to the fact that the Pope is not the Antichrist. The Vatican rides the beast, it isn’t the beast and so, but there is a clear linkage to the Vatican. That doesn’t mean it is limited to the Vatican but the Vatican certainly qualifies

‘The history of the Roman Catholic Church is part of what you need to acquaint yourself with if you’re going to understand your bible. There is no organisation on the planet earth that has murdered more Christians than the Roman Catholic Church. One Pope, one afternoon, murdered more Christians than all the Roman Emperors put together, and you need to understand that.’

The ACMA acknowledges that some listeners may have considered the statements to be critical of the Catholic Church by associating it with the Antichrist, blasphemy, a counterfeit religion and claims of murder. However, the ACMA considers that the requisite elements of incitement or perpetuation of hatred, or vilification on the basis of religion were absent from the material broadcast in the program.

Dr Missler did not use explicit language during the program that would have been understood by an ordinary reasonable listener as directly urging, stimulating or encouraging them to share feelings of hatred against or vilify a person or group on the basis of their religion or current religious practices and beliefs.

The program did make negative associations and contain criticisms of the Catholic Church, particularly in relation to the past persecution of people on the basis of their religion. Based on his interpretation of biblical passages which did not expressly refer to the Catholic Church or the Vatican but to, for example, ‘the woman who rides the beast’ and the colour scarlet, Dr Missler also associated the Catholic Church with a feigned religion and blasphemy.

The lecture was sectarian and to some extent critical. The audience would have understood that Dr Missler was presenting the Catholic Church in a negative light over past events. However, he did not describe Catholic religious beliefs or the tenets of Catholic faith. The program did not include explicit terms or inflammatory language prompting the audience to share feelings of hatred, contempt or dislike of members of the Catholic Church on the basis of their religion.

Hatred or vilification – high threshold

The terms ‘hatred against’ and ‘vilification’ in clause 1.3 contemplate the provocation of a very strong reaction in the audience. It is not sufficient that the broadcast induces a mild or even strong response.

To the extent that some listeners may have understood that the program was inciting them to share feelings of hatred against or vilify of members of the Catholic Church on the basis of their religion, it was not explicit or extreme enough to provoke the strength of audience response contemplated in clause 1.3 of the Codes.

If so, was the conduct in the program said or done reasonably and in good faith (via the relevant exemption clause)?

As the broadcast material did not contain any incitement to hatred or vilification, there is no need to consider clause 1.6.

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 1.3 of the Codes.


Issue 2: Handling complaints

Relevant Codes provisions 2.4 Written complaints will be acknowledged in writing, within fifteen days from the receipt of

the complaint and the narrowcaster will respond substantively to the complaint within thirty days of receipt. If the complainant has not received a response within sixty days or considers that a response within that period is inadequate he or she may refer the complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

2.5 A complainant will be advised that he or she is entitled to refer the matter to the Australian Communications and Media Authority where the complainant is not satisfied with the response to a written complaint.

FindingThe licensee breached clauses 2.4 and 2.5 of the Codes.

ReasonsAcknowledge and respond to written complaints

It is a requirement of the Codes that written complaints be acknowledged in writing within fifteen days from the receipt of the complaint. A substantive response must be provided within thirty days of receipt.

On 1 June 2016, the complainant re-submitted to the licensee:

On 3 May 2016 I submitted a complaint regarding a broadcast via your website. I have not received a response.

The licensee submitted to the ACMA:

We concede that technically, [the complainant] did not receive a response within the prescribed 30 days from the point of his initial electronic lodgement, however as outlined above, this was due to a unique technical failure rather than us "sitting on our hands". Upon becoming aware of his complaint we responded very promptly and also acted swiftly to rectify the technical issue which led to the problem so that it does not recur.

The ACMA accepts that the licensee acknowledged receipt of the complaint the same day it was re-submitted on 1 June 2016. Further, it provided a substantive written response addressing the complainant’s concerns four business days later.

The licensee has acknowledged that it failed to respond to the complaint dated 3 May 2016 within the time-frame set out at clause 2.4 of the Codes. It further submitted that the swiftness and manner in which it ultimately responded to the complainant is indicative of its complaint handling process.

The ACMA notes that the licensee promptly addressed the technical issue which prevented the licensee from receiving the initial complaint and that it has undertaken to manage any future complaints in a timely manner.

However, as the licensee did not to respond to the 3 May 2016 complaint within the time-frame specified, the ACMA finds that the licensee breached clause 2.4 of the Codes.


Advise complainant of the right to refer the matter to the ACMA

It is also a requirement of the Codes that a licensee, in responding to a complaint, advises the complainant that they may refer their complaint to the ACMA if they are not satisfied with the response. The licensee’s substantive response dated 8 June 2016 did not include a statement to this effect.

The licensee has undertaken that all future responses will advise complainants of the entitlement to refer the matter to the ACMA if dissatisfied with the licensee’s response. The licensee will also conduct refresher training to ensure all relevant staff fully understand the obligations under the Codes.

The licensee breached clause 2.5 of the Codes.


Attachment ATranscript of 66/40, broadcast on Vision Christian Radio on 2 May 2016

Voiceover: 66/40. Your future lies in 66/40.Sixty six books by 40 authors and yet we now discover it’s an integrated message system from outside our time domain.

Introduction. Welcome to 66/40. The ministry outreach of Koinonia House and Koinonia Institute. Today’s bible teacher is Dr Chuck Missler, connecting the Bible to your life and the world around you. In today’s study, Dr Missler continues his teaching on the Book of Revelation Chapter 17 and 18.

Dr Missler: With whom the Kings of the Earth have committed fornication and the habitants of the Earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication” (a quote of Revelation 17:2). Now again, harlotry is a form of false devotion, that’s the way it’s being used here, and harlotry involves a feigned love, a pretended affection, an intimacy for favours and that sort of thing. So, four times we have the term harlot in this chapter, it’s called ‘the great city’ something like eight times, and Jerusalem is also called the harlot in Isaiah, and Tyre was called a harlot it it’s way in Isaiah 23 and so was Ninevah in the book of Nahum. But so those terms, while we tend to use them narrowly in a biological sense, they’re used in Scripture not to exclude that, but broader, so as to the whole idea of spiritual fornication.

”With whom the Kings of the Earth have committed fornication”, or false affection, “...and the habitants of the Earth have been made drink with the wine of her fornication. So He carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of the names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns”. Now these seven heads and ten horns are familiar idioms to the prophecy student, from Daniel chapter seven and other passages, and several times in the book of Revelation already. This beast, of course, is the one that was described in Revelation thirteen. It’s a political system on the one hand and/or the leader of that system on the other, and here it’s presented as a scarlet coloured beast. That’s a very interesting colour. That’s the colour that’s been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour. ”Whom the Kings of the Earth have committed fornication and the habitants of the Earth have been made drink with the wine of her fornication”, this is one of those places where Lennon was correct, he said “Religion is the opiate of the people”. Many Christians are offended by that but he actually is quite accurate. Let’s distinguish religion for what it really is – it’s man’s attempt to cover himself with God, to make things right and he can’t. God commented on that before the end of chapter three. Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves with aprons of fig leaves and God replaced them with coats of skins, and in the little one verse in Genesis three you don’t pick up on it until you’ve read the rest of your bible and come back there and you realise what God is doing. He’s teaching them that by the shedding of innocent blood they would be covered. It’s an object lesson. You say “the Holy Spirit’s dealing in puns”. Absolutely, he does that often. And, so, the control of state religion is one of the most dangerous trends in history and in the current day. Watch that, it’s going to increase. The enforced paganism of our government schools in this country are shredding the fabric of our heritage and destroying the character of our nation. And it’s just beginning.


Verse four: “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication”. Well purple has a lot of different meanings – it certainly was the imperial colour of Rome, every Senator and Councillor wore a purple stripe as his badge of his position, and the Emperor of the empire was arrayed in purple. And scarlet is the colour that’s been adopted in a similar fashion by Roman Catholicism. The golden cup we’re going to encounter and, we’ll later on in this study get into the book of Jeremiah, these are idioms that you’ll find in common here. This woman is attempting to rule. The church doesn’t rule until her Lord rules, and when her rejected Lord returns to power which we’re going to see in the next session, on the next chapter, in the next session. So we’re dealing here incidentally with blasphemy. Blasphemy is any attempt to add to what God has done, or change what God has done, and so forth. So let’s just keep moving here.

“And on her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH”. And it’s in caps here because that’s the way it is in the text, the manuscript texts, interestingly enough. The word “mysterion” in the Greek is a little different than our word “mystery” in the English, from which of course it’s taken. The word “mysterion” really refers to a secret that’s now revealed. It’s sort of like disclosing a password. Once it’s out it’s no longer a mystery, it was a mystery up till now, so to speak. That’s sort of the concept. And we have mystery Babylon here in contrast to the mystery of the true church. They’re antithetical is I think is the intention here. The fact that she’s the mother of harlots, I want you to notice that is in the plural. She is the mother of harlots. There are lots of harlots, there are lots of false religions. There are lots of counterfeit religions that look like they’re Christian but aren’t – she’s the mother of all of those. And, I’ll let you fill in the blanks. Ecclessiacitsicm leads to harlotry and we’re going to see that in chapter eighteen, too.

Let’s move on, Revelation seventeen verse six “I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great”... he says admiration here, that’s a misleading translation – “awe”. Not admiration that’s necessarily favourable, but with great awareness, great awe, great astonishment might be a better translation of it. Now as you’re following this I want to recommend, I don’t normally do this but I want to recommend another non-biblical source that you ought to have for your library, if you’re a serious Christian. And that’s a book by Dave Hunt called “A woman rides the beast”. Dave Hunt is a sound scholar, thorough researcher, he does have some views that I happen to have a slight disagreement with, one of which I explain to you as we get to it. But I have an extensive library on this subject - the classic work in this area is one by Alexander Hislop, published in 1881 and it is in most serious libraries. However it’s very dated, it’s also somewhat argumentative and not as perfect a reference as you’d like. Dave Hunt has repaired that, he’s done a thorough amount of research, it is extremely well documented, it is very controversial, because he doesn’t pull any punches. He makes a very clear linkage between the woman in Revelation, which isn’t the beast, it rides the beast, he makes that distinction. Many prophecy buffs that write books are insensitive to the fact that the Pope is not the Antichrist. The Vatican rides the beast, it isn’t the beast and so, but there is a clear linkage to the Vatican. That doesn’t mean it is limited to the Vatican but the Vatican certainly qualifies. The history of the Roman Catholic Church is part of what you need to acquaint yourself with if you’re going to understand your bible.


There is no organisation on the planet earth that has murdered more Christians than the Roman Catholic Church. One Pope, one afternoon, murdered more Christians than all the Roman Emperors put together, and you need to understand that. I’m not going to get into that heavy here because there’s more to be done... but when you understand the history of the medieval Europe, and you see verse six, you immediately, draws you to a recognition of the abuse, of Christians specifically, by the Roman Catholic Church.

“I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the Saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus”. You can’t even find a second choice that comes close to them as an identity here. And that’s one of the reasons, I think, that John says “I wondered with great astonishment”. If he was shown the blood of the martyrs at the hands of pagan Rome, he wouldn’t be surprised – pagan Rome was the enemy of the church. But to find the so-called “Christian church” guilty of murdering martyrs astonished John. There’s a clue right there that the source of the blood of the Saints is in a surprising place.

“And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns”. You understand the beast that had the seven heads and ten horns is the political system. The woman rides it, takes advantage of it. There’s a romance going on. That system will eventually turn and consume her, we’re going to see that referenced here shortly.

Then we get to verse seven – we’re getting to some very strange verses here so be ready, Revelation seventeen verse eight “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is”. You understand that so we’ll just move on (laughter). No? Oh OK! What apparently is being portrayed here in this political system it existed at one time, then disappeared and now has re-emerged. And that’s why bible scholars have for centuries, looked forward to what they quaintly call the revived Roman Empire. The empire that was extant at John’s day, and we see references to that here shortly, was obviously the Roman Empire and it obviously, no-one conquered it. As you go through the history of the empires from Babylon to Persia to Greece to Rome, each one was conquered by a subsequent empire. Not Rome – it fell into pieces. And each of those pieces had a bid toward world dominion, the Dutch, the French, the German, the English and so on. Spain. Each one had their bid, never quite making it. But the bible portrays in Daniel two and other places that these pieces will re-coalesce to re-emerge as a revived Roman Empire. So this is the beast that was, and is not and yet is. In other words, John is seeing this propelled forward in time in the spirit, so he’s seeing it as it occurs at the end time, he’s watching what’s going on at the end times. So this empire that was, and then disappeared, at this point in history, the future, as yet re-emerged. Are you with me so far? It gets worse, hang on.

“And here is the mind which hath wisdom” I really get nervous when I see that phrase. Because it occurs several times in the bible and what immediately follows is one of the classic enigmas of our study. But anyway, “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth”. What is a mountain in prophecy? Idiomatically, what is a mountain – anyone? Remember in Daniel chapter four, what is a mountain? (another voice: “a government”). Good for you, right on, gold star. A government. God’s government, the stone that was cut without


hands becomes a mountain that fills the whole earth. The idiom is used in the scripture for a government, or perhaps an organisation would perhaps be a better term.

The seven heads are seven mountains, or in other words, seven mountains on which the woman Sitteth, and there are seven kings. Now the words “Kings” and “Kingdoms” are identical in the Hebrew – Malech is the King or the Kingdom. They’re idiomatically, the context determines what you are talking about. “And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition”. I’ll now pass out a written quiz (laughter).

It sounds like double-talk, doesn’t it? Well, permit me to try and do a diagram. Let’s talk about Satan’s seven, what I’ll call “super kingdoms”. In Revelation 12:3, back then in chapter 12 you may recall it said “there appeared another wonder in heaven and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and seven horns and seven crowns upon his heads”. Who is the red dragon can you remember, it was revealed to you in verse nine of chapter twelve, what was it? (others: “Satan”), Satan, good for you.


Attachment BComplaint

Complaint to the licensee sent 3 May 2016:

On 3 May 2016 I uploaded the following complaint to the Vision Radio website -

Please consider this a complaint about a breach of the Open Narrowcast Radio Codes of Practice ("Code").

On 2 May 2016 I heard part of the program "66/40" on the Night Vision program on your station. This program discussed the Book of Revelation and contained strongly anti-Catholic content. I have since located an audio-recording of the relevant episode and transcribed what I considered the relevant components as follows -

(a) "And here it's presented as a scarlet-coloured beast. That's a very interesting colour. That's the colour that's been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour".

(b) Speaking of the Whore in Rev 17:4 - "Scarlet is the colour that 's been adopted by Roman Catholicism"

(c) "I want to recommend another non-Biblical source that you ought to have for your library if you're a serious Christian, and that's a book by Dave Hunt called A Woman Rides the Beast. Dave Hunt is a sound scholar and a thorough researcher. He does have some views that I have a slight disagreement with ... but I have an extensive library on the subject. The classic work in this area is one by Alexander Hislop, published in 1881, and it's in most serious libraries. However, it's very dated and also somewhat argumentative. It's not as perfect a reference as you'd like. Dave Hunt has repaired that; he's done a thorough amount of research, it is extremely well documented, it is very controversial, because he doesn't pull any punches. He makes a very clear linkage between the woman in Revelation - which isn't the beast, it rides the beast, many prophecy buffs are insensitive to the fact that the Pope is not the antichrist; the Vatican rides the Beast [but] it isn't the beast - but there's a very clear linkage to the Vatican. That doesn't mean it's limited to the Vatican, but the Vatican certainly qualifies. The history of the Roman Catholic Church is part of what you need to acquaint yourself with if you're going to understand your Bible. There is no organization on the planet Earth that has murdered more Christians than the Roman Catholic Church. One Pope, one afternoon, murdered more Christians than all of the Roman emperors put together, and you need to understand that... When you understand the history of mediaeval Europe, and you see verse six, you immediately ... it draws you to recognition of the abuse of Christians specifically by the Roman Catholic Church. "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus". You can't even find a second choice that comes close to them as an identity here.”

On any measure this material was likely to incite hatred against and to vilify adherents of the Roman Catholic faith on the basis of their religion, contrary to the Code § 1.3.

I would be grateful to receive your substantive response to this complaint within 30 days of the date of this message, pursuant to §2.4 of the Code.

Complaint to the licensee dated 1 June 2016:


As discussed, on 3 May 2016 I submitted a complaint regarding a broadcast via your website. I have not received a response. I have drafted a complaint for submission to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), but would welcome an opportunity to resolve the matter with your station directly if possible.

I now attach a copy of my draft complaint to ACMA, to which is appended a copy of the original complaint. I would be very grateful if you would respond.

Please note that the time limits set by cl. 2.4 of the Open Narrowcast Radio Codes of Practice continue to apply to this matter as from 3 May 2016 when the initial complaint was made.

Complaint to the ACMA received 15 June 2016:

1. Vision Christian Radio (broadcaster) is a broadcaster subject to the Open Narrowcast Radio Codes of Practice (Code) and subject to regulation by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Authority).

2. The Code relevantly provides that "Narrowcasters will not broadcast programs which are likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify any person or group on the basis of ... religion". A program will breach the code if there is a real possibility that an ordinary reasonable listener would have understood it to be encouraging strong dislike for a person on the basis of their religion. A program will also breach the code if there is a real possibility that an ordinary reasonable listener would have understood it to speaking evil of a person on the basis of their religion4.

3. On 2 May 2016 the broadcaster broadcast a segment named "Night Vision" which featured a program named "66/40" (program). The program contained strongly anti Catholic content.

Particulars

The program discussed the 'Harlot' and the 'Beast', which are figures of evil described in Chapter 17 of the Book of Revelation. The program said "here it's presented as a scarlet-coloured beast. That's a very interesting colour.

That's the colour that's been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour" and (in relation to the 'harlot') "Scarlet is the colour that's been adopted by Roman Catholicism"

The program further included this passage -

I want to recommend another non-Biblical source that you ought to have for your library if you're a serious Christian, and that's a book by Dave Hunt called A Woman Rides the Beast. Dave Hunt is a sound scholar and a thorough researcher. He does have some views that I have a slight disagreement with ... but I have an extensive library on the subject. The classic work in this area is one by Alexander Hislop, published in 1881, and it's in most serious libraries. However, it's very dated and also somewhat argumentative. It's not as perfect a reference as you'd like. Dave Hunt has repaired that; he's done a thorough amount of research, it is extremely well documented, it is very controversial, because he doesn't pull any punches. He makes a very clear linkage between the woman in Revelation - which isn't the beast, it rides the beast, many prophecy buffs are insensitive to the fact that the Pope is not the antichrist; the Vatican rides the Beast [but] it isn't the beast - but there's a very clear linkage to the Vatican. That doesn't mean it's limited to the Vatican, but the Vatican certainly qualifies.

The history of the Roman Catholic Church is part of what you need to acquaint yourself with if you're going to understand your Bible. There is no organization

4 Investigation Report No. 2215 (Australian Communications and Media Authority , 28 May 2009)


on the planet Earth that has murdered more Christians than the Roman Catholic Church. One Pope, one afternoon, murdered more Christians than all of the Roman emperors put together, and you need to understand that. ... When you understand the history of mediaeval Europe, and you see verse six, you immediately ... it draws you to recognition of the abuse of Christians specifically by the Roman Catholic Church. "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus". You can't even find a second choice that comes close to them as an identity here.

4. There was a real possibility that an ordinary reasonable listener would have understood the program to be speaking evil of members of the Roman Catholic Church (Church) on the basis of their religion.

Particulars


5. Further and in the alternative, there was a real possibility that an ordinary reasonable listener would have understood the program to be encouraging strong dislike for members of the Church on the basis of their religion.

Particulars


The program also drew upon and referred back to a culture of hatred of Catholics in which members of that Church are considered to be disloyal, satanic and potentially murderous. An instance of this culture is Jack Chick, Are Roman Catholics Christians? (Ontario 1985) (Appendix A).

The possibility that an ordinary reasonable listener would have reached the said understanding was increased by the program 's use of the academic terms 'scholar', 'researcher ', 'classic work ' and 'well documented' to describe the polemical writings of Alexander Hislop and Dave Hunt.

Jurisdiction

6. The Code states that "In the first instance, complaints should be made to the narrowcaster. Listeners may lodge complaints by telephone, post, e-mail or, where a narrowcaster's website capability allows, electronically. ... Written complaints will be acknowledged in writing, within fifteen days from the receipt of the complaint and the narrowcaster will respond substantively to the complaint within thirty days of receipt. If the complainant has not received a response within sixty days or considers that a response within that period is inadequate he or she may refer the complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority."

7. A complaint was lodged concerning the program via the broadcaster's website on 3 May 2016, and again on 12 May 2016, and finally by email on 1 June 2016 (Appendix B). A reply was provided by email on 8 June 2016 (reply) (Appendix C).

8. The broadcaster's reply, while appreciated, is inadequate.

Particulars

It is irrelevant that "the opinions expressed by any person featured on Vision Christian Radio are those of the speaker and not necessarily those of the organisation". The onus is on the broadcaster to ensure their programs comply with the Code.

It is not a defence that a speaker offers a disclaimer that their views are a matter of interpretation. Such a defence would render the Code's prohibition on incitement or vilification ineffectual.


The statement that "Dr Missler presented his thoughts in a gracious manner" and "was devoid of aggression and accusatory language" is irreconcilable with the content of the broadcast.

The statement that "Dr Missler pointed out that he does not agree with all of Dave Hunt's material [and] ... noted that Dave Hunt's views were controversial , again suggesting that hearer should form their own opinions about what was being presented " is irreconcilable with the content of the broadcast. The speaker clearly endorsed Mr Hunt's position.

It is not accurate to say that the speaker "did not labour the point, stating his opinions once and then moving on". The matter was discussed at length. Further and in the alternative, a breach of the code is not excused by reason of brevity.

The statement that "Dr Missler's commentary did not paint the Pope or Vatican in a very positive light" is a gross understatement.

It is not accurate to say that the speaker was "not making comments on the basis of [the Church's] religion, but rather their historical actions (ie his comments regarding medieval Europe)". The program clearly asserted that the 'evil' of the Catholic church is a matter of present and future reality. In the alternative, if the speaker was referring only to the past actions of the Catholic Church (which is denied), no attempt was made to address the broad range of scholarship on religion in the European middle ages (for example, no reference was made to the writings of Thomas Noble, Adriaan Bredero, Jean Leclercq, Steven Runciman or Jonathan Riley-Smith).

Relief

9. The applicant seeks the following relief -

(a) A finding that by broadcasting the program, the broadcaster has breached the Code.

(b) Such other relief as the Authority may consider appropriate


Attachment CLicensee’s response and submissions

Licensee response to the complainant dated 8 June 2016:

Thank you for your phone call of 1 June 2016 and your subsequent email of the same date regarding the above.

We note your concern that the broadcast of this program is in breach of code 1.3 of the Narrowcasting codes of practice and accordingly I have made it a priority to listen to the material in question as we take all such matters very seriously. Please note that we would have responded much earlier had your attempts to communicate via our website earlier in May been successful. Our team are looking into what may have happened here.

It is important to point out that the opinions expressed by any person featured on Vision Christian Radio are those of the speaker and not necessarily those of the organisation. Occasionally contentious views may be expressed and in these circumstances we actively encourage listeners to take them "on balance". This certainly appears to be one of those occasions.

The program in question featured Dr Chuck Missler's interpretation of prophecy outlined in the book of Revelation. Regular listeners to his program will know that Dr Missler often gives a disclaimer that parts of his commentary are "his interpretation" or "conjecture", instructing listeners not to take what he is saying on face value but rather to test it against scripture as was noted of the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

Although Dr Missler's comments may be controversial for some, or may not be warmly received by members of the Catholic Church, I am confident that they fall short of vilification, perpetuating hatred or encouraging a strong dislike for Catholics. For example;

Dr Missler presented his thoughts in a gracious manner, applying the biblical principle of speaking the truth in love (truth as he understands it) as per Ephesians 4: 15. We know Dr Missler personally and know he is sincere in his pursuit of biblical truth.

His delivery was devoid of aggression and accusatory language. His overall call to action is to a life dedicated to the study of God's Word, the pursuit of a

relationship with God and Christian calling, not any kind of act of hatred. Dr Missler pointed out that he does not agree with all of Dave Hunt's material. Further

he noted that Dave Hunt's views were controversial, again suggesting that hearer should form their own opinions about what was being presented.

He did not labour the point, stating his opinions once and then moving on.

Further, whilst I agree that Dr Missler's commentary did not paint the Pope or Vatican in a very positive light, he was not making comments on the basis of their religion, but rather their historical actions (ie his comments regarding medieval Europe).

It is important to note that we are not in the habit of regularly broadcasting material that is critical of particular denominations as a regular part of our programming - in fact we usually avoid it in preference of focusing on the things that unite Christians, as expressed in our core beliefs (see www.vision.org.au/core-beliefs).

We will have some discussion amongst our team regarding the robustness of our procedures and policies that generally limit such comments being aired, and we will also let the supplier of the program know of your concerns ("66/40" is produced by an outside source).


http://www.vision.org.au/core-beliefs

Although I am confident the program is not in breach of the codes of conduct, I am sorry that the comments have given cause for your offence.

I trust this response helps to allay your concerns and would welcome your phone call should you wish to discuss the matter further.

Licensee submission to the ACMA dated 20 July 2016:

First, some background;

Biblical prophecy can be a controversial and divisive subject as it can paint an unflattering, even dire picture of some individuals, nations and forces. Any serious study of the subject requires a thorough understanding of the original language in which it was written, along with the cultural nuances of the time it was written, along with an understanding of scripture overall and a great deal of cross-referencing. Dr Missler is well qualified in this regard.

Within Christian traditions, there are many views on how scripture should be interpreted. As a Narrowcaster of religious content (we are recorded by ACMA specifically as this) it is perfectly appropriate for us to air programs and discussions on these different opinions, views, beliefs and doctrines and to provide critical analysis of the church and its historic activities and figures. "6640" is such a program, drawn from academic lecture-style presentations from Dr Chuck Missler.

You can learn more about Dr Missler's program '66/40' at our website https://vision.org.au/radio/shows/6640-chuck-missler/ or for more about him see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Missler.

To the heart of [the complainant’s] complaint;

The core issue seems to be Dr Missler's assertion that the historical actions of the Catholic Church may qualify it to meet the description of "the woman who rides the beast", in the Biblical book of Revelation. Dr Missler's conclusion was based on documented history including the persecution of large numbers of Protestant Christians in Medieval Europe at the hand of several successive Catholic Popes. Whilst scholars disagree on the numbers of people killed or displaced, it is widely agreed that these events did indeed occur. In 2006, Professor David A Plaisted of the University of North Carolina published a detailed study of the issue titled "Estimates of the number killed by the Papacy in the middle ages and later" which can be accessed via http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.doc

It is a very long bow to suggest Dr Missler's comments were a vilifying attack on the Catholic Church, rather they were a small part of a very objective commentary about the church through the ages in relation to biblical prophecy. For example, in the subsequent instalments of the "66/40" Revelation series Dr Missler revealed that the Protestant church, Sardis, along with the more modern Laodecian church did even worse things than that of the church of Thyatira (analogous of the Catholic Church) and that these following Protestant churches 'report cards' were even more damaging than that of the Roman Catholic era.

Regarding [the complainant’s] attempt to link material from Jack Chick to the content broadcast (refer appendix A "Are Roman Catholics Christians" by Jack Chick);

[The complainant] states "the program also drew upon and referred back to a culture of hatred toward Catholics in which members of that church are considered to be disloyal, satanic and potentially murderous". This is a straw man argument as it lacks any direct connection to the material broadcast (or any other material we have broadcast). Further, it is not representative of our values or views, or we believe those of the majority of our audience.


http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.doc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Missler

https://vision.org.au/radio/shows/6640-chuck-missler/

By his comments, [the complainant infers that the works of Alexander Hislop and Dave Hunt fall into the category of promoting a culture of hatred toward Catholics. This is a matter of subjective opinion and in any case is irrelevant to his complaint.

In conclusion;

It is clear that [the complainant] has taken personal offense to the material broadcast, which is regrettable. It is our strong belief that [the complainant’s] views do not represent those of an ordinary reasonable listener, in that such a person would not consider the material broadcast as vilification of, or encouraging a strong dislike toward, members of the Catholic church today. This is highlighted by the absence of any other complaints regarding the broadcast.

Please also refer to the comments in my letter to [the complainant] dated 8 June 2016 (included in his submission to ACMA as Appendix C).

We would be pleased to assist ACMA with any further information it may require in gaining a firm understanding of biblical narrative and prophecy, which we believe will be an important factor in understanding the context of the comments broadcast.

Regarding [the complainant’s] concern that we are in breach of clause 2.4 (respond to complaint within 30 days)

[The complainant] notes that on 3 May 2016 he submitted a complaint regarding the broadcast via our website but did not receive a response.

During the morning of 1 June 2016 [the complainant] telephoned our office to enquire as to why he had not received a response. Upon receipt of his phone call and a follow-up email containing a summary of his complaint and a draft of his submission to ACMA, we acted promptly;

1. To determine if his complaint was indeed lodged on 3 May. It was discovered that he did, however due to a misconfiguration of the complaints form on our then brand new website (which had been live for about 30 days), our staff were unaware of his complaint until we went hunting for it.

2. To address his concerns. At 3.21pm that same day we sent [the complainant] an email informing him of what had happened and our plan of action. That email was as follows;

Thank you for your email and attachment.

We acknowledge receipt of your complaint and wanted to let you know that you will receive a more substantive response once management have had an opportunity to review it.

Ordinarily we respond to complaints promptly as we take them seriously. We note you say you have lodged your complaint previously via our website however we have no record of it being received - thus the reason why you have not heard from us to date.

We would appreciate if you could advise which particular form and web page you used so we can investigate whether there is a problem with our systems.

Kind Regards

I note [the complainant] included his email to us in his submission to ACMA (appendix B), but chose not to include the above response.

We then responded in more detail on 8 June 2016 (4 business days later). You will find a copy of our letter in [the complainant’s] submission as Appendix C.

On 16 June 2016, [the complainant] responded with the following;


Thank you for your email. I have read the attached letter.

Despite taking some time to consider the matter I consider that referral to the Australian Communications and Media Authority is still appropriate and have lodged same.

Kind regards,

[The complainant]

We concede that technically, [the complainant] did not receive a response within the prescribed 30 days from the point of his initial electronic lodgement, however as outlined above, this was due to a unique technical failure rather than us "sitting on our hands". Upon becoming aware of his complaint we responded very promptly and also acted swiftly to rectify the technical issue which led to the problem so that it does not recur.

We ask that ACMA show grace in this matter due to the special circumstance and our swift action upon becoming aware of the issue.

Licensee submission to the ACMA received 22 August 2016:

Regarding clause 2.4 [respond to complaint within 30 days]

[…]

In any case we will accept the ACMA's final decision, but submit that the swiftness and manner in which we responded to the complainant once we became aware of his complaint is representative of the way we would ordinarily handle such matters. Further, the fact that the irregular technical issue which caused the delay in communication was fixed promptly should give the ACMA confidence that we are committed to maintaining open lines of communication for listener comments and complaints.

The ACMA can be confident that we take our responsibility seriously and this situation will not recur in future.

Regarding clause 2.5 [advise right to refer matter to ACMA]

We give an undertaking that the relevant text will be added to all future complaint responses to meet our obligations under the codes. Further we will conduct "refresher" training to ensure all relevant staff are 100% familiar our obligations under the codes.

That said, it is obvious that the complainant in this case was aware of this right as they had advised us of their intent to take the matter further if our response was unsatisfactory. A case could be mounted that given these circumstances the inclusion of this wording was unnecessary.


media/Broadcasting... Web view” in the Greek is a little different than our word...

Documents

Transcript of media/Broadcasting... Web view” in the Greek is a little different than our word...