Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2016 2016 Review of operations_WEB | Page 36

•
Advertisements which use people of different
ethnicities in roles where there is no reference
to or focus on the person’s ethnicity, are not
seen to be representative of all people of
that ethnicity, e.g. a man of African descent
having been abducted by aliens (Now Finance
– 0464/16) and a couple who have not been
able to sell their home, one of whom is of
Asian descent (realestate.com.au – 0249/16).
Discrimination against
sexual preference Discrimination on the ground of
lifestyle choices
In 2016 the Board did not find any
advertisements to breach the Code in relation to
this issue. The Board’s view is: In 2016 the Board did not consider many
advertisements under this provision. The Board’s
view is:
• Advertising which shows a male acting in
a flamboyant and effeminate way, where
there is no reference to homosexuality, is not
intended to mock gay people as the character
was using behavioural not sexual traits (ACT
Government – 0209/16). •
• Light-hearted humour in situations involving
male closeness is not homophobic and does
not amount to a derogatory sentiment toward
homosexual men (Sportsbet – 0044/16).
Discrimination against religion
In 2016 the Board did not find any
advertisements to breach the Code in relation to
this issue. The Board is of the view:
•
•
•
•
34
As well as being an important part of
the Christian calendar, ‘Christmas’ has
been commercialised as a holiday season
and considered that the use of the word
Christmas, along with the visuals of
a decorated tree and a man dressed as
Santa Clause, is a secular portrayal and
not a portrayal which is disrespectful or
discriminatory towards people with strong
Christian beliefs (BCF - 0554/16).
While some members of the community may
find using a depiction of a burger as the head
of a religious figure offensive, in the context
of a cartoon on a website most members of
the community would not find this depiction
discriminatory or vilifying of the religion
(Grill’d – 0553/16).
In modern English, ‘Hallelujah’ is frequently
spoken to express happiness that a thing
hoped or waited for has happened, without
any religious significance, and the use of a
popular religious song which contains this
word is not vilifying religious beliefs (Fairfax
Media – 0411/16).
While some members of the community
could find the use of the Lord’s name to be
offensive to their faith,  most members of the
community, including Christians, would find
that using the phrases, ‘Thank God’ and ‘Jesus’
as expressions of relief and disbelief is not
aggressive and is not attacking or discrediting
the Christian faith (NPS Medicinewise –
0036/16).
- -
Discrimination on the ground of
physical characteristics
Discrimination on the ground of physical
characteristics can include aspects such as height,
weight, hair colour and perceived attractiveness. 
The Board has dismissed a number of complaints
about advertisements in this area. The Board is of
the view that:
•
•
Advertising which links the word ‘hairy’
to a dangerous situation and linking this
to depictions of hairy men is making a
humorous link between the commonly used
phrase hairy and body hair, and does not
discriminate against or vilify people with a lot
of body hair (Motor Accident Commission
SA – 0469/16, 0470/16, 0471/16, 0533/16
and 0476/16).
Advertising which features a character
making a humorous comment about
their own hair colour, does not amount to
discrimination or vilification of all people
with that hair colour (ING Direct –
Advertising which makes humorous
comments about vegans not eating meat, in a
way which is not ridiculing or inciting hatred
towards vegans, is not seen to discriminate or
vilify a section of the community.
An internet and social media
advertisement which depicted a team
of people ‘rescuing’ Australian ex-pats
to return them home to eat lamb on
Australia Day, the mission is aborted
when they encounter a vegan (Meat
& Livestock Australia Ltd – 0017/16,
0018/16 and 0019/16).
Discrimination on the ground
of occupation
The Board considers very few complaints under
this provision. The Board’s view is:
• Advertising which suggests that people may
become frustrated when making phone calls
to some companies does not suggest that the
people who work in any type of call centre
environment should be thought less of or
treated badly because of the type of job they
do (Members Own Health Funds Ltd –
0556/16).
• Advertising which suggests one person is bad
at their job, does not suggest that all people
who work in that role are bad (Isuzu Ute
Australia Pty Ltd – 0262/16).
0463/16).
•
Advertising which depicts a person being
singled out because of their height and
weight, when done in an exaggerated and
humorous manner and where the person
being singled out is not depicted in a negative
light, does not amount to discrimination or
vilification (iSelect Pty Ltd – 0407/16).
Advertising Standards Bureau