Jim Hopkins: 'Legitimate satire' a flimsy leg to stand on

Menstruation
Masturbation
Sodomy galore
Family fun for
Everyone
Tune to Channel 4
There's thuggery
And buggery
And coprophagia too
Tell your mommy
Tell your pop
Get them to watch with you!!!!!
Yes, everyone should switch across
Become an avid viewer
It's Canada's gift to Kiwi kids -
An electronic sewer!!!!!!

Gosh, that naughty old satirist (and extinguished poet laureate) Mr Jam Hipkins ought to wash his mouth out with soap, n'est pas?

Fancy mocking nice, mild, non-aligned people like Canadians. It's downright rude. No one in their right mind would pick on Canadians. They're much too boring. Canadians don't do horrid, war-mongering, aggressive things like those b****y Y***s.

No, they do nice, bland, dreary things like running television channels (in New Zealand, anyway). Or becoming the Chief Censor (in New Zealand, anyway).

And merely because the New Zealand/Canadian Chief Censor has previously banned at least one religious videotape because it insulted, demeaned and ridiculed gays, it would be utterly improper for Mr Hipkins - or others of his irreverent ilk - to argue he should've also banned that episode of South Park on the grounds it did the same to Catholics.

Mr Hipkins must understand that Catholics are fair game. It's not as if they're Muslims or anything. They've got to learn to take a joke.

So it would be irresponsible and gratuitous if Mr Hipkins - or any other alleged wag - were to suggest the only reason the Canadian/New Zealand Chief Censor didn't ban that South Park episode was because it would prevent a Canadian/New Zealand television channel making money by broadcasting it!

That could easily provoke a backlash and could inflame relationships between real people and Canadians. It could cause a generally decent, non-violent minority group much distress.

It's no use Mr Hipkins arguing that any such declaration is "legitimate satire".

He could equally argue that defecating on the carpet of the Canadian Parliament is a "legitimately satiric" way to protest political corruption in that benighted realm, but most people would simply say it was a rude and offensive act that disregarded the feelings of his hosts.

Sure, we're lucky to live in an advanced Banana monarchy where the police are never going to prosecute any current government for tickling the till, but that wouldn't excuse Mr Hipkins - or any other "legitimate satirists", even if they screened their comfort stop on telly!!!

He and his giggling chums need to realise that the only reasonable criticism of the nice Canadian man in charge of the nice Canadian channel is that he, and it, did not go far enough in pursuit of "legitimate satire".

To begin with, they could possibly be satirised for not showing the offending portion of the offending episode on their news programmes. After all, it met all the criteria raised by the Muhammad drawings.

Both were cartoons, after all. In both cases, great issues of free speech were involved, not to mention debate about the propriety of publication. The South Park material was available through other sources - like the internet. And the prospect of its broadcast also caused great offence and threats of economic reprisal - although those were, courageously, nipped in the bud by CanWest's decision to transmit early.

Indeed, in every respect (assuming we can use that word in the Canadian context) this was Allah with a rosary.

Mr Hipkins - and similar sneerful snufflers - might wonder why the emphatic Mr Friesen didn't insist his news bulletins screen the contentious material.

After all, his channel did decide, in the other cartoon case, that broadcasting the images was essential for the public to understand the issues but for some, as yet undisclosed reason, the obligations that apply when the publisher is a Danish newspaper don't extend to Canadian television channels.

Equally, Mr Hipkins - and his mocksome buddies - might rightly complain that Channel 4's "legitimate satire" was actually far too timid.

In this part of the world, at least, satirising the Catholic church is a bit like calling yourself brave because you've beaten up an old guy in the Pak'nSave carpark.

Until it re-invents itself, the Church's influence is almost as minimal as the Anglicans, whose curious silence this week suggests they felt the debate didn't involve a major Christian icon - like the Treaty of Waitangi.

The point is, if C4 were going to be "legitimately satiric" they should've aimed at our real religion. Because we're all e-theists now, devout environment worshippers who prostrate ourselves before this mysterious entity with an awe and guilt that would be the envy of our medieval predecessors.

A few Greenpeace members torturing whales - now that's "legitimate satire"!!!!

Instead, we're left with a distasteful backlash triggered by yobbos like Mr Hipkins who seems perfectly willing to mock Canadians for his own commercial gain by making sport of maple leaves, Mounties, Eskimos and indeed everything this inoffensive group holds dear by provocatively insisting he's entitled to publish outrageous doggerel like this:

In Canada, our quest for cash
Will never ever cease
So we'll happily make a buck or two
By mocking the plinth of peace

Well, for heavens sake! What next? Buddha abusing himself? A Canadian in a condom at Te Papa? Are we now so numb that no article of faith can inspire the exercise of taste? Best ask CanWest.