AD for Autistic Children Banned.

by Casement Fan Mon May 14, 2007 21:26

Can we get BCI to ban FG, Lab, SF, Green, Soc, etc ads from the telly and radio for the duration as they are critical of govt. policy? Add to censoring a campaign group the fact that they won't consider funding anything that is in any way 'political' or to do with contemporary affairs and we get an idea of the function of BCI. Queue more landscape shots.

But while this autism case really is extreme it indicates that the activist parents behind this campaign are being effective. Keep it up!

by Mick Butler - CFSD Mon May 14, 2007 21:27

Seasoned campaigners in this field such as Kathy Sinnot have confirmed the efficacy of ABA and it's proven track record in allowng these children to develop in a manner that allows them to live independent lives as they mature.The standard outcomes until now has been institutionalisation of these citizens. The Govt through Mary Hannaffin states they favour an "eclectic" approach, not ruling out ABA but not mainstreaming it.

One doubts very much how this gagging of one of the truly most vulnerable groups by the state, would withstand an ECHR Article 10 challenge. Still presumbably Govt will be happy enough on this if they get past May 24.

by paul o toole Tue May 15, 2007 09:37

Diddnt the BCI try to pull Trocaires add for the catholic lenten campaign saying that the add which showed newborns- stating half of them as being likely to be discriminated against because they were female- as... ahem....sexist?
Contradiction at large.

by Miriam Cotton Tue May 15, 2007 11:32

All parents, family and friends of people with autism should complain long and loud to the BCI and to the government about this decision. Hannafin is looking like the ruthless politician she is where this issue is concerned. She and the government have taken a pasting about actions - so naturally its time bring the jackboots out on the issue. We should do everything possible to ensure that this dictatorial and repressive conduct is exposed for what it is.

by Miriam Cotton Tue May 15, 2007 12:08

Mr Michael O' Keeffe
Chief Executive
Broadcasting Commission of Ireland
2-5 Warrington Place
Dublin 2
Telephone: 01 644 1200

mokeeffe@bci.ie

Dear Mr O' Keefe

I write to register my dismay and anger at the decision of the BCI, on the preposterous grounds that it is 'critical of government policy', not to permit an informative advertisement about Applied Behavioural Analysis and its benefits to autistic children.

Your decision is an insult to the thousands of parents and children affected by autism in the country. It is also a shameless attack on our freedom speech. Most importantly, it does untold damage to the vulnerable children in Irish society who are being so badly let down by the persistent ignorance with which their educational needs are being approached. This advertisement is badly needed. It is hard to avoid the inference that this is a politically motivated decision - the only people it serves are those politicians who have a personal and political interest in defending their record where this issue is concerned. If the BCI were to ban all advdertisements that were critical of the government where, for instance, would the opposition parties stand in the run up to the forthcoming general election?

Are we beggining to see a trend emerging toward represssive broadcasting in Ireland? Following the equally disgraceful suppression of the Trocaire Lenten campaign advertisement, it is obviously time that the BCI were firmly reminded of exactly from whom it derives its funding, its authority and the interests it exists to serve: the Irish people.

Yours sincerely
Miriam Cotton
National Co-ordinator
Disability Election Pledge Alliance

by law student Tue May 15, 2007 15:08

I think this needs very careful thought. In Ireland, radio and TV ads are banned if they are directed towards a religious or political end or relate in any way to a trade dispute. Advocating the government to fund ABA, by definition, is a political end. A very worthy end but a political one in that it deals with how society allocates national resources. The IRTC had no choice but to refuse to carry the ad. Same with the Trocaire ad - it advocated the government to take a particular stance on a UN protocol. A so-called pro-life ad was rejected many years ago and the resulting court case (Colgan v IRTC) went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which upheld the ban. BTW, the restriction only applies to radio and TV, not to newspapers, magazines, cinema, internet, posters, etc, etc.

Now, be careful what you wish for - you might get it. Do you REALLY want political ads on radio and television. How might that influence elections. Would it not confer even further huge advantages on candidates and parties with financial resources. Or who represent the interests of the rich. How would you feel about Michael O'Leary being able to run his pro-liberalisation ads on radio and TV? Or the US embassy being allowed to fund pro-war ads?

by law student Tue May 15, 2007 15:14

Sorry, meant to add that party political broadcasts are a specific, statutory exception ONLY during an election campaign and ONLY according to a formula that relates number and duration of broadcasts to the parties' relative strengths. Parties and candidates can NOT run any other ads on radio or television during an election campaign (or any other time for that matter)

by Miriam Cotton Tue May 15, 2007 15:21

Advocating ABA, a proven method of teaching children with ABA and which helps them learn and develop in ways they cannot do otherwise, has nothing whatever to do with political objectives. The only objectives that parents have in mind are educational, social and pshychological. It is the banning of information about this method which is the political objective here. Mary Hanafin has, frankly, made a fool of herself and her department where this issue is concerned. The BCI either by design or be default are helping her to keep a lid on that. She has imposed political objectives on what are educational considerations and in the opinion of more than one expert, substituted her own highly subjective opinion on what should always have been an exclusively professional consideration. Are medical, educational and psycholgocal treatments political outcomes? It's absurd.

by reasoned Tue May 15, 2007 15:43

"Advocating ABA, a proven method of teaching children with ABA and which helps them learn and develop in ways they cannot do otherwise, has nothing whatever to do with political objectives. The only objectives that parents have in mind are educational, social and pshychological. It is the banning of information about this method which is the political objective here. Mary Hanafin has, frankly, made a fool of herself and her department where this issue is concerned. The BCI either by design or be default are helping her to keep a lid on that. She has imposed political objectives on what are educational considerations and in the opinion of more than one expert, substituted her own highly subjective opinion on what should always have been an exclusively professional consideration. Are medical, educational and psycholgocal treatments political outcomes? It's absurd."

Can you please look beyond the emotive nature of the issue? Nobody is arguing that the department of education should not do more for Autistic children. But please understand that any advert which is critical of the government [or indeed in praise of the government] or, as in this case, lobbying the government, are simply not allowed - and this is not a bad thing, as the previous commentators have observed.

by Question?? Tue May 15, 2007 15:48

ABA would profit with a little less political interference from the likes of K Sinnott and a little more
lobbying from other spokespeople. it is a group of parents, many with young kids. not all
of them would subscribe to her using this as a vehicle for her political agenda.

is KS an official spokesperson?
Why are the other parents not coming forward to discuss the issue?

Simply put this issue is too big for party (independent -LPR politics)
it is tied into agenda whatever way you paint it- so its a dual mandate situation
MS Sinnot must decide where her direction is- as an LPR affiliate in the EU
(she has not condemned the anti homosexual laws in poland or done anything to distance
herself from LPR's far-right agenda) or as an ABA spokesperson?

Because she is , no matter how you examine it bringing her political life to bear on an issue
that should be independent of those particualr repressive politics.
she does a disservice to the parents who fight for their kids rights.
its time to appoint someone else.

by Miriam Cotton Tue May 15, 2007 16:32

There are approx 15 specialist schools in Ireland offering this method of teaching for children on the autistic spectrum. There are over 340 children on waiting lists for those schools alone. The vast majority of children affected by autism are in mainstream schools where virtually none of the teachers involved are trained in ABA methods. ABA is widely used within mainstream schools in other countries. The children, their parents and their teachers need to know about this method - especially so in the absence of any training for teachers - either as a part of basic training or subsequently. Some teachers will have gone to introductory seminars but that is not enough to make them proficient. The best results are seen where this method is applied during the first five years of life. Primary school is the next best opportunity and given that this is when the majority of children are diagnosed, it is already urgent for them to have a teaching plan based around these principles and practices.

More information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_Behavior_Analysis

by Seán Ryan Tue May 15, 2007 18:55

There is nothing whatsoever illegal about being critical of the government and what it does/doesn't do. So long as it's neither seditious nor treasonous.

The BCI are in this case and in my opinion manufacturing law to suit their own needs. They should be challenged legally on this, both under the Constitution and under ECHR as Mick has stated above. Particularly so when this add is telling the truth and is something that would educate the public.

Compare the practice of educating the public to the distortions and downright lies that pass through the BCI without so much as an eyelid batting, as in the case of commercial advertisments. In fact, a lot of this commercial crap that we see everywhere form billboards to TV are indirecty approving of government policy, in that it's perfectly ok to spin a yarn to the jaded public in order to sell them something they don't need under false pretences. Eg. eat, drink, wear or read this product and you'll be more attractive to the opposite sex.

This is an attempt (and thus far it's successful) to keep the little guy in his box.

by law student Tue May 15, 2007 21:02

Hi Sean,

They already have been challenged on similar issues and lost both in the Irish Courts on constitutional grounds and in the European Court of Human Rights under the Convention. Relevant cases are Lynch v Cooney, Murphy v IRTC and Coogan v IRTC.

Its hard to see how you could allow the ABA ad while still keeping big business backed political ads off the airwaves. A possible way around this might be to campaign to amend the Broadcasting Act to allow registered charities to promote their charitable objects via broadcast ads. But then you would probably get the Society for the Promotion of Progressive Democratic values being set up........... Not to mention the pro-lifers.

by Seán Ryan Wed May 16, 2007 00:14

Thanks for that law student. I've only been able to reference the first and last case examples that you've posted.

I think from what I've read so far, in the first and third examples, that although they deal with the same laws, that they would be considered to be a lot different than this case, i.e. that the ABA advert breaks no laws.

In the first example you posted, we have a political theme, a Sinn Féin broadcast, being put through the various exercises of the various courts. Regardless as to the outcome (different judges might have seen the issue differently) the issue itself would have to be considered contentious.

With regard to the third example, this involved broadcasting a religious (and somewhat narrow?) viewpoint, and was guaranteed to be considered something that would offend a fair ammount of the population. It was bound to fail in the courts, I'd presume (though I do admit to being perplexed that the Angelus is allowed).

This case is different I think. The material itself, is a proven methodology with an extremely successful track record. I don't think it could be argued that it was either contentios or that it would offend a fair ammount of the population. The only real issue here is the political angle. And that's by no means a simple matter to label one way or the other. However, I'd argue that had the government not fought on this issue in the courts some months back, that this advert would not infringe on any political matter. I think the fact that the methodology itself, ABA, having been shown to be successful would be a very mitigating factor with regard to any judgement that was required to clarify the political angle. Particularly so in light of the fact that it was offered that the material critical of the government be removed from the advert.

I suppose, in order to hammer my point home - let's talk hypothetically - suppose a large scale commercial organisation were to set up in Ireland and provide adequate ABA services for the whole population. Would the very same ad have been banned (once the political criticism were removed)?

I'd argue that it wouldn't.

by law student Wed May 16, 2007 00:48

The reference for Murphy v IRTC (which became Murphy v Ireland in the EHCR) is http://www.echr.coe.int/eng/Press/2003/july/JudgmentMur...3.htm

It's about a guy, Pastor Roy Murphy who wanted to broadcast an ad about his church's view on the historical facts of the resurrection.

You make a very good point about if an organisation was set up to promote ABA. It seems that any ad that confined itself to extolling the virtues of ABA would pass muster. Once it veers towards any suggestion that the government should take or desist from any course of action, it seems to run foul of the Broadcasting Act. Trocaire re drafted their ad and that was carried. And there are regular ads by VdeP and Focus which could be deemed implicitly critical of government inaction on poverty and homelessness. So, on that basis, the redrafted ad for ABA should be ok.

by Miriam Cotton Wed May 16, 2007 10:50

Any advertisement could be argued to conflict with government policy - potentially. It wouldn't be difficult to make that argument in most cases. The BCI has gone out of its way to put that interpretation on this advertisement. Alcohol advertising, for instance, undermines many government policies. I'd like to see the government reaction if they tried to ban alcohol advertising on those grounds. Look at the contrast - on the one hand you would have a fierce defence of the economic and vested interests behind a substance that causes massive social and other problems - which undermines the criminal justic system, policing policies, youth services and a whole host of government and voluntary agency strategies. On the other hand you have an innocuous information advertisement aimed at assisting a very vulnerable group of people to find appropriate help for a potentially life-destroying intellectual condition. And it gets banned. This is a sick country.

by Mick Butler - CFSD Thu May 17, 2007 22:02

A Ban on talking about a Ban
"Newstalk" the nationwide, all talk radio station, discussing matters of public concern, have refrained from coverage of a broadcasting ban on an advertisement for children with autism.
When the radio station was initially contacted on Tuesday morning a researcher on the "Your Call" listener discussion show expressed surprise that such a ban was in place. The researcher took the caller's (a Mr John Kelly) phone number. The following day another researcher from the show phoned Mr Kelly for more details on the story .

Mr Kelly supplied the details and his sources of information and the researcher stated she would follow up the story. With no contact by mid day today, Mr Kelly phoned the researcher. The researcher told Mr Kelly that the programme makers had discussed the ban and had decided that "it was to do with the election." Mr Kelly clarified the position in relation to that matter, ie the BCI had made a determination and had informed him that it had "nothing to do with the election". It was they (BCI) asserted, based on the Radio and Television Act 1988 and their alleged powers therein. The researcher informed Mr Kelly that there would be no coverage of this broadcasting ban by the station. The researcher stated that the radio station had "often covered" the issue of autism, but this story would not be going out on air.

by Mick Butler - CFSD Thu May 17, 2007 22:17

Apart form the ECHR explicit provisions on Freedom of Expression, our own Constitution places conditions on Freedom of Expression, but interestingly it declares at Article 40.6.1" Fundamental Rights" section, that "The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State."

by angle Fri May 18, 2007 10:50

Dear Mick,

Newstalk have covered the issue of Autism quite fairly over the years.
In fact it was one of the issues that Hook became famous for not taking the shit over.

How and ever- Newstalk, since it has become National and sucessful is now owned by
a media lobby which is significantly shareholded by Denis O Brien Esq- tax exile and
friend of Bertie Ahern.

How and ever- The ABA issue has been polluted by the refusal of Kathy Sinnot to
park her car in a vacancy. She has not distanced herself from the actions of the
far-right lPR in Poland. She is not spokesperson for ABA, if she is then eggs and
baskets come to mind. She should direct herself in a manner that makes it
crystal clear that her alleigances in the EU are up front and open.

There are many qualifyed political spokespeople on the issue of ABA, who are not
divided between duty to their kids and a burgeoning political career andd therefore
there is a lack of focus and a question regarding the political identity of Ms
Sinnot which is detrarcting from the campaign on autism.

Ms Sinnott is an intelligent woman and maybe it is time that she allowed other
spokespeople who do not have such a colourful political life to speak on
behalf of their children.
there were many outside the courts including MS Adrienne Murphy, who
is an excellent speaker and independent publisher.

There are many reasons why an issue is not covered and not all can
be reduced to the issue of parity- some include political agenda.
be it O Briens or Sinnotts.

by Miriam Cotton Fri May 18, 2007 18:43

[See open letter to BCI Chief M O' Keeffe posted above]

"Dear Ms Cotton,

I write further to your email to the Chief Executive of the BCI regarding the Commission’s decision in respect of an advertisement in relation to Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). This email has been forwarded to me to respond in my capacity as Broadcasting Standards Officer with the BCI.

The Commission was requested to review two proposed script produced for Irish Autism Action (IAA) in relation to ABA education. Following this review, the Commission took the view that the proposed scripts (original and revised), if aired, would be contrary to Section 10 (3) of the Radio and Television Act, 1988. This section of the 1988 Act states that:-

No advertisement shall be broadcast which is directed towards a religious or political end or which has any relation to an industrial dispute.

In reaching its decision the BCI had regard to the following:-

1. The definition of a ‘political end’ is not confined to “party political end” but includes advertisements which are directed towards:-

“procuring a reversal of Government policy or particular decisions of Governmental authorities in this country or … countering suggested reversals thereof or procuring a reversal of Governmental policy or of particular decisions of Governmental authorities in a foreign country or countering suggested reversals thereof” (Colgan v IRTC, Ireland & AG, 1999 1ILRM 22).

2. When considering scripts of this nature, it is the BCI’s practice to take into account general background information in relation to the advertisement and the advertiser derived from information in the public domain. The BCI is, therefore, entitled to take into account the objectives of the advertisement and the organisation funding the advertisement and other related information when taking a view on an advertisement.

In this context, the focus of the original and revised advertisement scripts is a policy of the Government, namely its policy in respect of the provision of ABA Education. Specifically, the proposed scripts:-

§ highlight a recent Government decision in respect of the ABA Education programme,

§ comment negatively on this decision,

§ encourage listeners to express their dissatisfaction with the Government’s policy by texting ‘Action’ to a short code SMS number with a view to turning ABA Education ‘back on’.

While the Government and its policy was not directly referenced in the second and revised script, it was the Commission’s view that the revised advert, as drafted, could only be understood in the context of the Government’s policy on this issue. In view of this, it was the BCI’s opinion that the advertisement was directed toward a political end in so far as was directed towards encouraging and procuring changes in government policy in respect of ABA Education.

In view of the above, the Commission took the view that the proposed advertisement was contrary to Section 10(3) of the Radio and Television Act, 1988.

I note your remarks in relation to what you refer to in your email as the possible motives for this decision, namely, that the decision was politically motivated. In this respect, the Commission refutes any suggestion that the decision was politically motivated or influenced by a bias towards Government policy as the merits or otherwise of the position taken by the Government or the IAA in respect of ABA education were not taken into consideration by the Commission when reaching its decision. Similarly, the merits or otherwise of Trocaire’s work in support of gender inequality were not relevant to the Commission’s decision in respect of their Lenten Campaign advertisement. The decisions reached in both instances were made solely with reference to Section 10(3) of the Radio and Television Act, 1988 in the manner outlined above.

Yours sincerely

Declan McLoughlin

Broadcasting Standards Officer

Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, 2 - 5 Warrington Place, Dublin 2

Tel. 01-6441200; Fax. 01-6760948"

by BFD Fri May 18, 2007 21:37

Big deal their ad was banned. They already have enough PR going on RTE Prime Time and features in the Irish Times (spotted the lusual suspects yet?). And having Kathy Sinnott on your side is a complete joke. Why not ask her about her position on stem cell research and her alignments in the European Parliament?

by law student Fri May 18, 2007 22:22

McLoughlin's letter is odd. I can understand the first draft being rejected. The "political end" is explicit and plain to see. But in rejecting the second draft, he is, in effect, looking into the mind of the author of the ad and determining not what they are saying but what they actually think. Very 1984. He's going considerably beyond the Supreme Court judgement in the Colgan case and seems to have over-stepped the mark - the decision should be made purely on the actual content of the ad not on what he thinks the promoters really want to achieve. Would make a very interesting case if it did go to court.

I would love to see a copy of the second draft if anyone has access to it.

by Mick Butler - CFSD Sat May 19, 2007 16:47

Fair play to you Miriam for extracting that piece from the publicly paid public servant. Is not the net issue here : We have a Constitution that expressly protects "criticism of Government policy.." so when all the spagetti is put aside, that seems to me to be the real meat of the issue. What thinks law student, and others ?

by law student Sat May 19, 2007 18:02

Well, what I think doesn't matter. It what the supreme court thinks that determines what the law actually means. In short, the supreme courts thinks that virtually all rights can be restricted in certain circumstances, usually "in the public interest" or in accordance with principles of "justice, prudence and charity" or some such. In reality, they often make this up as they go along to achieve a desired result! Where the State restricts a right recognised by the constitution, the courts examines the reason for the restriction, assesses whether that reason is constitutionally valid, and then assesses whether the restriction is a "necessary and proportionate" measure relative to the "public good" achieved by it.

by angle Sat May 19, 2007 19:00

The process of highlighting issues like for example inequality in the bin charge
campaign, or autism or rights for women needs the opening out and awareness
of our political system, a knowledge of our candidates and an openness and
transparency of their interests.

I simply pointed out that Ms Sinnott would do well to create a political distance
from herself and The Offices of the LPR and their anti-homosexual, anti-rights
agenda (she sits in their voting group in the EU parliament, they have succeeded
in bringing Poland to constitutional crisis and breaking down the government)

This means that a pro ABA campaigner has a relation to a political agenda
which is anti-personal liberties. I also suggested that many other citizens
are quashed beneath her media profile, thus it becomes necessarily
associated with ABA.

She needs to write a statement disclaiming the LPR or wholly commit
to the issue of educational rights for autistic children, which she has done
wonderfully well.

as a citizen and voter i am put off the gratutitous inability of some of the
people who represent us being unable to nail their colours to the mast.
if you are of a 'Right' agenda, then it is only fair to those who are
motivated alone by the issue to come forward and those with political
agenda to step back or make statement.