The complainants object to the advertisements on the following grounds:

Considering the spate of hi-jackings, most involving extreme forms of violence, it is in extreme bad taste to place advertisements of this nature.

Young black children will emulate the utterings of the children in the advertisements.

The advertisements promote and advertise hi-jacking.

The advertisements justifiy violence and criminal misconduct.

The advertisements are insensitive to victims of hi-jackings as they try to explain away the reasons for the crimes committed against the victims.
Submissions by the complainants

The viewer is threatened with hi-jacking “presumably if the viewer does not support the Foundation.”

The advertisements suggests that if children have no education, crime is the obvious alternative available to them.

The Foundation is using scare tactics in order to solicit financial support.

One complainant’s view is that she did not have this child and therefore his problems are not hers. If the education system is failing these children, it is the government’s responsibility not hers.

Submissions by the respondents

The advertisements were conceptualised with a view to confronting issues of crime directly.

The children used in the advertisements have plans/dreams to attain the highest possible education and therefore do not see crime as an alternative to their hopeless present situations.

Crime is one of many responses to a deprived lifestyle, and it needs to be addressed.

The advertisements do not portray crime as only happening in black communities, but across the racial spectrum.

The advertisements are meant to provoke the viewer and challenge viewers to be thoughtful and introspective.

In the context of the story of how Amy Biehl was herself murdered in Cape Town (Khayelitsha), and how her parents have responded to their tragedy, this is a story of responding with reconciliation and hard work instead of anger and a call for retribution.

Opinions expressed by members of the Committee

The Committee members expressed the view that while it is commendable to call upon citizens of the country to actively participate in addressing the ills facing their country, such a call must be conveyed in a manner that gives hope and optimism, not one that confronts, shocks or seeks to explain away why some people are capable of committing the most heinous crimes.

There is no doubt that the Foundation’s advertisements are conveyed in a chilling and shocking manner. The advertisements convey an inescapable message that every young child who is begging at a street corner, on the side of a road, at a shopping centre or anywhere else, is capable of murder or inflicting serious injury to a person who does not respond appropriately. Instead of appealing to people to respond positively to such children, the message conveyed is that people must be fearful of them.

While the Foundation is correct in its theme that leading a deprived lifestyle could potentially lead to young people opting for crime, it is equally unacceptable in terms of the Code to use fear to promote a cause. It is acceptable that this was not the Foundation’s intention.

The Foundation’s advertisements are not commercial advertisements. They address or promote a matter of social concern. However, the reality is that the South African public remains very sensitive to issues of crimes such as murder, rape and violence which are committed against the person. The impact of the advertisements as a whole upon those who have seen them, has been one of outrage, shock and negative reaction.

While the objective of the Foundation is to educate and engage citizens in the rebuilding of our country, especially in emphasising the message that education is the best vehicle with which to address the socio-economic problems of our country, the advertisements seem to have evoked the worst reactions instead of the best from people.



The Advertising Standards Committee finding

The Foundation’s conceptualisation of the advertisement results from the personal experience of the Biehl family and the community in which the tragic events involving Amy Biehl happened. The objective of the advertisements is to confront issues of crime head on, as the Biehl family did with the death of their daughter. A renowned advertising agency was engaged in putting the Foundation’s ideas together into an advertisement. Together they created advertisements which they believed were not supporting or condoning criminal activity, or causing any offence or likely to cause offence, and which were prepared with a sense of responsibility.

Having considered all the grounds upon which an advertisement can be held not to be offensive, and taking into account the context, surrounding circumstances and whether the advertisement promotes a matter of social concern and public interest, it is the view of the Committee that the probable impact of the advertisement as a whole is that the advertisements are insensitive to the victims of violent crimes, and are therefore in breach of Section II, Clause 1 of the Code.

The complaints are accordingly upheld.