Should Uganda execute gay people?

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think i've stepped into the wrong century!

This is actually up for debate on the BBC:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7347&start=15&sortBy=2&edition=1&ttl=20091216235627

Complain here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

I'm all for freedom to say bigoted things, but the way the question is posed is vile and some of the comments that have been allowed to stay up actively promote violence against LGBTQ people.

facebook group here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=212880606691&ref=mf

:huh:

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

''Has Uganda gone too far?'' The BBC could've worded that better. :rolleyes: The comments were even worse; I can't believe one person thinks homosexuality is 'counter productive', haha.

This is great, though:

I suggest all gays are put on a remote island somewhere and left for a generation - afterwhich, theoretically there shoild be none left !
Chris, Guildford

Where do you think gay people come from? You think we hatch from eggs?

But yes, I think I'll complain.

[Искра]

Why did you call thread "should"?
Do you think that some one here will say "yes"?

Anyway I cant believe this...

[scarletghoul]

I'm all for freedom to say bigoted things
Don't complain then.

[Robocommie]

OMG, at first I thought somebody was legitimately asking the question in the thread title, and then when I saw it was homorevolutionary I was confused.

[Raúl Duke]

I thought this was going to be a poll where everyone would be voting no.

[BobKKKindle$]

Don't complain then.

What the fuck?

[Axle]

Yeah, I'm among the users who thought this was going to be a really pointless poll.

And I'm totally stupefied that BBC would even have a debate like this.

[Bitter Ashes]

This Have Your Say is
CLOSED

DEBATE STATUS

Total comments:
633
Published comments:
206
Rejected comments:
189
No further comments will be published as debate is now closed

I feel sick to my stomach reading this stuff! Maybe I've been in a bubble too long here. I know that some people don't like my sexuality and I know that sometimes can get aggressive, but I just can't imagine people around here wishing death upon me for it. I really do feel quite upset now reading this.:(

[Hoggy_RS]

I think all bigoted people should be put on an island and in a genereation they'll all be gone.:lol:

[Iskra1916]

Disturbing and a disgrace !

This is the same BBC that would not host a charity appeal for the children of Gaza because it was "too politically sensitive!"
Scum!

[Dimentio]

I think i've stepped into the wrong century!

This is actually up for debate on the BBC:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7347&start=15&sortBy=2&edition=1&ttl=20091216235627

Complain here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

I'm all for freedom to say bigoted things, but the way the question is posed is vile and some of the comments that have been allowed to stay up actively promote violence against LGBTQ people.

facebook group here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=212880606691&ref=mf

:huh:

What sinister forces are behind this? Is it reactionary elements within the parliament or made by the President? In any way, it seems like a method of diverting people's attention away from the government.

[Patchd]

I think all bigoted people should be put on an island and in a genereation they'll all be gone.:lol:
You see, this might actually work.

[scarletghoul]

What the fuck?
If you support the freedom to say biggotted things, why complain when these things are said? It doesn't make sense. It's good to complain about things like this, but to do so and also support the right of people to say such things doesn't make sense to me at all. We should be opposing the freedom to say biggotted things, otherwise its just incoherant wooliness

[Dimentio]

If you support the freedom to say biggotted things, why complain when these things are said? It doesn't make sense. It's good to complain about things like this, but to do so and also support the right of people to say such things doesn't make sense to me at all. We should be opposing the freedom to say biggotted things, otherwise its just incoherant wooliness

Who is deciding the definition of bigotry? There have actually been a case in Sweden where the conservative youth union have tried to get all socialist agitation banned as "hate speech" (on the basis that it is hate speech against the bourgeoisie).

[scarletghoul]

"ohh but everything is a matter of opinion, everyone should be able to say what they like, who can judge if its right or wrong ?"
The definition of bigotry is obviously reactionary nobs, racists, the kind of views expressed on that bbc thing , etc etc. There's not a huge debate on whether those views are good or bad : most people can see that they suck and are harmful. That views like that constitute bigotry is a matter of fact, not opinion

[Dimentio]

"ohh but everything is a matter of opinion, everyone should be able to say what they like, who can judge if its right or wrong ?"
The definition of bigotry is obviously reactionary nobs, racists, the kind of views expressed on that bbc thing , etc etc. There's not a huge debate on whether those views are good or bad : most people can see that they suck and are harmful. That views like that constitute bigotry is a matter of fact, not opinion

Yes. The main problem is that the state doesn't necessarily agree with that definition. I agree that hate speech laws are necessary, but they are at the same time problematic because they give the bourgeois state the power to silence its opponents too.

[scarletghoul]

Yes that's true, if you're talking about censorship in a bourgeois state. I was thinking of censorship under proletarian rule. Bourgeois state censorship is more complicated yeah, and the left should be very careful and strategic about it.

But what h0m0revolutionary said, the general statement "I'm all for freedom to say bigoted things", is I think stupid and liberal. Fair enough if he had said "I don't think the bourgeois state should be censoring speech", but his statement was more about personal right

[Pogue]

Hm, BBC, I'll have to think about this one for a bit. There seems to be a valid case on bo...

wait

wut?

[Dimentio]

Yes that's true, if you're talking about censorship in a bourgeois state. I was thinking of censorship under proletarian rule. Bourgeois state censorship is more complicated yeah, and the left should be very careful and strategic about it.

But what h0m0revolutionary said, the general statement "I'm all for freedom to say bigoted things", is I think stupid and liberal. Fair enough if he had said "I don't think the bourgeois state should be censoring speech", but his statement was more about personal right

I think the main issue should be what constitutes "bigoted speech". For example, if one claims that gays, muslims or other groups should be killed or discriminated, that is bigoted and should be punished.

But if we way that Scarletghoul becomes general secretary after a glorious worker's revolution, and that I go to a pub and drink myself drunk. If I say that I think Glorious Leader Scarletghoul is a big fat donkey, should I be punished then?

[scarletghoul]

I'd like to think that future workers' states will have room for debate and criticisms of individuals, and a generally more bottom-up way of functioning where obvious common reasoning decides things rather than the views of a leader.

Besides, you would never say such a thing because The People love Super-Commissar Scarletghoul so this is a non issue.

[Dimentio]

I'd like to think that future workers' states will have room for debate and criticisms of individuals, and a generally more bottom-up way of functioning where obvious common reasoning decides things rather than the views of a leader.

Besides, you would never say such a thing because The People love Super-Commissar Scarletghoul so this is a non issue.

Yes. But I think that marxist-leninist parties would have to create some sort of checks and balances in the worker's states to prevent the corruption of goals.

[IrishWorker]

Maybe by me making a point of this in a way is discrimination but the IRSM is the first Republican/Left movement in Ireland to have a Transgender in its ranks.

[bcbm]

Maybe by me making a point of this in a way is discrimination but the IRSM is the first Republican/Left movement in Ireland to have a Transgender in its ranks.

what does that have to do with uganda or gay folks?

and yes, i think it is a bit problematic to brag about something like that. seems tokenizing.

[IrishWorker]

what does that have to do with uganda or gay folks?

and yes, i think it is a bit problematic to brag about something like that. seems tokenizing.

A random fact thrown in for the sake of it, we are the good guys look at us were great and all that.
We are all guilty of a bit of that lad.

[AK]

Should homophobes face execution?

Gay Guy, ukPersonally I love this comment on the poll.

[bricolage]

There was also the issue on that debate that when people weren't being homophobic ("lets have the same thing in britain"), they were often resorting to quite racist language, describing Ugandans as 'primitive', barbaric' or 'backwards. It's important to ensure criticism of acts such as this don't descend into colonialist and orientalist discourse and remain focused on the issue at hand.

[Robocommie]

If you support the freedom to say biggotted things, why complain when these things are said? It doesn't make sense. It's good to complain about things like this, but to do so and also support the right of people to say such things doesn't make sense to me at all. We should be opposing the freedom to say biggotted things, otherwise its just incoherant wooliness

That's a little extreme man, you can oppose a thing without banning a thing. I mean, a lot of people around here will occasionally say fucked up things but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. Sooner or later the people passing the laws that ban speech are going to dislike the things YOU have to say.

It's better to legally allow it and then use our own protected speech to explain why they're dumb.

[The Ben G]

Short awnser: NO

Long awnser: Government should not be able to decide who lives and dies. Especially because of what somebodies sexuality, race, religion, or skin tone is. If there was no government, this would not be a problem.

[The Red Next Door]

What kind of fucking stupid question is that?

[Il Medico]

What kind of fucking stupid question is that?
One from the BBC.

[The Red Next Door]

One from the BBC.
I know it from the BIBC broadcasting idiot British corporation.

[Jazzratt]

BBC HYS is a shithole. It's full of people posting either from "Once Great Britain" or from one of the ex-pat enclaves in spain complaining about how britain has gone to the dogs because of homosexuals and immigrants.I've not read the debate because HYS discussions generally disgust me even when the questions asked aren't as disgustingly slanted to invite comments from homophobic lackwit fucks but it wouldn't surprise me to see the comments divided into one of these categories:



The really nasty motherfuckers, the ones that probably account for the vast majority of moderated/deleted comments though not the actual ones, that condone the death penalty and talk about how we need to go in a similar (or the same) direction over here.
Utter bellends who think it's probably a little harsh to kill them but still think homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal or at least heavily condemned. Probably the bulk of it if I know Have Your Sayers.
Complete twats who might share the views of the people above generally but never waste an oppurtunity to have a go at "wog countries". These are the kind of people that would argue passionately for things like section 28 but have, for the sake of attacking countries ruled by black people, magically transformed into crusaders for gay rights. This is quite a small group but not as small as:
Normal people. They generally don't mind homosexuals, think that what the Ugandan government is doing is a complete fucking affront to humanity and it should be whoever came up with this shit that finds themselves on the end of a rope. this group will be depressingly small but is also going to represent the views of the majority.

People who comment on the site are overwhelmingly fuckwits, as I mentioned before, but they really don't speak for anyone but themselves.

The question, of course, was worded to goad the kind of dickhead that posts on HYS to comment and I think that whichever divot came up with it should get a bollocking. I don't think though you can take it as a representation of aunty sliding to the right or pandering to reactionaries: for that try the disgraceful coverage of the BA worker's strikes.