BBC Slammed For Debating Ugandan Bill To Kill Gays

LONDON — The British Broadcasting Corp. suffered criticism from lawmakers Wednesday for inviting debate on whether homosexuals should face execution in Uganda.

The broadcaster launched an on-line debate over a proposed Ugandan law that would punish some homosexual acts by life imprisonment or death. Legislation being considered in the African country would impose the death penalty on some gay Ugandans, and their family and friends could face up to seven years in jail if they fail to report their homosexuality to authorities.

BBC's "Africa Have Your Say" Web site asked for people's views on whether Uganda has gone too far and whether there should be any laws against gays.

The page's title was originally "Should homosexuals face execution?" but was later changed to "Should Uganda debate gay execution?" Several British politicians said the taxpayer-funded broadcaster should not treat the execution of gays as a legitimate topic for discussion.

"We should be looking at what is going on in Uganda with abhorrence," said lawmaker Eric Joyce of the ruling Labour Party. "We should be condemning it, and the BBC should be condemning it. ... Instead it seems to have thought it appropriate to come up with something that suggests it's a subject for discussion."

Lynne Featherstone, a lawmaker from the opposition Liberal Democrats, said she has written to BBC executives seeking an apology and an end to the Web discussion.

"Suggesting that the state-sponsored murder of gay people is OK as a legitimate topic for debate is deeply offensive," she said.

The forum attracted more than 600 comments and triggered a lively Twitter discussion.

The BBC's World Service Africa program editor, David Stead, defended the debate. In a blog posted on the BBC Web site, he said editors had "thought long and hard about using this question" and sought to reflect the diverse views about homosexuality in Africa.

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

Comments

[Writeonwater]

04:26 PM on 12/17/2009

When AfroZen made the poignant comment "Why is my life always up for debate by straight people?" One answer is so that people can be touched by that human anguish.

The opponents of debate seem to think, rather cynically, that debate is either a propaganda tool, or you're only dealing with aunt and uncle bigot who will never change their mind, with their "God hates_____" (minority in the blank) shirts.

Consider a young person, not so different than me 30 years ago, who has only heard one side of the argument. When born into a den of thieves, one learns to steal. Perhaps this young person joins the debate to say something vulgar. Yet, for the first time s/he comes face-to-face with the anguish, and arguments that expose hateful fallacies. That's the one, and perhaps countless others, the debate is for. That is one reason the British public paid Jamaican slave-owners to free the slaves. I suggest you don't cede those hearts to the other side simply because you're disgusted by the conversation. Yes, opening up an abscess and letting the pus out is disgusting and painful but rejecting the treatment for that reason can poison the whole body. If you can put this fire out before it gets out of control it would be an advantage.

[EmmaJ76]

12:31 PM on 12/17/2009

I think half the problem is people are assuming because the BBC have opened this for debate they are condoning it. What people fail to realize the BBC has to be careful how it words it's question lest it be seen as leaning one way or the other. If you read the WHOLE of the debate opener you will see that the BBC were opening a legitimate debate - not to legitimize the actions of the Ugandans - but to highlight not only the homophobia of the Ugandan Government but to show ignorance for what it is. Which is why if you read the whole debate opener you will see they cover

[BringmeReason]

03:16 PM on 12/17/2009

"I think half the problem is people are assuming because the BBC have opened this for debate they are condoning."

That's the problem right there. It's not something that should be up for debate, period. This is a serious offense if such a law becomes possible and the only actions that should be up for debate is how fast to intervene.

[TanzaniaTeacher]

03:52 PM on 12/17/2009

I don't assume that they are condoning anything. But you said it best "people are assuming because the BBC have opened this for debate they are condoning it." I can't agree with you on this point more. Every one of the big.oted people who knows about this debate topic assume that a major world news organization agrees with their h8teful ideas.

Thanks BBC for legitimizing this horrible legislation.

[EmmaJ76]

05:44 AM on 12/18/2009

Soory but you've twisted my words. By saying "people are assuming because the BBC have opened this for debate they are condoning it" that was not support for the view that now bigots will assume the Beeb agrees with them. That's down to the nuttiness of that individual not the Beeb.

I can not agree that the Beeb is "legitimizing this horrible legislation" - they are not responsible for the comments - just as the Huff has had many posts by commentators which are wholly homophobic. If someone thinks by seeing a discussion it somehow legitimizes their cause - that's like saying having Orly Taitz on CNN legitimizes her cause - it doesn't - it highlights what is out there.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I know what you are saying but I do not believe the BBC did this as a way to legitimize - it's like when they had Nick Griffin from the BNP on Question Time - by having a racist on they were not legitimizing him, they allowed a public forum to make it's own decision - and as he was from a legitimate political party, their own rules said they had to give airtime, but the public forum proved that people did not agree with him.

[HDR]

12:11 PM on 12/17/2009

I think it was a matter of semantics. The original wording in the title of the survey was controversial enough.

[EmmaJ76]

12:18 PM on 12/17/2009

I think the wording did the best it could to try and open a legitimate debate. There is no part of me that thinks the BBC was somehow condoning this behavior. I am well aware of how it operates and I think that this article crosses too many lines and doesn't show all the story. Have you read the whole debate opener?

"Should Uganda debate gay execution?

Should homosexuals face execution? Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death.

The bill proposes:

Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act
The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a "serial offender" or the other person is under 18.
Imprisonment for seven years for "attempted homosexuality."

The bill claims to 'protect the...traditional family values of the people of Uganda', but it has prompted widespread international condemnation.

Homosexuality is regarded as taboo in much of Africa, where it is often regarded as a threat to cultural, religious and social values.

Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual 'offences' be monitored? Send us your views."

[MrRoboto]

12:35 PM on 12/17/2009

Then read the responses. And where they came from! Most of the opinions calling for execution of gays came from Britons, not Ugandans operating under a different cultural mindset. And the number of BBC readers who fanned those calls for execution was horrifying.

I know the argument for many here is that questions like the BBC's one in this case serve to root out those who would espouse such atrocities and shine a light on them. But do we really need to lift up every rock to see if there are creepy-crawlies under there? Yes, they're there. We know they're there. Shining a light on them in an anonymous forum where others can essentially "fan" them and feel emboldened by the kinship they feel in sharing the same opinion serves what purpose? It may make reasonable people shudder in horror, but the people espousing the view aren't likely to change their position because the majority of other posters said, "This is a horrific question."

[EmmaJ76]

12:10 PM on 12/17/2009

It seems alot of people in this topic are making assumptions based on only a smal part of the debate opener.

This is the WHOLE of the debate opener:

"Should Uganda debate gay execution?

Should homosexuals face execution? Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death.

The bill proposes:

Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act
The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a "serial offender" or the other person is under 18.
Imprisonment for seven years for "attempted homosexuality."

The bill claims to 'protect the...traditional family values of the people of Uganda', but it has prompted widespread international condemnation.

Homosexuality is regarded as taboo in much of Africa, where it is often regarded as a threat to cultural, religious and social values.

Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual 'offences' be monitored? Send us your views."

This SHOWS the BBC are NOT siding with this.

[Jeff Newman]

11:07 AM on 12/17/2009

seems like this would be a debate for the Onion newspaper

[Conk]

09:54 AM on 12/17/2009

Someone should be executed for even thinking of such a horrible act. Leave the gays alone, said the straight man.

[MadeandBakedintheUSA]

08:56 AM on 12/17/2009

Well well well

All driven but the big bad america C- Street political FAMILY -

That Annual MORNING BREAKFAST PRAYER- tax breaks for them to force their agenda

C- Street Americans drivene agenda!

We are such a great country - aren't we?

[etiennemacchias]

08:53 AM on 12/17/2009

Is it not better for us to know how others think so we can fight their ignorance and bigotry? Silence regarding this matter isn't going to fix anything or anyone.

I don't think the survey question was, albeit its blunt and harsh disposition, malicious.

[EmmaJ76]

11:59 AM on 12/17/2009

Exactly and I can tell you that the BBC can not be seen to use wording that could in anyway be seen as leaning on one side of the fence or the other or it is no longer impartial. Therefore there is a legitimate debate here, the BBC just had to find the question which did not break their impartiality rules.

[TanzaniaTeacher]

03:48 PM on 12/17/2009

There is no legitimate debate. This is a life or death issue for people who have committed no crime and who have hurt no one. If the BBC wants to report the story they should do so, but by establishing any criteria to debate this issue they have given the idea of ki.lling gay people simply for their sexual preference legitimacy.

[Ish11]

08:48 AM on 12/17/2009

Are we seeing the creation of a Christian Talban Nation? The first lady of the country might be the next president and she is the type that thinks she has a devine mission to save the world.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

08:23 AM on 12/17/2009

The BBC were right to do it.

Because it exposes people with homophobic opinions.

[MrSkye]

09:04 AM on 12/17/2009

It exposes editors who should be fired .. [e-mail]

[MrSkye]

09:08 AM on 12/17/2009

that's supposed to say David(dot)stead(at)bb.co.uk

[EmmaJ76]

11:50 AM on 12/17/2009

Why MrSkye before you go on a witchhunt, why should people be fired? The BBC opened up a legitimate debate on the topic. What you do not understand is that the BBC have to be careful how they word a question lest they are seen as leaning on one side of the fence or the other. Therefore the question is central enough that it allows for the most "honest" answers.

What would you rather, it breach impartiality by condemning it outright? The BBC can not do that.

So they are damned if they or damned if they don't and the one thing I can assure you is there is no way the BBC are trying to legitimize the Ugandan attitude towards gay people.

So other than a witchhunt what's the alternative? Ignore the issue? Have the BBC break impartiality?

[TanzaniaTeacher]

10:56 AM on 12/17/2009

But it also legitimizes that point of view by giving even the appearance that it is a debatable subject. And so the people who believe they are right in calling for this abominable law to be passed have another reason to claim that their side is right.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

11:11 AM on 12/17/2009

***But it also legitimizes that point of view by giving even the appearance that it is a debatable subject. And so the people who believe they are right in calling for this abominable law to be passed have another reason to claim that their side is right.***


I don't think so

All it does is give homophobic bigots a chance to hang themselves with their own rope

[EmmaJ76]

11:52 AM on 12/17/2009

So asking a question gives a legitimacy? Not sure how? The BBC sees a topic and asks about it - it can not outright have a go at the decision of the Ugandans because it has to be impartial - isn't it better that through debate people are exposed for what they are instead of bundling it under the carpet?

What else could they do? Ignore it? If the issue is the wording - how would you word the question - bearing in mind you have to consider the question can not be seen to lean on one side of the fence or the other.

[Statler N Waldorf]

08:03 AM on 12/17/2009

All I can say is, most of my impression of the British people comes from the BBC. I got irked at them when Tony Goodhair came over here to sell us into the Iraq War, even showing up on MTV to pitch it to us. Now, I see that British people find the value of gay people's lives to be questionable, an open debate.

Knowing that is how the British think has changed my impression of them. There aren't very many british people where I live, but the next time I see one, I'm going to think one thing: 'sociopathic'.

[TheBaffler]

09:26 AM on 12/17/2009

Reductio ad absurdem. Living life making such sweeping generalizations about people must cause for much needless difficulty.

[johnr49]

10:12 AM on 12/17/2009

That's a completely ridiculous, xenophobic comment - have you forgotten that Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. were both murdered by homophobes in this country and that we're still having arguments as to whether hate crime statutes, which are in force in many other countries, are even necessary?
Because we have some right-wing Christofascists in this country, do you think Brits and others should view this country as populated by religious nuts? - is that suggestion any more ridiculous than yours?

[Horst]

07:51 AM on 12/17/2009

Multiculturalism uber alles........

[TheBaffler]

10:29 AM on 12/17/2009

Branching out from Moslem bashing to hating on gays now, eh? So many people to loathe, so few hours in the day...I don't know how you manage it.

[lastpost]

07:06 AM on 12/17/2009

“Several British politicians said the taxpayer-funded broadcaster should not treat the execution of gays as a legitimate topic for discussion.”

Maybe it is time for another discussion. One concerning the basis for a belief, that any subject of discussion should be considered or prescribed as illegitimate? Does not such sensitivity/fearfulness, merely ensure that the rational, legitimising human evaluations, remains concealed and untested? Would it not be more realistic, in a real world, for all subjects to be exposed and examined in their entirety? So that any of their inherent illegitimate irrational shortcomings and contradictions are revealed.
If the welfare of taxpayers is of paramount concern to politicians, why would transparency engender repugnance?

[BringmeReason]

05:20 PM on 12/17/2009

Because some questions should be unanimously and without a doubt obvious. That we should even ask such a question shows just how far Homosexuals have come. Would BBC or Any news organization in America ever ask the same question were a country executing someone for their skin complexion? This is far more than a simple offense, not only because Uganda is "debating" this but because certain journalist are giving people who condone such a thing a megaphone to do so.

[guytaur1]

07:01 AM on 12/17/2009

This is indeed a policy of genocide. The BBC is correct to do all it can to our attention. Thus we may stop yet more atrocities. Shine a spotlight and these cowards generally tend to fail to act. They do not like to be seen for the criminal barbarians they actually are.
What I want to see is investigation into the Evangelical Religious Lot that have been visiting Uganda and supporting this policy. In my opinion this makes them accessories in the crime of genocide.

[jasev01]

06:24 AM on 12/17/2009

So wait we are quashing debate now(however wrong or offensive)...no freedom of speech I see.