You seem to be suggesting that allowing only one side to voice its views is “impartial” but allowing both sides to speak is not. Unless my copy of the Oxford dictionary is defective, you’re wide of the mark.

We can argue whether the poll was a wise editorial decision, but don’t hide behind the guise of promoting impartiality.

Could you repeat that, please. Possibly re-phrasing.

What I want to see from the BBC is to provide the readers and its audience the facts:

An easily accessible fact page for BBC African users on homosexuality:

- what is homosexuality?
- what do the experts think about it (e.g. American Psychological Association’s positioning statements)
- can people change? (links to genetic, biological research)
- can people be tempted into it?
- what is life like for gay people (case studies on experiences, negative and positive, of gay couples in africa and europe)
- religious positions on homosexuality
- common fears / myths

That would be responsible journalism, helping people educate themselves and form their own opinions about the matter.

Get caught, go to court, get fined, go to prison for refusal to pay. BBC continue on regardless.

Simple.

Well I don’t know how much you read of it, but I went through the lot, and I would say it was 10:1 against. Even most people that didn’t like gay people, or felt homosexuality was wrong still felt that this was way over the top, and tantamount to legalised murder.

Most of those that did support the bill were Africans, Muslims, or both. However, I think it’s good to have those comments, as it brings reality back with a jolt that homophobia is still alive and well, and we should not relax in complacency.

Personally, I think the headline could have been more delicately worded, but ho hum, I see it as no big deal if it draws people in for debate. I’ve been doing the same on here and other sites for years…

“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’

Yet, the overhelming number of responses supported the bill. It seems to me therefor that, had thhe answers been different, there would have been no resulting outrage. The BBC has actually done a service- exposing homophobia in the UK. In other words, the average Brit is no different from the Ugandan…

The BBC unofficial motto when blunders occur is Assistant heads must roll, but in cases like this, it seems, the motto is No heads must roll

“The shock generated by the BBC (Africa desk) putting such an outrageous question online as if it’s just a matter of opinion, has hopefully helped publicise what is going on in Uganda and other African countries as a result of the campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering by US evangelists and their local fanatical friends. These extremists are at work in Europe and Asia too.”

“The Family” is an international reality, not a conspiracy theory.

Strange though that I’ve seen nothing on the BBC news broadcasts about what’s going on, and no documentaries, which I would have expected by now. When Uganda expelled all the Asians in the 1970s there was plenty of coverage then, and the UK gave them a home.

But I believe the BBC acted in a way that clearly invited simple homophobic responses rather than rational debate (if that is even possible on such an issue). The BBC also omitted a lot of information and background in the introduction, such as how the proposed law affects the rest of the population of Uganda with it’s McCarthyite punishments on anyone who knows a gay person and doesn’t turn them in, or tries to tell the truth about gay people, or support them in any way.

On that last point, the guy who posts the Gay Uganda blog, today quotes the proposer of the bill, Bahati, as saying if his own brother was gay he would arrest him himself and take him to the police station. This is the family values of the fundamentalists.

“THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2009

The love of a Brother
Told you of my brother,… the one who is a Pentecostal Pastor. I would trust him with a knife to my throat.

Yes I would.

That is why I went to him when I felt I needed to come out to my family. That is why I went to him with an almost impossible request. I love him. We differ in many things, but, he is blood, and he is my brother.

Where I grew up, I learnt that family, extended family, clan, tribe. Those were the things that mattered.

I have other brothers, and other sisters. I know that they know my sexuality. With most, I have not talked. With some, I am not that close. But, they are family. They are blood. And, that small fact wipes out all our differences. Even if I am gay.

But, David Bahati would report his brother to the police. Indeed, he would arrest him himself. Here:

“It is the first bill Bahati has ever written, and he calls it a “very wonderful piece of legislation.” His bill would impose the death penalty on adults who have gay sex with minors. And it would jail anyone who fails to report gay activity to police within 24 hours.
And what if his brother were engaging in homosexual activity?
“I’d arrest him myself and take him to the police,” Bahati says.”

hxxp://gayuganda.blogspot.com/2009/12/love-of-brother.html

In that case, for me, we then hit a whole new difficulty. Peter Horrocks sees it as the BBC’s job to provide Africa with a platform for debate. And I’m really concerned that this should not be the Beeb’s remit. I think providing global access to BBC’s services is wholly different from providing a specific service “for the benefit of” other countries or continents.

I spend much of my time outside the UK, and have one web browser which accesses the internet through a UK proxy (ie. as if I were in the UK.) The BBC web site I see between the UK and international view is remarkably different. I won’t say that pages from the UK and international sites are blocked from the browsers of the other, but they are often well concealed. If you think the Beeb has an international role in promoting the UK abroad, you could be pretty disturbed by the reality.