BBC.com asks users: 'Should homosexuals face execution?'

[Eddie Teach]

sarcasm?

Well, it was a joke, though not particularly sarcastic.

[LaCroix]

Even if we were, we'd have to make it a full time career to spread it to so many people.

maybe they should study this, follow the activities of a homosexual rapist in africa to find out how many fall victim to his antics and the number of diagnosed cases of hiv afterward. that would at least settle one question posited by the internet

[The Brain]

Cured? Magic Johnson is still gay.

[Martinus]

Cured? Magic Johnson is still gay.

He was being sarcastic. 

[derspiess]

I am seriously considering canceling my subscriptions to BBC podcasts and websites and stopping buying their products.

Well I hope it's as effective as your boycott against Jamaican products

[grumbler]

I am seriously considering canceling my subscriptions to BBC podcasts and websites and stopping buying their products. Even FoxNews appears to be less homophobic than the "impartial" BBC.

Feel free to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

[Sheilbh]

I'm with Shelf.  There is value in learning the depth of anti-gay sentiment and by extension how much popular suppot this law is.  I can recall several times when Iraqis were polled about the acceptability of suicide attacks.

Just because you ask a survey question doesn't mean you're hoping for a yes answer.

By the look of the picture the Guardian story had this wasn't a poll but a topic within a BBC forum (plus a poll) which I think adds more value.  It's worthwhile enabling debate.  Now I understand that it's unpleasant and deeply distasteful to us to even have the question (because it suggests an implicit acceptance of the framing) but in an African context with a bill currently sitting in Uganda's Parliament I think that's very valuable indeed.  I initially thought that the question was a bit badly phrased but the more I think about it the more I like it because I think it confronts potential supporters of the bill with the reality of what it would mean.

The BBC World Service is in a difficult position by its very nature.  It's not a propaganda broadcaster but it does come from a Western liberal democracy.  It has, to some extent, to hold a mirror to its audience so that it's relevant - thus I imagine the discussion by readers on the BBC Arabic service isn't terribly enlightened about gender equality - while, I suppose, implicitly trying to encourage Western style values through the embodiment of them a liberalness, and above all a free, unrestrained media. 

I am seriously considering canceling my subscriptions to BBC podcasts and websites and stopping buying their products. Even FoxNews appears to be less homophobic than the "impartial" BBC.

Wouldn't matter.  The BBC World Service is funded separate from the rest of the BBC, it's actually funded by the Foreign Office.  The only way to boycott them would be to not pay taxes in Britain

From their 'apology':

The original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused. But it's important that this does not detract from what is a crucial debate for Africans and the international community.

The programme was a legitimate and responsible attempt to support a challenging discussion about proposed legislation that advocates the death penalty for those who undertake certain homosexual activities in Uganda - an important issue where the BBC can provide a platform for debate that otherwise would not exist across the continent and beyond.

I agree with that and I'm glad it's a non-apology apology (saying sorry for 'any offence caused' rather than anything else'.

Incidentally here's the text the BBC posted with the poll question/forum thing:

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.

The question was later rephrased as 'Should Uganda debate gay execution?' Which I think is a far worse question.  I'd also note that BBC Africa also has a debate on whether women should be allowed to become 'paramount chiefs'

[Martinus]

I think the main problem here is double standards, Sheilbh. Do you think BBC Europe (which covers Balkans, too) should have been running a poll "Should Bosnians be slaughtered to make way for the Great Serbia state? in 1990s?

[Sheilbh]

I think the main problem here is double standards, Sheilbh. Do you think BBC Europe (which covers Balkans, too) should have been running a poll "Should Bosnians be slaughtered to make way for the Great Serbia state? in 1990s?

No.  But I don't think that's double standards.  In Yugoslavia you had an ongoing genocide.  In this case you have a law against homosexuality that includes the death penalty as a potential punishment.  That's being debated - and could possibly spread to other African countries, I believe Rwanda and Burundi are both following with interest.  I think this question:

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.

Is actually a useful contribution in the same way as I think a wdebate on the collapse of Yugoslavia (which, yes, I would expect the BBC to host) would be a good thing, if it establishes at the start the 'stark and disturbing' truth that ethnic cleansing is happening.  At that point the people who support this bill have to defend it on those terms and in the Yugo analogy they would be no denying that ethnic cleansing was taking place.

[Martinus]

I don't think inviting a debate whether, essentially, a category of BBC viewers (gays) have a right to live is not a good idea. Sorry. They could have phrased it differently.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm not sure whether I agree with Marti or Sheilbh, leaning towards Marti's view atm, so keep the arguments coming guys 

On the other hand, I'm reasonably convinced that the proposed law in Uganda is far more reprehensible than a possible lapse of editorial judgement at the BBC. So, has the BBC's question raised awareness of Uganda's plans or diverted attention away from them and pushed Westerners into an introspective debate?

[Sheilbh]

I don't think inviting a debate whether, essentially, a category of BBC viewers (gays) have a right to live is not a good idea. Sorry. They could have phrased it differently.

The BBC didn't invite the debate; the Ugandan Parliament did.  Similarly I don't think the BBC opening a section of Have Your Say to this subject legitimises it, I think a proposed law does that.  As I say I think it's a positive thing that when discussing it and opening the subject to discussion the BBC frames it in terms of the 'stark and disturbing question' of whether gays should face execution because that is the policy Uganda is currently deciding on and it shouldn't be obfuscated.

[Tamas]

So assuming the lack of trolls (which is hopeless I know), what damage can a poll like this do? If the majority answer is no, it is nice. If the majority answer is yes, then hey at least we can see that all the tolerance talk is just a disguise in front of what is a largely ignorant and hateful society.

[Martinus]

I don't think inviting a debate whether, essentially, a category of BBC viewers (gays) have a right to live is not a good idea. Sorry. They could have phrased it differently.

The BBC didn't invite the debate; the Ugandan Parliament did.  Similarly I don't think the BBC opening a section of Have Your Say to this subject legitimises it, I think a proposed law does that.  As I say I think it's a positive thing that when discussing it and opening the subject to discussion the BBC frames it in terms of the 'stark and disturbing question' of whether gays should face execution because that is the policy Uganda is currently deciding on and it shouldn't be obfuscated.

I think there is a difference if a question is raised by a third world shithole of a state and an internationally respected institution with its headquarters in one of the world's oldest and most advanced democracies. Uganda and its people (or at least its people's representatives) seem to be reprehensible shit-for-brains and I don't see why they should be given "airtime" on the BBC.

Not all views are equally valid. It's that simple. Even the most pluralistic debate must acknowledge the fact that there are boundaries it should not cross. Uganda crosses that boundary by a mile.

[Martinus]

So assuming the lack of trolls (which is hopeless I know), what damage can a poll like this do? If the majority answer is no, it is nice. If the majority answer is yes, then hey at least we can see that all the tolerance talk is just a disguise in front of what is a largely ignorant and hateful society.

Discounting the fact that most people (you included) would find it offensive if someone made a poll about their right to live, this legitimizes the side which argues it is ok (or desirable) to execute gay people. This is an endorsement of sorts, or at least recognition that they may have valid arguments, rather than are madmen who should be treated like rabid dogs.

One of the biggest failings of liberalism is the implicit assumption that all topics can and should be discussed, and everyone can be reasoned with - this is a great fallacy, dating back to enlightenment, if not further back.

I personally like the analogy made by Aquinas when he was discussing human laws and their conformity with the "natural law" (which he understood as the law being fair and just). It's like building a house - there is no one way of doing it, or even one way that is best. One can have a big house or a smaller house, one with many doors or just one door, or taller or smaller windows, for example. And it will still be a house. But not anything one builds can be called a house - if it has no windows and doors, and if it is too small for a human to enter, then it is not a house - and all you can do is to raze it, rather than trying to live or improve it.