Investigation Report No. 3219

File no. ACMA2014/389

Broadcaster Special Broadcasting Service

Station SBS

Type of service National Broadcaster

Name of program Legally Brown

Date of broadcast 11 November 2013

Relevant code SBS Codes of Practice 2006

Date Finalised 9 July 2014

Decision No breach of clause 1.3 (prejudice, racism and discrimination)

ACMA Investigation Report 3219– Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013

Background In May 2014 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced

an investigation into the program Legally Brown, broadcast by the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) on 11 November 2013.

The program is described on the SBS website1 as ‘a daring new comedy series which pushes all the boundaries’ hosted by comedian Nazeem Hussain. Nazeem Hussain is a stand-up comedian whose comedic style is described by SBS as one which ‘engages many issues that potentially cause prejudice including race, religion, sex and disability’.

The complainant alleged that the program Legally Brown ‘disseminate[d] openly racist material’ and stated:

[…] I can specifically recall the airing of SBS promos for this program in which Hussain stated his pleasure in taking shots at whites with the purpose of reducing this target group to mockery and pejorative comment […]

[…] I do remember segments in which Hussain roamed the street in an attempt to ensnare Caucasian passers-by in his attempt to render this group unintelligent and inferior. On another occasion, in concert with his colleagues, he aired his racial comments at a person, obviously hired for the occasion, to vent this inane nonsense calculated to show the supposed inferior status of their target group.[…]

While the complainant was unable to specify the date(s) of the respective promotion and broadcast, on the basis of the information provided by the complainant, SBS identified the Legally Brown program broadcast on 11 November 2013 and the promotion for that program, also broadcast on 11 November 2013, as the subject of his complaint.

The promotion, broadcast on 11 November 2013, features a skit in which two workman of different ethnic backgrounds make fun of a fellow workman who is white, on the basis of his food and taste in music, and includes a clip of Nazeem stating:

I just can’t wait for the day when bullying white people is a national pastime.

The program, also broadcast on 11 November 2013, comprises both stand-up style comedy and a number of skits which satirise racial and religious stereotypes, including a segment referred to by the complainant, in which a white actor is auditioning for a part in a movie in a society where white Australians are a minority.

SBS advised the complainant:

[…] Nazeem Hussain’s comments about white people may be considered offensive by some members of the audience. However, through this provocative content, the program reveals the absurdity of easily recognisable racial stereotypes, rather than denigrating Caucasians. It is not Caucasians as a whole or individually that Nazeem is attacking, rather he humorously shows the absurdity of various racial tropes which are recognisable across the series, and which are still apparent within Australia.

In this way, the content identified in your complaint satirises racial stereotypes. Hussain engages with a range of Caucasians on the street and in the studio in order to comically probe

1 http://www.sbs.com.au/programs/genre/Documentaryarticle/1206/Exit-Through-The-Gift-Shop

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 2

racism, and a measure of his success is seen in how well or not the average person reacts within a particular racially constructed skit […]

The complainant’s submissions are at Attachment A and SBS’s response to the complainant is at Attachment B.

The investigation has considered SBS’s compliance with clause 1.3 of the Codes, which deals with prejudice, racism and discrimination.

Assessment The investigation is based on correspondence between the complainant and SBS,

submissions from the complainant, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by SBS. Other sources used have been identified in the report.

In assessing content against the Codes, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ viewer.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ viewer 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.2

In considering compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, visual images and any inferences that may be drawn.

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Codes.

Relevant provisions of the Codes Clause 1.1:

1.1 Introduction

[…]

An important consideration in the application of the following Codes of Practice is context. What is unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another.

In particular, these Codes do not prevent the presentation of genuinely-held opinion or material that is factual or presented in the context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

Satire is a long-established mode of expression and has a proper place on SBS. SBS may broadcast material that adopts a humorous or satirical approach to people and institutions.

SBS’s programming can be controversial and provocative and may at times be distasteful or offensive to some. Not all viewpoints presented will be shared by all audience members.

Clause 1.3:

2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164-167.

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 3

1.3 Prejudice, Racism and Discrimination

SBS seeks to counter attitudes of prejudice against any person or group on the basis of their race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, mental illness, or marital, parental or occupational status. While remaining consistent with its mandate to portray diversity, SBS will avoid programming which clearly condones, tolerates or encourages discrimination on these grounds.

SBS views intolerance of difference, and racism in particular, as a serious impediment to achieving an equitable and harmonious society. SBS promotes the benefits of Australian multiculturalism as the most effective way to counter racism and promote social cohesion and harmony.

To this end, SBS seeks to provide programming which tells the stories of contemporary multicultural Australia, helps audiences understand the diverse cultures that constitute the Australian community, and contributes to a sense of belonging and national identity.

SBS aims to ensure that programs either counter or do not promote, endorse, or reinforce inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes. […]

Issue: Prejudice, Racism and Discrimination

FindingSBS did not breach clause 1.3 of the Codes.

Reasons Under clause 1.3 of the Codes, SBS aims to ensure that programs do not endorse or

reinforce negative stereotypes on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, mental illness, or marital, parental or occupational status.

The complainant considers that the program Legally Brown and the actions of the host Nazeem Hussain are at variance with clause 1.3, noting that Nazeem ‘openly declared [his] intention to have fun targeting white people’ and that this is a calculated attempt to racially vilify a particular group on the basis of ethnicity.

SBS advised the complainant that the provocative content of the program, including Nazeem’s comments about white people, is intended to ‘reveal the absurdity of easily recognisable racial stereotypes’ and that the program ‘aims to show [outdated racial stereotypes] as laughable and ludicrous.’

The broadcast of 11 November 2013 included a number of segments which took common stereotypes to the extreme. For example:

A segment in which Nazeem satirises the stereotype that all Arabs are terrorists with the ‘evil Arab from every Hollywood movie’ character engaging in suspicious behaviour such as attempting to purchase a plane ticket which allows access to the cockpit, asking about taking weapons on the flight and questioning a car salesman on a car’s viability for resisting bullets and transporting bodies.

A segment in which Nazeem mocks stereotypical Australian attitudes by teaching them to a class of new immigrants under the guise of teaching ‘what it means to be an Australian’.

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 4

A segment which ridicules stereotypes about Muslims through the character ‘Uncle Sam’, a Muslim politician who visits groups of senior citizens as part of his campaign. He attempts to gain votes on his platform which includes things such as putting the senior citizens to work building mosques, making beards compulsory and renaming Tasmania ‘Islamania’ - the first Islamic state.

A segment with a white actor auditioning for part in a movie in a society where white Australians are a minority and whose only value to the film is as a ‘token’ character to show the lead character is not racist and in which the casting panel insist on the actor using ‘white’ catch phrases in an obvious parody of the traditional lack of ethnic diversity in mainstream movies.

The promotion for the program, also broadcast on 11 November 2013, takes the common stereotype that food from other cultures have strong smells and that ethnic music is a matter for ridicule and applies this to the dominant ‘white’ Australian culture.

The ACMA notes that, as provided at clause 1.1, context is a consideration in the application of the Codes (what is unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another) and that the Codes provide for the broadcast of material that adopts a humorous or satirical approach to people and institutions.

In considering the context of the promotion and the program, the ACMA notes SBS’s submission that ‘Legally Brown is a comedy show and its extreme characters and sketches are to remind the audience that racism itself is no laughing matter’.

In this regard, the ACMA also notes that:

The program Legally Brown is a comedy series which satirises racial and religious stereotypes.

A stereotype is a widely held but fixed and over simplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing3. Many stereotypes exist around race and religion and these have the potential to be viewed as prejudicial and racist.

There are a number of commonly held stereotypes about people on the basis of race and religion.

The ‘Uncle Sam’ and ‘evil Arab’ characters take these stereotypes to the extreme.

Traditionally in Australia people from non-white backgrounds are in the minority.

Obvious exaggeration and parody of stereotypes does not necessarily condone or encourage discrimination on these grounds, rather it can effectively demonstrate how ridiculous such stereotypes can be.

In this context, the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that Nazeem’s statements regarding ‘bullying’ white people in the promotion and in the skit featuring the ‘minority’ white actor, were intended as a light-hearted role reversal in order to highlight the absurdity of racial stereotypes.

Further such a viewer would not have understood the skit to be seriously disseminating racist material.

3 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 5

The ACMA considers that, when taken in context, the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that both the program and the promotion were not condoning racism and prejudice but attempting to draw attention to a controversial and damaging issue by using humour and satire to show how ridiculous such stereotypes can be.

Accordingly, on these bases, the ACMA finds that SBS did not breach clause 1.3 of the Codes.

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 6

Attachment A

Complainant’s submissions

The complainant submitted the following to the ACMA on 4 November 2013

[…]

I am deeply concerned over SBS’s apparent licence to disseminate openly racist material in a vehicle called “Legally Brown” under the feeble heading “political humour” on television. The so-called comedian concerned, one Nazeem Hussain, has openly declared his intention to “have fun targeting white people”. White people are not the issue here; a calculated, blatant, deliberate statement of intent to racially vilify a target ethnic group is, the racial profile in this case being known as Caucasian, or London Metropolitan Police’s category IC One.

If for whatever reason you have thus far allowed this obscenity to be disseminated, what is the harm in targeting Jews for racial “political humour”? Why have racial vilification laws if this glaring exception is allowed to be so blithely brought to air?

There is enough racism in our society without SBS or any other outlet encouraging it under whatever guise. A letter to SBS on the issue has gone unanswered. They, it seems, do not deign to respond.

I am surprised you have allowed this hateful stuff to go to air. Your failure to enforce the racial standards of your own code will test your fitness to be considered a serious and proper government authority.

[…]

The complainant submitted the following to SBS on 14 November 2013

[…]

Having written you recently concerning the racist content of “Legally Brown”, perceived to be a gratuitous and calculated vilification of a target ethnic group, Caucasians in this case, I find this material to be at extreme variance with section 1.3 of your professed SBS Code of Ethics 2006 which deals with Racism and Discrimination. The guise by which this hateful and unredeeming material is aired is “political humour”.

As the singling out of Jews, aboriginal Australians, or any other race, gender, religious group and such is ostensibly prohibited by your Code of Ethics for vilification, it is a puzzle why you should allow such content to be broadcast in an attempt to engage viewers in what is essentially destructive, intellectually bankrupt and corrupt “humour”. For all your cant about multiculturalism and opposition to racism, why you should have allowed this material to air beggars understanding.

There is nothing constructive or positive in this intellectually bankrupt and gratuitously corrupt material. One perceived that any attempt by you to square the real “Legally Brown” material with the tone and spirit of your code in re racism will prove well-nigh insuperable if there is any truth to be sought.

[…]

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 7

The complainant submitted the following to the ACMA on 20 January 2014

[…]

To date the SBS has not deigned to reply to my complaint in November with a request to explain why “Legally Brown’s” content should be in sharp contrast to the SBS Code of Practice 1.3 concerning racism, prejudice and discrimination.

Nazeem Hussain’s approach was blatant, gratuitous and aggressively offensive. Any claim by this so called comic or the broadcaster to social satire or political humour is patently false. This example of SBS’s programming makes a mockery of its ostensible code of practice.

Either we have gender, racial and gay rights standards in the country or we do not. Either the regulatory authorities add their weight to what should be civilised and tolerant behaviour toward not only minorities but others equally or they do not.

I can only construe SBS’s failure to reply to my complaint within the sixty days as a sign of its contempt for viewership and the rules under which it is said to operate by code of practice and broadcast regulator.

Lacking SBS’s courtesy of a reply, I am forwarding my complaint to SBS, attached for your perusal and subsequent determination of a course of action in regard to this matter.

[…]

The complainant submitted the following to the ACMA on 28 January 2014

[…]

In re your 24/1/14 request for a copy of the original letter of complaint to the SBS prior to 14/11/13 the original was hand-written and no copy was kept. Anticipating this as a difficulty in the complaint procedure, I sent the 14/11/13 complaint as a follow up and retained the copy you were sent. The sixty day required period for reply from the SBS ran its course with no reply from SBS in any form. This having passed and no address of the issue concerning “Legally Brown” being forth-coming, the next step was to remit the matter to your authority for assessment and action. Thus, as I understand your criteria, the requirements for complaint have been met.

Thus:

1. A flagrant violation of broadcasting regulations was committed deliberately and knowingly by Nazeem Hussain and the broadcaster, SBS, in contravention of what I understand to be point 1.3 of the SBS Code of Practice and ACMA’s standards regarding racism and prejudice.

2. A formal complaint was entered in re “Legally Brown” with SBS prior to the 60 day response period.

3. No response from SBS was received in the 60 days.

4. The matter and available documentation was duly forwarded to you.

5. The criteria having been met regarding ACMA complaint, the enforcement of said regulations or failure to do so rests with you.

[…]

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 8

The complainant submitted the following to SBS on 12 February 2014

[…]

In reply to your letter of 10/2/14 in re “Legally Brown,” I can specifically recall the airing of SBS promos for this program in which Hussain stated his pleasure in taking shots at whites with the purpose of reducing this target group to mockery and pejorative comment.

As for the specifics of the actual program content, unable to recall specific dates, I do remember segments in which Hussain roamed the street in an attempt to ensnare Caucasian passers-by in his attempt to render this group unintelligent and inferior. On another occasion, in concert with his colleagues, he aired his racial comments at a person, obviously hired for the occasion, to vent this inane nonsense calculated to show the supposed inferior status of their target group. His manner was strident, aggressive, gratuitous and intended to be offensive. Were Jews the target of such pointedly offensive so-called humor, whether feebly termed political or social, they would, I am certain, not stand for it.

In a society wherein I perceived Jew-bashing and the “N” word were out of usage by dint of more enlightened times, I am both annoyed and appalled that a broadcaster who touts multiculturalism and cultural understanding should be part of such a shabby and bankrupt attempt at cannibalism posing as comedy. To say that “Legally Brown” in no way infringes point 1.3 of the SBS Code of Practice reflects either a sociopathic ignorance or a phenomenal degree of hypocrisy.

[…]

The complainant submitted the following to the ACMA on 19 February 2014

[…]

I received your letter this date and did also receive a letter delivered by special Australia Post envelope dated 10/2/14 from [name] purporting to be the SBS ombudsman. Additional information was requested by SBS and supplied to the best of my ability. The tenor of my response essentially put was that Hussain’s agenda, posing as humour was to target a specific ethnic group for aggressively pejorative comment. I then pointed out that such gratuitous verbal bullying was in direct contradiction of SBS’s code of practice, point 1.3, which your authority provided me, whereas, prior to possession of SBS’s practice code, my first comments to SBS were of a more general critical nature as to “Legally Brown’s” offensive content underlined at the bottom of this first missing letter as a formal complaint.

Thank you for your diligence and attention to this matter. I perceive that [name’s] adoration of Nazeem Hussain’s routine in an interview on ABC’s TV morning breakfast indicates a lack of logical perception or of consistent values which explains the piecemeal approach combat of prejudice has and has had, each offended faction pushing its own barrow. Perhaps education is at fault.

I trust the legal action you indicate against “Legally Brown” is of the same nature as my complaint. I admire freedom of speech but I also realize there must be a line drawn when such speech becomes vilifying, inflammatory or offensive.

[…]

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 9

The complainant submitted the following to the ACMA on 22 April 2014

[…]

Please find enclosed the SBS’s latest reply (courtesy [name and title]) wherein the premiss of Nazeem Hussain’s “Legally Brown” is suggested by SBS [name and name] as a nostrum or homeopathic remedy to cure racism and stereotypes. In the same response [name] is at some pains (to me excruciating) to square Hussain’s sophomoric racist taunts with SBS’s point 1.3 code of practice. I’m afraid the supposed salutary effect of such supposed humor is lost on me.

My reply is also included as a record of this saga of correspondence as best I can supply it.

My point again (if I have not made it clear) is not in defense of whites who happened to be the most accentuated target of Hussain in his interviews regarding his ostensible comic agenda (that he took “great pleasure” in the attack on whites); my concern is that such material is conducive to equal attacks on other groups, religious and ethnic. How is such a program allowed on air, conducive to racial tolerance and an appreciation of diversity? This is the tenor of the SBS reply and it does not make sense. How does this material make minorities or any potential target group feel safe?

I leave the SBS material to speak for itself as well as my reply. If I do not appreciate or understand [name’s] rationale as anything more than a rationalisation perhaps you in your capacity can do better.

[…]

The complainant submitted the following to SBS on 22 April 2014

[…]

The first part of your reply letter (17/4/14), quoting Code 1.3 (SBS) in that SBS avoids programming which condones – tolerates – encourages … inaccurate, demeaning stereotypes is eviscerated out of Hussain’s own mouth when in a TV grab he stated a pleasure in pillorying whites. This is a clear statement of malicious intent. Any pretext of therapeutic shock treatment or didactic exposure of racism on Hussain’s part is pure baloney.

The thrust and tenor of “Legally Brown” can only be squared with SBS’s code 1.3 by the most contortionistic exercise of casuistry and flagrant hypocrisy. As for Hussain and his satellites themselves, any supposed reference to Muslims or other groups as his brand of so-called humor can only be as a cover for his intentional vilification of caucasians (which he has mentioned) and perhaps others like Jews which he has not mentioned as stated targets of his warped “comedic” humor.

Even as an ostensible rectification for prejudice and racism the premiss that you put forward as a justification is so abstruse (and not a little grotesque) that it would be, even if it were true, lost on the audience supposedly intended as its target. [Name’s] assertion that by “laughing at Naz,” some may be encouraged to value diversity – is on its face, an absurdity. More likely, some will conclude from such a shtick that “niggers” are funny.

Should Hussain’s brand of imbecilic humor be re-instated on your broadcast schedule, I am looking forward to the fallout when he sharpens his knife for the Jews. After centuries of persecution and a Holocaust, I doubt their reaction will be jovial.

[…]

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 10

ATTACHMENT B

SBS response to complainant

SBS provided the following response to the complainant on 10 February 2014

[…]

The ACMA has informed us of your correspondence to them about a complaint you made to SBS, in particular the lack of response from SBS to your correspondence to the SBS Director of Programming dated 14 November 2013. I understand that you said your letter to SBS of 14 November was a follow up letter to an earlier letter to SBS.

Your letter of 14 November addressed to the Director of Programming has been located and regretfully, it was not forwarded to the SBS Ombudsman’s Office at the time of receipt. Despite an extensive search, no other earlier correspondence from you has been found, however, if you have a copy of that correspondence please feel free to forward it to me directly.

As the SBS Ombudsman, my office investigates complaints against SBS programs which allege a breach of the SBS Codes of Practice. If you would like me to formally investigate Legally Brown, I need to ask you to supply me with some additional information.

Your letter raises a potential concern under Code 1.3 of the SBS Codes of Practice (Prejudice, Racism and Discrimination), that is the discrimination against Caucasians. However, in order for me to commence an investigation under Code 8, (Complaints) I need to request some further information from you. Please let me know your response to the following questions.

1. What was the date of the particular Legally Brown program which you are complaining about or are you complaining about the entire series up until the date of your letter?

2. Was there a specific scene or scenes that concerned you about the program?

3. Was there any particular phrase or use of language in the program which concerned you?

I would be grateful if you could write to my Researcher, [name], directly with this information. Her email is [email address], and her address is [address]. Once you respond to her, I can potentially treat your complaint as a Codes of Practice complaint, and review the program or programs that concerned you. SBS Codes of Practice can be found at;

http://www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/corporate/view/id/109/h/codes-of-practice

In the meantime, I can inform you that all Codes of Practice complaints about Legally Brown received by the SBS Ombudsman’s Office are currently on hold pending the finalization of legal matters concerning the series.

Legally Brown has become the subject of legal action in both the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and the Tasmanian Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. Therefore in accordance with Code 8.3 (Complaints) all code investigations of Legally Brown complaints have been suspended until the conclusion of these matters.

The matter before the AHRC has been finalized, and SBS expects that the Tasmanian investigation will be concluded by the end of the month.

As soon as possible following the conclusion of these matters, and after the receipt of your clarifying information, I will review Legally Brown against Code 1.3. After that I will respond to you in writing about the outcome of that investigation.

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 11

As you know already, any determination by me as SBS Ombudsman can be reviewed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

[…]

SBS provided the following response to the complainant on 17 April 2014

[…]

As SBS wrote to you previously, the investigation into your complaint about Legally Brown could not proceed while the program was the subject of legal matters. However, given the length of time this is taking, a decision was made to complete the investigation of your complaint about the program. I have now reviewed the Legally Brown content which concerned you against the relevant sections of the SBS Codes of Practice and have found it was in line with the Codes.

The promotion for the program broadcast during November 2013, and the series generally, were assessed against Code 1.3 (Prejudice, Racism and Discrimination) of the SBS Codes of Practice in light of your complaint that they included “racist content” and “calculated vilification of a target ethnic group, Caucasians in this case”.

Code 1.3 requires that:

SBS seeks to counter attitudes of prejudice against any person or group on the basis of their race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, mental illness, or marital, parental or occupational status. While remaining consistent with its mandate to portray diversity, SBS will avoid programming which clearly condones, tolerates or encourages discrimination on these grounds. SBS aims to ensure that programs either counter or do not promote, endorse, or reinforce inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes.

For the reasons detailed below the promotion and programs were found to be in line with Code 1.3.

Legally Brown is a television comedy series, presented by Nazeem Hussain, which explores the contentious topic of racial prejudice against all people. Typically it is through role reversal and juxtaposition that Nazeem illustrates racial prejudice in all its guises.

SBS’s audience was first introduced to Nazeem Hussain in 2008 on the comical panel show Salaam Café. That program was described by the Age newspaper as “a light hearted, humorous view on life as a Muslim in Australia through a panel discussion and a series of sketches that lampoon the representation of Muslims in Australia and the Islamic way of life”.

Since then, Nazeem Hussain has attracted an increasing following through his stage work in Australia and overseas, both as a performer and as writer of comedy. Legally Brown is his first television comedy series and through it he develops his comedic style, in which he engages many issues that can potentially cause prejudice including race, religion, sex and disability.

Nazeem Hussain created many characters for the show, and none escape his direct and robust humour – Muslims, Christians, Asians and ‘white people’ all receive the ‘Hussain treatment’. For example, the comparative religion study in the form of a points challenge, a fake Mumbai prince who engages in a reality television hoax search for an Aussie princess to become his new multiple wife, and the openly fraudulent spiritual guru.

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 12

Code 1 General Programming also states that “SBS may broadcast program material that adopts a humorous or satirical approach to people and institutions”. Code 1 acknowledges that not all members of the audience have the same reaction to material broadcast, and it permits the broadcast of content which some viewers may find offensive, controversial and provocative.

SBS has a reputation for doing not safe comedy. From the early days of South Park, to Paul Fenech’s Pizza shows, SBS’s comedy audience know they may at times get a little uncomfortable watching SBS comedy. The Commissioning Editor of SBS Comedy [name] states that the audience “expects a certain kind of comedy from us – political, critical and provocative”. The purpose however is not merely to entertain. [Name] said:

Comedy like Legally Brown hopes, besides entertaining, to open a window to some of the concerns of Muslim, Middle Eastern and South Asian citizens. To air those concerns watered by laughter. It also aims to satirise Muslim attitudes. The hope is that by laughing with Naz, some attitudes may soften. The show encourages people to better value diversity.

The hope is the absurdity of these generalisations will become apparent.

Nazeem Hussain’s comments about white people may be considered offensive by some members of the audience. However, through this provocative content, the program reveals the absurdity of easily recognisable racial stereotypes, rather than denigrating Caucasians. It is not Caucasians as a whole or individually that Nazeem is attacking, rather he humorously shows the absurdity of various racial tropes which are recognisable across the series, and which are still apparent within Australia.

In this way, the content identified in your complaint satirises racial stereotypes. Hussain engages with a range of Caucasians on the street and in the studio in order to comically probe racism, and a measure of his success is seen in how well or not the average person reacts within a particular racially constructed skit.

Legally Brown adopts the broadly racist tropes used against Muslims and other minorities and applies them to Caucasians. Like most comedy, the unwitting or weaker party often comes off second best. In flipping Caucasians into the weaker position, the compere occasionally adopts a forceful tone and style to indicate dominance. In this way Legally Brown becomes a mirror in which to more clearly see various racist attitudes circulating in the broader Australian community.

Legally Brown uses language, which is deliberately provocative and when taken out of context could be racist. However Legally Brown is a comedy show and its extreme characters and sketches are to remind the audience that racism itself is no laughing matter.

By allowing the viewer to see extreme situations being played out, the program hopes that most viewers can appreciate the various ways that prejudice continues to surface in Australia. Legally Brown aims to expose outdated forms of racial stereotypes and show them as laughable and ludicrous.

As Nazeem says:

If there is one thing I want to get out of this show, it’s to make ‘talcum powder face” an official racial slur.

SBS’s broadcasts Legally Brown in the hope that such exposition helps build a more inclusive multicultural society. […]

ACMA Investigation Report 3219 – Legally Brown broadcast by SBS on 11 November 2013 13