Controversy erupted this week after BBC Africa published an online Have Your Say column entitled Should Homosexuals Be Executed?

--
Jennie Kermode is a Glasgow-based author, journalist and creative artist, and is Media Relations officer at Trans Media Watch.
--

After receiving hundreds of complaints, editor David Stead defended the piece by arguing that "it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake", whilst World Service director Peter Horrocks said it was the BBC's intent to provide "a platform for debate that otherwise would not exist across the continent and beyond". But is there any possibility of real debate, and if so, what are its implications?

The BBC has earned an impressive reputation for promoting free speech. It's important to debate issues of all kinds, including those that challenge ideas we hold dear. But with freedom of speech comes a certain level of responsibility. If you walk into a crowded theatre and shout "fire," causing a stampede, you can't excuse yourself by saying that it's your right to shout whatever you like. Actions have consequences and sometimes we need to take responsibility for the consequences of our words.

The fundamental problem with BBC Africa's column is that, for a debate to function, each side must listen to and consider what the other side has to say. In order to be prepared to listen to a person, one must first accept that person's right to exist. By arguing that gay people should be killed, those taking the anti-gay side are denying the other side's right to be heard, and so no real debate can happen.

The reason for the column is, of course, that the Ugandan parliament is currently considering an Anti-Gay Bill. This would criminalise gay people and their supporters. It would condemn to death gay people who had sex with disabled people, with minors (even if they were minors themselves) and whilst they were HIV positive. Other 'practising homosexuals' would receive life sentences. Seven year sentences would go to those convicted of 'promoting homosexuality' (which arguably includes most international aid agencies), with three year sentences for those who knew someone was gay and did not report it - so a mother could be locked up for failing to turn over her son.

In this context, the BBC might be praised for raising awareness and attempting to promote real engagement and discussion. However, there are two problems with this. The first is the crude way in which the 'debate' was framed. The second is that it has provided a platform for homophobic sentiment of the worst kind, not only in Uganda but across the world.

When I first heard that the BBC were going to allow BNP leader Nick \Griffin on Question Time, I, like many people, thought it might be a good thing for viewers to see his ugly views exposed. I was wrong. Though the impression he made was hardly a favourable one, BNP support actually increased in the wake of the programme. Similarly, there is a danger that homophobia will increase now, worldwide. One of the reasons why it is dangerous to debate extremist views in this way is that it makes them seem normal.

'Normalisation' is the phrase psychologists use to describe the gradual process whereby extreme ideas can come to seem palatable. The social experience of sharing such ideas can be key to this, as when groups of paedophiles get together and reassure each other about their behaviour. Sometimes the media is involved, as when the Kangura newspaper, RTLM and Radio Rwanda promoted the hatred of Tutsis in the run-up to the Rwandan genocide (Rwanda has just adopted its own variant of the Anti-Gay Bill). This is what happened in Nazi Germany before the Holocaust, and it's what happened in Russia prior to pogroms against Jews. If you look at some of the contributions to the BBC's Have Your Say column, you'll even see similar language. Of course, this isn't to suggest that the BBC has any kind of anti-gay agenda, but the danger to which they are exposing gay people is clear.

Most people would never dream of going out and attacking their neighbours, yet they will do so if they are exposed to a sufficient number of voices telling them those neighbours are dangerous and despicable. It could be argued that there's little to lose in Uganda, where anti-gay sentiment already runs high. But if you look at the comments in the BBC's column, you'll see that it's being read by people all over the world, including many in the UK. Any responsible publisher needs to take the entirety of their readership into account. This is one of the reasons why the BBC is now being challenged by MPs Chris Bryant and Eric Joyce, and why it has been criticised by the National Union of Journalists.

In publishing this column, the BBC has no doubt succeeded in raising awareness about the Ugandan situation, which is a good thing - but it has done so at a heavy price, and apparently without consulting the Ugandan LGBT groups who have been trying thus far to handle the matter in a cautious, non-sensationalist manner. Raising the temperature of the debate was the last thing they needed. Sometimes, if you try to fight fire with fire, all you do is get innocent people burned.