“The programme was a legitimate and responsible attempt to support a challenging discussion”

SOUNDBITES — “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 programme 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.” —BBC World Service director Peter Horrocks, on the job since February, apologizing over its not-so-PC Uganda commenter question (via)

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #bbc #killthegays #media stories and more


  • YellowRanger

    ……In what bizarro universe is GENOCIDE considered something that should even be up for a discussion?

  • RM


  • Cam

    A Debate?! So if the Ugandan Television station had a headline that said “Should the British royal family be raped and then hung up on sticks for people to throw rocks at.” Would that also be a debateable subject for the BBC?

  • RomanHans

    Not acceptable, not excusable. Somebody needs to resign.

  • Tallskin

    Over here in the UK the storm over this grows

    Hold this space!

  • dizzy spins

    i think a legitimate poll question would be, “Should the UK cease providing aid to Uganda if this law is passed.”

    If i can read Horrocks’ doublespeak correctly, he’s trying to say the only way to get Ugandans to look at the issue is to phrase it as a ‘debate.’ But cultural relativism can only be taken so far. There is no debate, and i dont give a shit if some Ugandans feel oppressed by that.

  • trickstertara

    @No. 5 If that’s the case, I’m glad. It’s about time somebody got angry about this.

    @No. 6 Sadly, there’s no way the UK will pull their aid over this. They’ll threaten to do it, but they won’t. We can’t get any of the American heads of state to threaten to do it. Hell, we can’t get them to *raise a fucking eyebrow* over the future genocide of who knows how many gay Ugandans.

  • Tom

    Wow. Mr. Horrocks won’t be satisfied until not only his foot but his whole leg has been inserted in his mouth. If he’s not going to apologize, then he should just stop talking. Maybe it’s time to run a story why Africans are debating this, but we here in the West are horrified at the suggestion of this ‘debate.’ Are there no lessons learned from the holocaust?

  • Mark

    A reckless and offensive job by the BBC. They still have yet to denounce the actions of those in the Ugandan government and religious communities who are promoting executions of homosexuals. Truly repugnant. This is hardly a topic of debate.

  • Lady Ga-Gasp

    The BBC can suck my gay Irish ass. But I would prefer Zac Efron do it.

  • Storm Christopher

    “Should we boycott Ugandan coffee?” Hell yes, boycot Ugandan coffee. It’s a small gesture, but it’s a start.

  • Peter

    Ok, yes, we’re all angry about Uganda. It’s an atrocity. Plain. Simple. However, it IS still happening. It also appears to have gained some ground in Africa regionally, e.g. Rwanda. While the wording of the BBC poll was definitely out of whack, might a forum that opens up dialogue be more important than more ideologues?

  • schlukitz

    Is it just me, or does the world seem to be becoming a bit more insane with each passing day?

    Just when we think that we have heard it all, someone comes along with something that is right off the fucking charts.

    A fucking “discussion” or debate”, if you will about the pros and cons of genocide…on a British Telly, no less.

    As if it should even be considered as a course of human action.

    And the Papenfuehrer stands mute on the subject, just like Pope Pius X11 stood mute while 6 million Jews were herded into the gas ovens. How dare Ratzass call himself a man of God!!! How dare he!!!

    And if we are wondering why Catholics are not speaking up in Uganda, this article will throw some light on the topic.

  • michael

    The BBC is a disgusting organization that panders to African countries in the hope of maintaining a listening audience there. It is a vile, pandering, sleazy organization.

  • jason

    It’s not just about the headline you stupid, fucking, moronic BBC twit. It’s the assumption that gays being executed is a legitimate talking point. You have legitimized the very notion, dog features.

  • Steve

    The proper discussion question now is, “Whom among the BBC staff should be fired?”

    I nominate Peter Horrocks. But, I note that he used the plural pronoun, “we”, to denote the persons who made the decision to ask the question about genocide of homosexuals. So there must be at least one other employee who should also be fired.

  • terrwill

    Insert “black” “jew” or “muslim” for “Gay” see the
    firestorm THAT would create, Gays are becomming the only
    accepted group that this kind of shit will fly with.

  • Chris

    And, as has been reported, U.S. evangelicals have had a big hand in pushing homophobia in Africa. Check out Rachael Maddows reports on MSNBC.

  • RomanHans

    > #13: Is it just me, or does the world seem to be becoming
    > a bit more insane with each passing day?

    This — talking about killing gays — is definitely a trend. Personally, I’m putting some of the blame on Obama and his ridiculous response to Uganda. If Hitler Jr. turned up in Germany I don’t think the pres would say, “Hey, you guys, please don’t kill the Jews, okay?”

    More on my blog:

  • terrwill

    No. 19 · RomanHans: Back in WWII the President didn’t even say that…………..

  • terrwill

    And to Schlukitz: Unfortuatly for the Gays the world is truly getting more and more insane. Gays are the only “accepted” group in which others can get away with the ugandan shit and not be condemmned by the rest of the world. Again, if those savages in that cesspool of a nation substituted “jew” or “muslim” as the target of that legislation every single dollar of foreign aid would have already stopped. Problem is that Gays are too willing to accept this crap and not use the most powerful tool we have in our possession to make a statement. That tool is the dollars we spend. Survey after survey shows the Gay dollar as one of the most significant out there. Yet the Gays refuse to use their numbers in a combined statement to show some stregnth…….

  • Keith Kimmel

    Yeah, OK BBC. It would have been better to just remain quiet on the topic and pretend you didn’t hear us than to issue this farce of a statement.

    I agree, FAIL.

  • romeo

    I’ll second and third here, fucking sick of the media thinking it’s okay to “debate” whether or not I should be killed. That the BBC didn’t know any better than that leaves them untrustworthy in all their new coverage. Actually, I liked watching BBC news, especially when Katty Kay anchors, but I won’t watch it again.

    Trust me, if you go to England, you’ll begin to feel how creepy the English are after a while. S&M and all kinds of weird shit are built in to the culture way more than here. And they WILL tell Americans how we should behave. They’re just as fucked up as we are, only their press is even nastier and slimier than ours. LOL

  • schlukitz

    Trust me, if you go to England, you’ll begin to feel how creepy the English are after a while. S&M and all kinds of weird shit are built in to the culture way more than here.

    At least S&M is consensual. You either do or don’t want to have your ass whipped. The “bottom” has a safe-word and is always in control.

    The problem with genocide, is that it is not consensual and there is no safe word.

    They just fucking murder you, despite your protestations! And that puts a very effective end to any debate over it.

    Now the top is in full control, like it or not.

Comments are closed.