No, the BBC were right not to sugarcoat the issue of homosexuality in Africa

As the court in Malawi approves prosecution of engaged gay couple today and aid donors continue to condemn their imprisonment as well as the fact that homosexuality remains a crime in Malawi, the debate arises again about homosexuality in Africa.


The National Union of Journalists magazine this month commented that Peter Horrocks, the BBC's head of global news, had apologised for the corporation's approach to the debate on proposed anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda.


The debate ran under the title, 'Should homosexuals face execution?' Which they later changed to 'Should Uganda debate homosexuality?'


The debate came about because the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was being debated that week by the Ugandan Parliament, which if agreed on would see some homosexual offences punishable by death. The original title was used by the BBC to “reflect the hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa.”


Although the question was condemned for being too stark and offending, the issue of how African governments deal with the issue of homosexuality is one that needs to be discussed openly and honestly, not sugar-coated for those who can't handle the brutal reality.


The religious foundations many of the countries in Africa base their values and rules on is seriously affecting the freedom and democracy of citizens who are homosexuals. However disturbing and conflicting the question, 'Should homosexuals face execution,' is in our society, this is what the African communities regard as an acceptable punishment for a crime against God. The BBC World Service reaches out to audiences all over Africa and this question, for them, is a very topical debate which they are restricted from discussing in their own country. 


It is essential we don't enter a discussion like this with the rational that the 'white man' knows best - otherwise this would be patronising to a continent that is trying to escape their reliance on the West. The discussion by the World Service meant that gays and lesbians from Uganda could openly discuss the implications the legislation has on their lives and this is the bottom line - the debate provided an opportunity for different opinions; the title of the discussion really is irrelevant in comparison to this.