Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 17, 2009 21:52:09 GMT
The BBC was under fire last night for opening a debate on whether gays should be executed.
This was in response to what the BBC claim is a Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death. In fact there would only be a death penalty imposed where the offender has HiV, is a "serial offender" or the other person is under 18.
The BBC justified the debate thus Its editor David Stead last night insisted he had thought long and hard about posing the question. 'We agree it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake,' he added. 'If Uganda's MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, they will bring legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.'
Contrast this with the murder of Christian families in Pakistan some months ago. It barely got a mention on the BBC website, and certainly didn't merit any debate about the ideology that could justify this. Here's all that was written on the subject:
Here's a more complete story about what happened in this incident where actually 14 were killed, most burned alive.
According to the writer
Considering that there are far more Christians in this country affected by the global persecution by Muslims of others of their faith, of which the above is just one incident, one would think that the BBC would think this topic worthy of debate. Certainly worth more than the few lines given to it. Not only about this persecution, but the lack of attention given to it by the various Human Rights Organisations - or at least that's how they like to think of themselves.
Maybe Robin Stead should think 'long and hard' about this.
This was in response to what the BBC claim is a Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death. In fact there would only be a death penalty imposed where the offender has HiV, is a "serial offender" or the other person is under 18.
The BBC justified the debate thus Its editor David Stead last night insisted he had thought long and hard about posing the question. 'We agree it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake,' he added. 'If Uganda's MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, they will bring legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.'
Contrast this with the murder of Christian families in Pakistan some months ago. It barely got a mention on the BBC website, and certainly didn't merit any debate about the ideology that could justify this. Here's all that was written on the subject:
Pakistan Christians die in unrest
Six Christians have been killed in religious unrest in Pakistan's central Punjab, after days of tension sparked by the rumoured desecration of a Koran.
The four women, a man and a child died as Muslim militants set fire to Christian houses in the town of Gojra, officials said.
Here's a more complete story about what happened in this incident where actually 14 were killed, most burned alive.
According to the writer
"Hamas digs up the bodies of Christians from Christian burial sites in the Gaza Strip claiming that they pollute the earth," said Reverend Majed El Shafie, President of One Free World International. "Every three minutes a Christian is being tortured in the Muslim world, and in 2009 more than 165,000 Christians will have been killed because of their faith, most of them in Muslim countries." Where are the Human Rights groups when we need them?
Considering that there are far more Christians in this country affected by the global persecution by Muslims of others of their faith, of which the above is just one incident, one would think that the BBC would think this topic worthy of debate. Certainly worth more than the few lines given to it. Not only about this persecution, but the lack of attention given to it by the various Human Rights Organisations - or at least that's how they like to think of themselves.
Maybe Robin Stead should think 'long and hard' about this.