Brody's Scribbles... BBC's Question Faux Pas Controversy Rages On

By Brody Levesque (Bethesda, Maryland) Dec 20 | Last Wednesday the British Broadcasting Corporation's News Division, on its website, had set up a poll which got this headline: "Should Homosexuals Face Execution?"  As you can imagine reaction was swift and for the most part negative. As the BBC News Execs tried to correct the headline to accurately reflect the subject matter being polled in terms of the legislation pending in Uganda, it got worse.

Posting a revised headline that now read; "Should Uganda Debate Gay Execution? The Director of BBC World Services, Peter Horrocks, attempted to apologise:

"The original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused. But 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 — an important issue where the BBC can provide a platform for debate that otherwise would not exist across the continent and beyond." 

By this time the situation had gotten out of control and the general tenor of the commentary was highly inflammatory and homophobic, the BBC ended up being forced to close the commentary.

Today, there was an article in the Sunday Times of London, where in a published letter to Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), warned the BBC that its handling of the public’s online discussion was “insensitive and irresponsible”, raising the question of whether it should be subject to new legal controls. He then added that his commission would be considering giving advice to extend the provisions of the equality bill to include the BBC’s online material.

That proposal means that the BBC, which already moderates comments made by members of the public on its website, might be legally obliged to do so — or face “enforcement action” by the EHRC and possible court proceedings. The move would also apply to Channel 4, the other publicly owned broadcaster.

So, now the Freedom of Speech advocates are weighing in and they're not happy at all. John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture committee, said the BBC had been “offensive and irresponsible” but it should not be subject to “state censorship”.
Mark Stephens, a media lawyer who has been leading a commonwealth campaign against a proposed law in Uganda to execute gay people, said: 

“This is a pathetic attempt to censor free speech on a matter of enormous public interest. We must protect freedom of speech whether it is offensive or not. The alternative is to drive the debate underground.” 

Okay, but what I find interesting were the comments made like these examples:

D Spock wrote:
A badly worded question and they go on a nasty witch hunt. They don't care who they destroy as long as they meet their political agendas.

M Smith wrote:
I think that Trevor Philips (and Harriet Harman) should be censored - the rest of us could then enjoy the freedom that is an essential component of our way of life. Already there are so many laws and conflicts of interest that some employers (notably the public sector) have simplified them down to: never criticise homosexuals (no matter how outrageous their lifestyle); and: if anyone claims to be 'offended' by a Christian, bundle the said Christian off the premises and out of his job.

Brian Williams wrote:
Has this guy Phillips even read 1984 by George Orwell? Has he got the slightest idea what the people will do when they find that they are being controlled by a totalitarian state? I can't think of a better way to send the nation into the arms of the BNP than to try to suppress all forms of dissent? No longer does anyone say "I disagree with what you say but will defend with my life your write to say it". The tone now is "you will agree with what I say or you will pay with the disagreement with your life".

Judy Walton wrote:
Why are we all being gagged? This is most sinister.

The flip side of those arguments were comments posted just before the BBC closed them down such as these:

Chris from Guildford wrote: “Totally agree. Ought to be imposed in the UK too, asap. Bring back some respectable family values.”

Another contributor, Aaron, wrote: “Bravo to the Ugandans for this wise decision, a bright step in eliminating this menace from your society.”

Well, at least the British public is alot more politer about being rude in print than the American public. Of course tis is the season I guess maybe. In a similar vein, my hometown paper in Toronto was forced to close its comments after a story it ran because of severe homophobic remarks generated this past week.

So, should the BBC 'police' the public? In fairness, I've seen some drastic & nasty comments from LGBT folk too. Where does one strike a balance with all this? One must act with caution and prudence when applying any form of moderation that could lead places that aren't good for everybody.

The honest bottom line though is that this world has a very long way to go to reach full equality and parity for the greater Gay community and stories like these serve to illustrate just how are all of us need to work to make that happen. Even within the Gay community itself, there are serious issues that need addressing in terms of 'phobia' as one needs to look no further than the treatment of transgendered folk. Maybe this BBC flap can move conversation further along towards reaching that distant goal.