The BBC should be ashamed of themselves even allowing a question like that to begin with.

What has the BBC really done to publicise this Ugandan Bill? Nothing on Newsnight or any of their national current affairs programmes. The BBC doesn’t even have the good grace to report news about the controversy. BBC impartiality is a LIE

I hope it has made people realise what is actualy going on in the world ?

We can’t sit back and let this happen

Question …

Isn’t it hestrosexuals that are spreading aids in africa ?

Is it only the homosexuals that will be put to death?

Have you heard of “The FAMILY” in America ?

Well president Ohbama has …!

Robert is right we need to keep this debate going. Peoples lives depend on it !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/africa_debate.html

The fact is that human rights are not considered “sacred’ by the American religious fundamentalists who have been influencing Ugandan authorities. The logic is as simple as it gets: God’s laws are revealed; Human rights are man-made; man is a sinner, etc., etc., etc.

For an introduction to “The Family”, check out:

http://www.jeffsharlet.com/ and let’s get this debate working in favor of human rights; our rights; the rights of every human being.

It is not open for debate ever.

Uganda Antigay Sentiments Hit Close to Home

COMMENTARY: Kim Stolz wonders why certain U.S. senators refuse to comment on Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill — a bill the White House, international human rights organizations, and even some typically conservative Christian groups have condemned.
By Kim Stolz
BAHATI X390 (FAIR USE) | ADVOCATE.COM
David Bahati, sponsor of Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill.

Many Americans have heard of a group led by Doug Coe called “the Family,” or “C Street,” and most of us are aware of their annual National Prayer Breakfast, at which the president of the United States speaks each year. The Family is an intimidating and powerful group, with a network that stretches across the globe, and “key men,” as the group labels them, in dozens of countries. Three of these “key men” are David Bahati, who introduced the October 14 bill; James Nsaba Buturo, Uganda’s minister for ethics and integrity, who strongly supports the bill; and Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda himself, who also has come out in full support of the bill. When the U.K. newspaper The Guardian asked about the bill, Buturo responded:

“We used to say Mr. and Mrs. But now it is Mr. and Mr. What is that now? We believe there are limits to human rights.”

While it would be speculation to call these men “friends” with certain U.S. congressmen, there is evidence to support that they are certainly colleagues and members of the same “secret” Family.

One of the most significant rules in being part of the Family is that you’re not allowed to talk about it or disclose other members’ identities. There is an unspoken understanding in Washington that the Family holds meetings at a house on C Street in the capital and that some members of the Family live there for reduced rent. Further, the complex, which serves as both a church and home for Christian congressmen, was in the news recently for three residents’ separate scandals. The Family practices a type of “elite fundamentalism,” coined by Jeff Sharlet who is perhaps our nation’s greatest expert on the group, and while the Family was founded on laissez-faire economic principles and expansionist foreign policy beliefs, it has now added cultural and social initiatives to its mission.

Sharlet claims that David Coe, son of founder Doug Coe, in an effort to explain what it was like to be a “chosen one” as part of the group, asked a young man who was new to the group:

‘“Let’s say I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?”

The man guessed that Coe would probably think that he was a monster.

“No,” answered Coe, “I wouldn’t.”

Why? Because, as a member of the Family, he’s among what Family leaders refer to as the “new chosen.” If you’re chosen, the normal rules don’t apply.’
_______________________________________

Conspiracy theory? Maybe. Take a look at parts 1 and 3 of this story, and you will be convinced that Uganda has not acted unilaterally in developing this anti-gay attitude and proposing such outlandish legislation.

Also, check out Jeff Sharlett, and let’s keep this debate on the airwaves till the truth will out.

I have gender identity disphoria (its not disorder) but I also have a sexuality as well. I know it a hard concept for you to understand the difference between sexuality and gender with you one dimensional viewpoint.

As I am sure you will agree freedom of speech does not mean, being given a national platform on a national broadcaster to express each and every view, regardless of how insane they are. If that is what you mean then your arguement is utterly ludicrous.

Naughtie is entitled to hold whatever views he wants and he is free to publish whatever pamphlets he wishes, expresssing his personal views at his own expense and to distribute them to whomever he wants. His freedom of speech however does not extend to giving him a national platform on a publicly funded TV station to express views which are regarded as fake by all medical and psychiatric organisations. The BBC is required in its mandate to the British public to remain impartial. Giving airtime and therefore credence to a man whose views are held to be lies by all medical and social and psychiatric experts is not being impartial.

In any case where do you get the idea that we live in a society where freedom of speech is fully permitted. We don’t and we never have. Freedom of speech only applies so long as the speech does not incite hatred or violence to another person. It is a crime to incite hatred and violence against another person or group. Therefore if the BNP decided hold a rally campaigning for new gas chambers be opened to deal with the ‘problem’ of islam or homosexuality then they are guilty of a crime; and they are not allowed to use the ‘freedom of speech’ defence.

Do you disagree with this situation?

To call for death to the Queen for example is regarded as the crime of treason and that is (I think) the only crime in the UK still punishably by death.

People who think freedom of speech is absolute (or indeed think that it has EVER been absolute) are deluding themselves.

Freedom of speech does not apply to screaming ‘Fire’ in a crowded cinema – you’d get arrested for causing a public nuisance.

In any case we don’t live in a genuinely free society as you suggest. It is

People who try to stop debates on topics they find offensive are behaving no better than those government officials who tried to do so in Russia of the early 20′s, or those legislators behind the Ugandan bill who wish to ban discussion of homosexuality. They might use the same arguments as you. For example, they might say, homosexuality should not be able to be discussed because it is ‘offensive’. This shows that our concept of what is ‘offensive’ is highly subjective and relative to certain cultures. It is also, of course relative to certain points in history. Once we allow are feelings as to whether something is ‘offensive’ curtail expression of belief, we are floating away from a truly democratic society. For the concept of a democracy is premised on the idea that exchange of beliefs, however odious, is a right, and a right which should only in the direst of incidents be curtailed.

WTF is going on here?

It simply wrong and it just beggars belief that this has been allowed to happen after “careful thought”.

If it was so carefully thought out why did they have to change the title and then remove comments that should never have got past the moderators in the first place and then have to close it dowwn altogether?

Furthermore, the World Service part of the BBC is there to reflect British aims and values to an overseas audience and is funded by grant-in-aid (ie. your taxes not the licence fee) by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for this purpose.

With this in mind, it is pointless the foreign secretary sending out (as he has done, to his great credit) instructions to our ambassadors in respect of using our embassies to show support for local “pride” events if the BBC then turn around and use the cheque he gives them to operate the World Service to start a debate on whether or not LGBT people should even be allowed to exist.

You can write to David Miliband and draw this utter madness to his attention by using the “contact ministers section” in the link below.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/contact-us

You might also want to check out this BBC editors forum and add your comments to the editor’s ridiculous defence of his actions there:

And also pitch in to this BBC blog on the topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/controversial_debate.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/overtoyou/2009/12/response_to_africa_have_your_s.html