Yesterday I called on the BBC to remove an online debate on its website labelled, ‘should homosexuals face execution’. The title was a topic for debate on the BBC News ‘Have Your Say’. Since my news release condemning this – the BBC has changed the headline.
I would be the first person to stand up for open debate and free speech, but any conversation that starts, ‘should homosexuals face execution’ is completely skewed and unacceptable in this forum.
Suggesting that the state-sponsored murder of gay people is OK as a legitimate topic for debate is deeply offensive. The BBC are only fanning the flames of hatred as many of the comments demonstrate. They must act and apologise for their gross insensitivity. What were they thinking?
Lynne Featherstone 
when you have a open debate what you got to understand is when you have freedom of speach the opinion of a lot of the public is going to be different to the opinion of polititions, some might be offended but it is the publics honest opinions and not what politics tell them to say. Me personally the killing of a person because of how they choose to live is wrong.
I’m curious what you think is acceptable discussion of something which is really happening in Uganda. I don’t think it’s fair to prohibit those who disagree with you from speaking merely because you find their views offensive – and if you don’t, then you are indeed debating the issue.
The commenters here miss the point: the BBC started up a debate with the question “should homosexuals be executed”. Why should a broadcaster who I pay for be inviting people coolly to discuss whether I should be put to death or not? Do you have thew slightest idea how this feels. The subject needs to be publicised and debated, but the phrasing of the question implies that the answer “yes” is in part legitimate
What makes it worse is that it is such a waste of time to ask a question with only one justifiable answer. There’s so many issues the bbc refuses to dicuss and debate yet we have hateful nonsense such as this?
I certainly admire their hard-hitting approach in terms of asking such an incredibly extreme and hard-hitting question in itself. It’s just a shame they take a hard line when it comes to discussing executing innocent people, yet won’t ask remotely tough or slightly un pc questions to 95% of Labour politicians whenever they’re interviewed. Similarly it’s disturbing how so much of their reporting is subject to extreme pc censorship (such as intentionally omitting the ethnicity of a wanted criminal’s from their description), yet the Uganda question is perfectly ok. It’s just so inconsistent – one extreme to the other with both being equally wrong.
Pingback: BBC got the message | Lynne Featherstone MP