Note: The original opening question ("Should homosexuals face execution?") was replaced by a new opening question —"Should Uganda Debate Gay Execution" — as soon as criticism reached the ears of the BBC.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 ...
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.
Speaking of criticism, here's what a couple of U.K. lawmakers had to say about the BBC's brilliant posting:
"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."But that's old news. The new, improved, even more ridiculous news is that David Stead, the BBC's World Service Africa program editor, is standing by the corporation's decision. He wrote this on a BBC blog:
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 editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say programme thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate.Wow, pretty lame. That's the best you got, Mr. Stead? Let me give it a try for you:We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake. ... We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself. ...
This issue ... understandably led to us receiving many e-mails and texts. We have sought to moderate these rigorously while at the same time trying to reflect the varied and hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa.
The editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say programme were shooting the shit at the editorial meeting this morning and crying about how lame our site is, when the guy that brought the donuts called the site "gay." That prompted some other asshole to say, "You're fucking gay!' Then an entirely different asshole said, "Dude, you shouldn't joke about about being gay when the word "Uganda" is on the white board!" And the guy next to him said, "Hey, I know! Let's just ask the question that no other media outlet has the guts to ask: 'Should homosexuals face execution?'"
I thought about it for, oh, 30 seconds and said, "That's sort of like asking if Jews should be gassed or if puppies should be put in wood chippers. Right?"
"Yes, yes," the donut guy said. "Exactly."
And then we all shook hands and uploaded it.
Look, we agree that it's an offensive question, but we also know (as do you) that it accurately illustrates the real issue at stake: Some people really, really, REALLY hate gay people; they hate them so much that they want to kill them ... with a rope and a gold stamp of approval from the government.
So, give us a break. It's not our place to care what's right or what's wrong. We don't live in Uganda; we report the news. And this is news. For crying out loud, this issue has been a "Hot Topic" on "The View" all week. And besides, our traffic is through the roof!
So, get the fuck over it.
Sigh. Such is the absurdity of the human condition.
Working as I do in the for-profit world, I can say that your description of the deciding meeting is more honest than any pathetic excuse that will come from the BBC.
F*ckers
Posted by: Tammi L. Coles | December 16, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Definitely one for the 'WTF?' category.
Assholes.
Posted by: Tracy | December 17, 2009 at 07:03 AM