BBC slammed over gay execution debate

BBC slammed over gay execution debate

The Australian

BRITISH politicians today condemned the BBC for hosting an online debate asking: "Should homosexuals face execution?"
The debate on the government-owned broadcaster's Have Your Say Web site has now closed, and the title was changed to "Should Uganda debate gay execution?" after it provoked uproar online.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 16/12/09 by Shere Khaan]

I have to admit my first reaction was to laugh when I saw the title of this article; it just seemed so absurd that someone would even think it was a reasonable subject to discuss.

But in retrospect it made me wonder firstly about the unlucky homosexuals in Uganda, but also about the fact some people in the BBC thought it was ok to even talk about. If you needed to drop the population of the world quickly, what would be the most acceptable subset of humanity to remove?

In BBC's defense:

"The editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say program thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate," the post said.

"We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake."

I can appreciate the desire for debate, bu I don't really find this question challenging at all, just pointless and unecessarily divisive.

The Australian
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sky News


[edit on 16/12/09 by Shere Khaan]

reply to post by Shere Khaan


I am not surprised one bit, if you work for the bbc, you have to be a rabbit to keep your job. Males not interested in females there are not wanted, lol.

I am not surprised one bit about this, lol.

reply to post by Shere Khaan


Would you repair your links, so we could see the whole story ourselves?

I have an opinion, based upon what the story seems to be talking about, but I'd like to look at it myself before I take the plunge.

Thanks much Shere Khaan!

It was in response to a proposed bill in Uganda that could lead to the death penalty for gay people.

original source

i don't see the issue TBH, it's disgusting that the Ugandans are considering such a law but i think it's perfectly reasonable for the BBC Africa to host a debate on the subject.

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by Shere Khaan

 

Would you repair your links, so we could see the whole story ourselves?

I have an opinion, based upon what the story seems to be talking about, but I'd like to look at it myself before I take the plunge.

Thanks much Shere Khaan!

Been trying to edit them constantly but seems to be something in the [/url] adding a space and does it no matter what I do, even using the hyperlink script.

Edit: Ah fixed, doesn't like websites.

[edit on 16/12/09 by Shere Khaan]

Originally posted by pieman
i don't see the issue TBH, it's disgusting that the Ugandans are considering such a law but i think it's perfectly reasonable for the BBC Africa to host a debate on the subject.

I guess the issue is whether they were debating Uganda's stance or were they actually debating it from a moral standpoint? I guess it was this confusion that led them to change it back to focus on Uganda. The trouble witth debating the latter is thatt by even debating it you may be accepting it as a viable option.

well i find it unthinkable, but the ugandans seem to see it as a viable option. in that respect, it's a relevant debate for the BBC Africa to host.

if one country adopts a law like this, neighbors with cultural similarities might be tempted to follow suit and, IMO, this is why it's worth keeping the debate wide ranged.

i don't see any reason to suggest the media should stick its head in the sand about distasteful issues such as this.

Thanks for fixing the link. From what I could tell, they were offering the debate not as a moral standpoint about whether gays should be executed, but opening the debate up to the area, sort of in-your-face do you really believe this?

As is probably obvious, I think that to even consider executing anyone over their religion, sexuality, ideals is horrific and inhuman beyond belief. I DO believe that it is being considered and that shocks me more than I can tell you.

I think BBC Africa was trying to open up the process of intelligent dialogue to try and make people THINK. It's a bold thing to do and it took serious stones to do it. I don't think they should be castigated (BBC) for doing so, if it's as I think. I recognize that just entertaining such horrible ideas can be construed as allowing acceptance of an inhuman ideal, but how else to deal with it, than by talking about it?

In the country I live in -- Cayman Islands -- it was for a long time thought that homosexuality was against the law. It was certainly against the predominant fiber of the populace. Please note that it was NEVER considered any form of corporal punishment for conviction of a "homosexual act". WELL. It wasn't until two people pushed the boundaries that it came out that homosexuality was in fact, not illegal. It turns out that certain acts in public are actionable, however those acts apply to both homosexual and heterosexuals (and, I presume, monosexuals........ NEVERmind).

The point is that until we all started talking about it on talk radio, among ourselves, and the awareness of the issue was thrust, kicking and screaming, into the forefront of the standard person's awareness, there wasn't a dialogue, and there wasn't a true understanding of what the majority of the people wanted.

What did it turn out to be? I'll tell you. Most people here just don't want to see men kissing in public. Apparently, we are somewhat more lax where lesbians are concerned. Go figure. So, the legislation is properly set around behaviors, rather than sexual preference. You cannot have sex in public in the Cayman Islands without risking arrest, just like everywhere else............ except maybe Amsterdam............. unless that's changed since I was there.

Myself, I don't care one way or the other. If two people are kissing, I'm probably not going to stand there and watch.

Unless they're women. NEVERmind.

This has been discussed before. It is my understanding that this bill does not make clear when they would use this death penalty and why. It seemed to me that they just left this in as an option perhaps for people who repeatedly break the law.

Does anyone have a copy of this bill so we can read it ourselves and find out exactly what it does say?

[edit on 16-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

There was another post on ATS, but the backing behind that movement is from an organization called: The Family.
What is really shameful is that US governmental officials are tied with that group and their extremist ideals. I think it is shameful and goes from there.

I have a poll for the rest of the world:


Question 1:

Is the BBC a mouthpiece for the UK government, or is the BBC simply trash of its own merit?


Question 2:

In either case, shouldn't we just go burn them down and imprison all their lead writers/editors?

How did this turn into a BBC bashing? They asked the world their opinions on a touchy issue, that is all. I see nothing evil in that. On the contrary This question needs to be discussed. I applaud the BBC for bringing it up.

As I have said, and asked for.. we do not know all the facts of this bill. To make judgment at this time is premature.

The BBC has it's faults I am sure and they are responsible for letting their news be controlled by the Government just as much as NBC, FOX or CNN But I do not believe them asking this question and wanting this issue discussed is part of the Government agenda.

It looks just the opposite to me. The Gov. don't want this issue covered so all the better to give the BBC support in this effort to bring it's attention to the public.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I passed over your post initially, and then went back and reread it.

You bring up a very good point and that is that if the death penalty/imprisonment or, really, any penalty isn't specifically spelled out in the legislation, then it might not be as big of an issue. Just that it's being discussed scares me enough, to tell you the truth. I don't want to believe there are people who believe others should be exterminated for their ideals, lifestyle, tone, religion, sexuality, etc.

IF the legislation doesn't bear out that language, then it might be perceived as a sensationalization on the part of BBC.

You want to know what's ironic and somewhat funny? I was thinking about a post I made on the "Stop Being PC" thread:

I was thinking...... Uganda........... Uganda............. I think they celebrate Christmas. Maybe that's just funny to me.

wow, if that isnt the devil then i dont know what is.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
How did this turn into a BBC bashing? They asked the world their opinions on a touchy issue, that is all. I see nothing evil in that. On the contrary This question needs to be discussed. I applaud the BBC for bringing it up.

You really think we need to discuss whether gays should be executed or not? Sure, the plight of gays in Uganda needs attention and that is why they changed the name of the discussion to include the relevance there; however, on a general level I think it's wrong to even discuss wheher a sub group of society should be executed en masse.

reply to post by argentus


My problem with everyone jumping the gun on this is like equating Uganda to Hitler. I don't seriously think for a moment that any country would be so stupid in this day to commit mass murder for such an ideology or belief system.

I personally do no agree with people being gay, but that is not the issue. I would not round them all up and kill them, just because they are gay.. to me that is absurd.

If Uganda did that, it would be cause for another country to step in and bomb their government back to the stone age. Just like how the USA helped stop WWII and Hitler.

I think the best thing we can do now is search for a copy of this bill and if it's out there, post it so we can learn what it says.

Originally posted by Shere Khaan

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
How did this turn into a BBC bashing? They asked the world their opinions on a touchy issue, that is all. I see nothing evil in that. On the contrary This question needs to be discussed. I applaud the BBC for bringing it up.

You really think we need to discuss whether gays should be executed or not? Sure, the plight of gays in Uganda needs attention and that is why they changed the name of the discussion to include the relevance there; however, on a general level I think it's wrong to even discuss wheher a sub group of society should be executed en masse.

No.. That's not the issue.. of course they shouldn't be executed for being gay in itself - that's just wrong. What needs to be discussed is the language of this bill.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
How did this turn into a BBC bashing? They asked the world their opinions on a touchy issue, that is all.

They asked whether or not gays should be executed, which is NOT an issue in Western, more civilized nations, such as all of North America, all of Europe, etc.

We are (hopefully) already past that kind of total bigotry and hatefulness.

The question they SHOULD have asked, is exactly how they rephrased it.

Even they knew they made a mistake.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


It seems to me it was a stupid mistake.. I do not believe they seriously wanted people to debate if gays should be executed.. they just wanted the issue open for discussion.. to me this would include all the ins and outs of the bill's language.