Another ruling condemns 'colonialism' advert
A second appeal panel, led by Judge Bernard Ngoepe, has ruled that the Chicken Licken advert that parodied colonialism, was offensive. The advert will remain banned, reports TimesLIVE.
In December, the advertising review board ruled that the advert be pulled from the air after a viewer, Sandile Cele, complained that it 'makes a mockery of the struggles of the African people against the colonisation by the Europeans in general, and the persecutions suffered at the hands of the Dutch in particular'.
Initially, the advertising regulatory board ruled colonialism was not something to be laughed at. This was upheld by the first appeal board chaired by Advocate Gcina Malindi SC.
The second and final appeal ruling given by Ngoepe uses a different reason to keep the advert banned. He did not make a ruling that colonialism was a 'no-go area' but found the advert offensive and in breach of the advertising code.
He ruled: 'Much as we do not make a ruling that colonisation is a no-go area for parody, there is one particular problem with the advertisement (which is not parody on colonisation in general, but of SA in particular); it is a point on which this appeal must fail.'
He said the parody was offensive because it distorted colonialism.
He said the advert was offensive because it left out 'the negative effects of colonisation (for example, the undeniable sufferings it brought) or any reference to them, thereby presenting it as something harmless. This is insensitive and offensive to those who suffered under colonisation.'
Pepe Marais, founder of advertising agency Joe Public, had argued the advert was not about colonialism and their market research had found almost nobody found the advert offensive.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.