Politicians and, maybe more influentially, tweeters were infuriated by the very existence of this forum, which invites conversation on a recent proposal in Uganda to allow imprisonment of gays and people who support or protect them, and the death penalty for "serial offenders" and those with HIV.
I think I need to say this first: I'm horrified. Now, as always, I'm depressed as hell that people are treating each other this way. That entire groups of people are being condemned simply for being who they are. I think this proposed law, along with all other wholesale government-sponsored discrimination, is fundamentally, tragically, ten-steps-backward-for-the-human-race wrong. But that's not really the question, is it?
Coverage of the actual situation in Uganda has been eclipsed by coverage of the outrage at the BBC for posting this discussion.
The HuffPost article quoted a politician saying, "We should be condemning it, and the BBC should be condemning it. ... Instead it seems to have thought it appropriate to come up with something that suggests it's a subject for discussion."
I think that's a dangerous attitude. The statement that an issue is "not a subject for discussion" is at the same time a statement that the body raising said issue doesn't deserve to be heard. The Ugandan government, not some nutso backwoods rogue offshoot of the KKK, is proposing this legislation. They run a country. What are we saying when we dismiss offhand an entire culture's earnestly-held belief?
Uganda's ethics minister, James Nsaba Buturo, is quoted in the New York Times saying that homosexuality ''is not natural in Uganda.'' Ethics minister. He didn't get there by completely failing to represent the views of anyone in the country. And he supports--although with the disclaimer that the death sentence part will probably be "reviewed"--a bill whose essential message is "you're not like us, so we're getting rid of you."
But come on. What are we doing, O Great Western World? Gay rights groups are demanding that Uganda be ousted from the Commonwealth for entertaining the idea. The entire Western world is demanding that Uganda's citizenship in the global debate on human rights be revoked. What's the message? You're not like us, so we're getting rid of you.
We're doing this the wrong way. This is not the way to make human rights happen. I know we think our motivation is purer, but we are not setting a good example for how to treat people like people.The beautiful thing about a debate, a real debate, is that it has the power to change minds. Have you ever won an argument just by telling your opponent they were wrong? No. That goes nowhere. Dismissal is not the same as conversion.
So I say bravo, BBC, for acknowledging a debate, however distasteful, that is actually going on. For respecting the people of Uganda enough to treat them like legitimate players in their own fate.For believing in democracy even when it means genuine conflict. For not apologizing for reporting the truth: in the words of BBC's David Stead, the forum "focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake."
Which is what the news should do. It's not there to censor or editorialize. It's just there to report. Even when what's true is not what we want to hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment