But do you accept that the BBC would NEVER allow a debate on its Arabic website that the murder of Jewish people is justified?

What are YOU going to do to protect the ‘freedom of speech’ of people who want to murder jews or muslims or women or black people, seeing as you are such a fan of ‘freedom of speech’?

Or do you think that ‘freedom of speech’ only applies to people who want to murder gay people?

***Note to Pink News – keep an eye on this Luke person. I have a suspicion that he is a troll.

Do you think Have Your Say should have a debate on its Arabic service asking ‘Should jews face execution?’. That is after all the few of some people in the Arab world. If not then why not?”

I believe that all these things should be allowed to be debated, yes. My position is consistent. Whether it is morally acceptable for them to be debated is another question entirely. In a just society we permit many things that, personally or collectively, we may feel are morally unnacceptable.

But the BBC would never allow a debate on whether the Holocaust was acceptable or whether black people or adulterous women should be executed, so you’re defending a grossly offsensive homophobic double standard by arguing that a proposed genocidal law is worthy of debate.

Do you think Have Your Say should have a debate on its Arabic service asking ‘Should jews face execution?’. That is after all the few of some people in the Arab world. If not then why not?

If there is any reception of channels on your equipment they can prosecute you. But you are under no obligation to reply to their letters, answer your door to them or allow them into your house.

They need a search warrant to enter and won’t get that without evidence that you are receiving programmes. One of them dressed as a postman to catch out one of my neighbours. Personally I wouldn’t trust them to enter my house. If you do let them in make sure you have at least one witness in case they lie about what they saw.

You don’t have to pay the rotten BBC Tax, mate. The BBC is committing an act of treason against the Crown by accepting funding from the E.U. As long as that persists, you don’t have to pay up. (This is not a rant or a windup. Do some Googling and check it out.)

In fact, this recent article in the Advocate, gives us an historical perspective which has been completely neglected so far, and which spotlights “George Bush” and “The Family” in order to shed light on the proposal of this most confusing anti-gay legislation in an African country which was held up, not too long ago, as a shinning example of AIDS prevention and control.

http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Uganda_Antigay_Sentiments_Hit_Close_to_Home/

I can’t believe the expert investigative reporters at BBC are unaware of this connection. I can believe that the Media in the UK would rather we bring it up than they themselves. Frankly, I don’t blame them, even as I see them pussy-footing around the issue. “The Family”….hello Twilight Zone.

I agree the debate motion itself is insensitive (and disgusting), but that is no grounds for censoring the debate. That would be to use the same tactics that the Ugandan politicians behind the bill use. For example, part of the bill bans discussion of homosexuality.
And yes, by analogy, discussions of the topics you mention should be allowed in a free society.

We need open discussions.

Would the BBC have dared to pose the following question:

‘Should blacks be executed?’

I rest my case.
The BBC is despicable for even suggesting that the persecution of a race is legitimate.

Namely: “There is a legitimate question in the offing. What right have international bodies to interfere with a democratic process when that democratic process would lead to gross human rights violations. This is an important philosophical question- one worthy of debate.”

Sorry but your post makes no sense.

The law in Uganda is a genocidal law. Genocide is always wrong. It should never be an appropriate question to ask ‘Is mass murder against a law abiding minority justifiable’ which is what the BBC is doing.

I have never seen a debate on the BBC Have Your Say about whether adulterous women should be stoned to death; or whether the Holocaust was somehow justifiable; or whether islam is evil.

The BBC have framed their debate in a way which suggests that the proposed new law may be justifiable. Mass murder is never justifiable. And the BBC should not be asking if it is.

As has been said countless times before, the BBC would never dare to offend Jews, Muslims, black people, the disabled etc. with such a sick question.

I hope this does create a big storm and then hopefully the BBC will learn that it can’t just treat homosexuals as though they don’t matter.