It may have come to the attention of many of you that BBC news online recently proposed a controversial topic on it’s ‘Have your say’ forum asking the question “Should Homosexuals face execution?“, the question was described in the subheading as a “stark and disturbing question” and can be read in full here.


The “revised” title.

When the existence of the “debate” was brought to my attention by a friend, the original title was that mentioned above, within a few minutes of reading the article the title had been changed by the BBC to the more diplomatic “Should Uganda debate execution?”. Since the debate has been posted it has caused much media attention and the BBC has defended its position quite shamelessly. It therefore strikes me as odd that they would have the desire to change the title of the forum (after it had closed I might add) to something less controversial, that is if they didn’t think they had any reason to be ashamed.

After thinking long and hard I wrote a complaint to the BBC, which read as follows;

“Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to complain about the aforementioned topic on a ‘have you say’ page which has recently been re-titled “Should Uganda debate gay execution?”. This page was originally titled “should homosexuals face execution?” and is still apparent on the paragraph below the title.

Whilst I understand that this is an exercise in free speech, I find that this question is at best inflammatory and at worst socially irresponsible. If the BBC prides itself on its impartial attitude towards news and current affairs, should it be asking such general and extreme questions where the answer is a simple no-brainer?

The BBC might as well debate whether killing ethnic/religious groups is a valid option in certain political situations, but something tells me that questions like “Was the holocaust completely wrong?” would be considered very much unacceptable.

But then why is such a question any different to asking whether homosexuals should be executed seeing that in this culture homosexuality is accepted and given political protection in similar ways to race and religion?

Yours, disgusted, of Birmingham”

Since then I received a message in response to my complaint linking me to the following excuse;

“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.

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

If Uganda’s democratically elected MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill this week they will bring onto the statute book legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.

We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself (see above). And as we said at the top of our debate page, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind the bill.

This issue has already sparked much debate around the world and 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.”

I believe my point still stands, even if they have thought long and hard about it, they made an error in debating this question, especially as one of their key values is to “respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best.” It appears the BBC is making the excuse that the question is made with respect to African culture since “Homosexuality is regarded as taboo in much of Africa, where it is often regarded as a threat to cultural, religious and social values.” However I can’t help but think that if the BBC was to ask the question “Was the Rwandan genocide completely wrong” and justify it as being asked with respect to the Hutu dominated government and their power ideology, there would be hell to pay!

My argument is that just because a question is made from a different viewpoint it doesn’t make it any less offensive, it is true that morality is relative according to one’s perspective, however, if we view it more empirically (logically if you will) there is no justification in needlessly killing or punishing people for a victimless crime. Hence whilst we must respect all cultures we must understand that some are less justifiable in their reasoning. I believe this issue is relevant to British politics since many of the homophobic laws in countries around the world are the direct result of British colonialism and its religious/victorian values.

To conclude I believe that the BBC was wrong in posting this article and tried to avoid criticism in a spineless, pathetic way by changing the title of the page after the debate was closed and by hiding behing the notion of moral relativism when it should be well known the majority of its readers are from a western perspective.