NP Rank:
BBC apologises, Ugandan Parliament debates anti-gay bill today
After defending, then ditching a controversial Uganda gay execution poll, the BBC has apologized after complaints about yesterday's on-line debate which asked "Should homosexuals face execution?" The BBC ditched the poll after coming under fire from gay rights groups and replaced it with a more moderate question "Should Uganda debate gay execution?" The BBC debate was in response to proposed anti-gay legislation scheduled for debate today by the Ugandan parliament.
Critics flooded the British broadcaster's website after it launched the provocative debate ahead of a World Service Africa Have Your Say feature.
The headline question asking if gays should face execution was later changed to: "Should Uganda debate gay laws?" and the BBC World Service admitted the original version overstepped the mark.
"The original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused," the director of BBC World Service, Peter Horrocks, said in a blog on Thursday.
But he insisted: "It's important that this does not detract from what is a crucial debate for Africans and the international community.
"The program 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."
Some British politicians criticised the move.
"We should be condemning it, and the BBC should be condemning it, just as we do sexual violence in the Congo or genocide in Rwanda or Darfur," said Eric Joyce of the ruling Labour party.
"Instead, it seems to have thought it appropriate to come up with something that suggests it's a subject for discussion," he told the House of Commons.
Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill will be discussed in the country's parliament today.
It is thought that this debate will follow a second reading and and a vote will be taken in January after a third reading.
It would impose the death penalty on those convicted of having gay sex with a minor or disabled person or while infected with HIV. Friends and family members of gay Ugandans who do not report them to authorities could face up to three years in prison.
People who "promote" or assist homosexuality could be jailed for seven years. The bill would also punish Ugandan citizens who have gay sex abroad.
The bill's sponsor, David Bahati MP, has argued that it will curb HIV infections and protect the "traditional family".
It has been subject to worldwide condemnation and since the first reports emerged in mid-October, has received widespread media attention.
UK prime minister Gordon Brown told President Museveni last month of his concerns and the United Nations and the World Health Organisation have said that Uganda may lose the chance to host an important permanent Aids research organisation if the bill is passed.
This week, the European Parliament adopted a resolution to strongly condemn the bill. It called on Ugandan authorities "not to approve the bill and to review their laws to decriminalise homosexuality".
The resolution also reminded the Ugandan government of its legally-binding obligations under international treaties as well as its inability to withdraw from ratified international human rights treaties.
Although main world powers such as the US have strongly condemned the bill, along with Sweden threatening to cut aid, Ugandan officials have been keen to stress they will not bow down to international pressure.
Take Action: Tell Uganda To Respect Human Rights And Dismiss the Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Previously on NowPublic by this Author:
BBC Defends, Ditches Controversial Uganda Gay Execution Poll (Dec. 17, 2009)
White House condemns Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill (Dec. 13, '09)
Uganda to drop death penalty, life imprisonment for gays (Dec. 10, '09)
No visible ties, Christian leaders denounce Uganda anti-gay bill (Dec. 9, '09)
It's not so invisible anymore: 'The Family's' influence in Uganda (Nov. 28, '09)
Brown joins Harper against Uganda's Anti-homosexuality Bill 2009 (Nov. 28, '09)
Harper to raise issue of Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill at Summit (Nov. 26, '09)
US fundamentalist group at heart of Uganda's anti-gay law (November 26, '09)
Uganda anti-gay bill has potential to divide Commonwealth leaders (Nov. 25, '09)
Museveni claims European gays are 'recruiting' Ugandan citizens (Nov. 23, '09)
Jefferson Awards winner recognizes genocide looming in Uganda (Oct. 21, '09)
Uganda's Daily Monitor raises its voice on behalf of defenseless (Oct. 20, '09)
Did Exodus conference in Uganda unleash anti-gay vigilantism? (Oct. 19, '09)
Human rights groups blast Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 (Oct. 18, '09)
Exodus International Holding Bryce Faulkner Hostage? (July 16, '09)
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
-
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Recommendations (37)
-
Susan Marie Kovalinsky
Ledgewood, New Jersey, United States 
Anonymous user
-
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada -
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United States -
Uwe Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan -
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke
Redwater, Alberta, Canada






Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 05:54 on December 18th, 2009
The debate could have broth some awareness and I think the question is good, If we do ask this question, I can not think of any one with a sound and healthy mind that would say, "Yes, they should"
If any one would do so, they could not possibly defend it intellectually nor morally and would be exposed openly for what they are...
The debate has to be allowed, censoring the BBC does not help those in Africa that are debating it and that are also washing the BBC on the internet.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Heather Goodwin (not verified)at 06:32 on December 18th, 2009
Paschen, would you still agree that 'the debate has to be allowed' if the question posed on the BBC website was 'should black people be executed?' or 'should Jews be executed?'There is debate, and then there is incitement. In my opinion, the BBC's phrasing of this question was the latter. They appear to have realised this.If you don't believe me, please read the comments on the BBC web site which were posted in response to the 'stark' version of the question. You will see that people have taken the original question as tacit permission to jump in with some very ugly homophobic views which they now feel able to share - in a supported way, because that question encourages them - on a national platform. There are better - and less inflammatory - questions that the BBC could have used if its aim was 'debate'.
at 06:25 on December 19th, 2009
Yes, H. G. since it may help counter those that do actually think so in there ill conceived rezoning.
The only way to dismantle such arguments or though is by confronting them rationally and intellectually in open debates.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Jimmy Salermo (not verified)at 07:16 on December 18th, 2009
I'd have to agree with Heather Goodwin (not sure how her unverified status is relevant, Paschen?) that the phrasing was inflammatory. Setting up a debate on whether or not it's ok to execute gay people implies that it's a fully valid question with a potential for a "yes" to be an acceptable result.If BBC wanted debate, they had a multitude of options for phrasing a throught-provoking question. Instead, the blunt wording they went with (originally) was an open invitation to air on a supposedly respectable forum opinions that are akin to incitement to hate crime and murder.Debate is definitely called for, nobody is disputing that. But such a public forum should conduct such debate responsibly.
at 16:16 on December 18th, 2009
J.S. even if the debate was about whether or not the members of the Paschen clan should be put to death or not. It should take place, for it needs to be dismantled with reason and common sense.
Failing to have the debate would only keep the sentiment alive and give it a chance to spread further. Since there are those that actually think this should be, (and see the latest executions that took place in Iran) the only way to change this is by confronting it with reason and not with condemnation nor with threats or by putting those that thinks so to death them self, that would only push them into a corner and make things worth in the long run.
If we really want this sort of thinking to stop and get people to evolve, then we have to debate it and this debate has to take place with reason and common sense and intelligence. Emotions, misconceptions and anger can not be defeated by ignoring them or simply condemning them, they need to be broth out into the open and debated.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Heather Goodwin (not verified)at 07:41 on December 18th, 2009
Thanks, Jimmy (not verified) for defending my honour! I prefer to believe that most people choose to be chivalrous where they can, so I don't think it was intended as a deliberate slight on Paschen's part.I agree with you both that debate is essential. But, in Paschen's own words, it must be 'rational and intellectual' - ie there must be a legitimate question to answer. Asking whether a minority group should be annihilated is simply not a legitimate question in a civilised society. It is an open door to persecution and abuse masquerading as free speech.