Did you read this report concerning the decision by the Malawi President to pardon the gay couple who had been sentenced to 14 year in prison for their flouting of Malawi law? Helpfully, the BBC makes the point that intolerance of homosexual behaviour is a legacy of the evil Colonial times when..gasp..British values prevailed in law. So, even though Malawi has been independent for almost 50 years, it is still our fault that homosexual behaviour is not celebrated in the dark continent.
OUR COLONIAL SHAME…
Bookmark the permalink.
There was a really funny interview on World Service last night. A Nigerian bloke has made a version of HMS Victory as a ship in a bottle for the fourth plinth in Trafalga Square. He explained he wanted to celebrate the positive legacy of the British Empire. Beeboid almost choked and interview came to an abrupt end.
Be they Christian or Muslim, religious people seem to have a problem with homosexuality. So if Malawi weren’t christian it would have been muslim.
David Vance, I think you make many valid comments about the BBC however as someone who has stated that you too believe in an invisible man in the sky I wonder if this affects your attitude towards homosexuality.
I hope you accept that people are born gay and do not simply choose their sexuality.
Oh and by the way you loose credibility for lots of good work with your continued denial of the links between CO2 emmissions and global warming.
You don’t see any difference today between the way countries that are predominantly Christian (such as the United States) legally treat homosexuals; and the way Muslim countries (like Iran) legally treat homosexuals?
Interesting.
Oh and by there way, even accepting your “definitions” for the sake of argument, there is NO link between “manmade” carbon dioxide and so-called “global warming”.
It’s bloody chilly for the end of May, if I go and rev the Range Rover will it warm up. The problem is not BBC reproting on the alarmist lies, it the the fact that they propagandise for it and supress real debate.
Personally 1) I have no problem with homosexuality or homosexuals (in spite of the virulence seen sometimes seen on this site – but I feel that people should be free to believe what they wish because I am ‘liberal’) 2) I do not believe in sky gods directing my thoughts, behaviours and dictating my morals. Having said that Christians do not generally celebrate homosexuality because it is explicitly forbidden in the bible (mind you so is keeping milk and steak in the fridge at te same time, and wearing cotton and wool simultaneously is a mortal sin and selling a daughter into slavery if I am short of cash is fine)
What is more to the point why are we not ‘tolerating’ and ‘celebrating’ the cultural differences between 21st centuray puritan britain (liberal puritans are real bast**ds) and African culture which is …….homophobic. Still since when has a bit of irony and illogic ever bothered the BBC
The Bible forbids keeping milk and steak together in the fridge? I’m reading the Bible for the second time now and dont recall ever coming across anything about fridges?
care to explain to the grandstand from your obvious expertise in hebraic and levite law,exactly why the jewish people were not allowed to wear the mixed fabrics?
or are you just jumping on the old excuse-for-a-homo bandwagon by pumping out so-called “devastating arguments”against the bible while not really understanding what it is you are criticising?
you’re not Richard Dawkins by any chance? 😎
ltwf1964
Selling your daughter Exodus 21 7-12
Fabrics Deut 22 9 – 12
I can’t be bothered to dig out the stuff on dietary laws as this is well documented
The point is, if you care to discuss in the grandstand, that the bible is stuffed full of laws and regulations which although apparently issued by Jehova himself (as interpreted by Levites) are now routinely ignored with no apparent ill will from on high. Principal amongst which is Sabbath observance. Why then are laws concerning homosexuality so important? Please enlighten me to ehance my understanding which you appear to doubt.
As libertarian I believe that people should be free to do and believe what they want. This means that people can be homosexual (which is not to my taste I can assure you) if they want and not be hassled because of the laws of some bronze age nomads.
This site is supposed to be about BBC bias, homosexuality is only relevant insofar as the prominance on the BBC of les/gay presenters and a strongly pro les/gay agenda. I am willing to condem that but not a persons’ lifestyle.
Rubbish. Sexuality is a choice. People are NOT born gay anymore than they are born straight, bisexual, paedophiles, necrophiliacs or bestialists
You appear to have no knowledge of heritability However, it is clear that some people, who shall remain nameless, are born stupid.
I presume you are replying to anon? Or should that be a nonk?
There are plenty of atheists who feel a natural revulsion for homosexuality. The overwhelming majority of people do. It’s not something people choose. It’s something they’re born with.
Yeah, it makes sense that it’s our fault. I mean with the way we prosecute homos over here for their faggotry, it’s obvious that Malawi’s laws are purely a colonial remnant. Oh wait…
British popstar and Aids campaigner Sir Elton John wrote an open letter to Mr Mutharika in the UK’s Guardian newspaper pleading for the release of the pair.
Well, he obviously doesn’t give that much of a shit, otherwise he’d’ve written to the letter in a paper people actually read.
And what does an ‘AIDS campaigner’ do exactly? Advocate people suffering from homosexuality to get treatment for their condition? Probably not.
@Mr Angry
Only an absolute cretin could make an association between Christianity, Islam and homosexuality.
I am sure there are a handful of straight vicars left, but the ones I have seen recently seem to have no problem with actively being homosexual, let alone simply condoning it in others.
Perhaps if Mr Angry knows the names of any imams who are homosexual, he could let us know. Meanwhile son, just keep watching gays dangling from cranes in Iran whilst the effete British clergy mince down Pall Mall in defence of Palestine, and by default, Islam.
No surprise that you are a warmist. I have yet to meet an educated one – and by educated I am not talking PHD in philosophy territory, merely the ability to spell “lose” correctly.
How can you expect to be taken seriously on any political matter if you cannot spell a word so manifestly simple it could be mastered by a child yet to overcome the intricacies of shoelace tying?
Mr Angry
I have stated I believe in God. I do not accept your characterisation of me or my view.
‘Our correspondent says there are plenty of people who were not sorry to see the men go to jail, many of whom will be slightly puzzled at the president’s announcement.’
However, it’s more important to get Elton John’s 2p-worth than actually to hear what any ordinary Malawians have to say.
The Beeb may differ in many respects from those Victorian colonialists but it’s certainly just as patronizing.
Oddly enough, the locals seem to think they have their own culture, oustside of Christianity-informed colonial laws.
From the Maravi Post:
He said authorities had deliberately sent them to their villages to “avoid hostility towards them by the public.”
During trial, the public ridiculed the couple, telling them their lifestyle was not in synch with Malawian culture.
File under Anti-American please!
Just caught some rolling filler for 24hr Beeb News.
Turns out that the rednecks of Phoenix are unhappy with illegal immigration from across the border in Mexico and want to pass laws to stop it!
This apparently has drawn protests in Mexico City(surprising eh?) as well as in enlightened places like Washington D.C…a clue to the political aspect to this “progressive humanitarian cause” lay in a red Mexican banner proclaiming “socialisma” or whatever in a quick clip.
Now-tell me Beeb…have you not been saying that there is a problem in places like Ciudad Juarez just by the US border what with drugs and the like?…are the US states to DO something or simply “do a Blunkett “and let `em all in? A stupid question I know…but feel I`d better ask it!
Tell me this too…when it says “United States” does that mean that Arizona( as an independent state) has a democratic reason to do as it sees fit…or simply that Obama can run the show from D.C, much as an E.U might try and do (as successfully as in the case of Bulgarians,Romanians perhaps?).
In short…bleeding heart agonising from miles away and the USA not to do anything…where on earth does Matt Frei etc find these socialists in the USA I wonder?.under the wire I`d imagine..typical BBC slanting against the Americans as ever!
The Leftoid mainstream media in the US is up in arms about this allegedly racist law as well. As the BBC does not do original reporting on the US but follows the lead of their friends at the Washington Post, the HuffingtonPost, and The Nation, BBC reporting is going to parrot those sources.
The BBC is misrepresenting the law becuase they are ignorant and emotionally biased. It’s the same as the federal law, so if the AZ law is racist so is the federal one. If the US Government actually enforced the immigration laws already on the books, the AZ law would be unnecessary. The BBC doesn’t want you to think about that because it has nothing to do with the story they want to tell.
Another part of the story the BBC doesn’t want you to know is that other states are cracking down on illegals as well. But it’s not for the racist reasons the BBC would have you believe. Massachusetts – not a right-wing, gun-loving, bible-thumpin’, redneck state – is looking to stop wasting money giving benefits to illegals.
It’s not about race. Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.
No worries, David. There is huge nationawide support for the new Arizona law. Obama can dig himself deeper and deeper into public disapproval. The more the merrier, the November half-term elections are just 4 months away.
Has anyone heard from the BBC that November could be a massacre of Democrat candidates ? That they could lose control of the Senate – or certainly lose de facto control? Or even that there are risks that the House could fall to those nasty Republicans ?
Have any of the BBC staff reported the plain knowledge that Obama is looking very vulnerable for 2012 ? That commentators even on the Dem side have lost heart (Dana Millbank, Chris Matthews (Obama sends a tingle up my leg” etc ?)
…………….
Why does the BBC need staff in the US. Mostly they re-cycle stiuff from the Washington Post, HuffPo and the NYT. All that content is available online.
If that is really all they do, or 80/90% – why are we forced to pay a couple orf million a year ?
…………….
David Preiser, or I, or several of us, could offer the BBC a US news feed – comprehensive and unbiased – for, say, $100,000 a year. BBC gets better, more instant and unbaised news, we get a few bob for auld lang syne – whats to lose ?
We’ve heard from Mr Grumpy and Mr Angry today.
Who next? Miss Peeved. Ms Cheesed-Off.
Uuurgh. Whaddya want?
Mr Happy-as-Larry, everything the BBC does or says is sublimely perfect.
Meanwhile, one of the 300 plus BBC political proagandists whom British licencepayers are financing at the World Cup in South Africa, has just linked Robben Island to the World Cup again on BBC Radio 5.
There was no BBC reference to the Zuma government’s inabilty to stop the racial murders and violence towards white people in South Africa.
Was that the Trevor Nelson thing, George ?
I didn’t listen, but my listings offer the intriguing information that “Nelson has played records all over the world, but on principle, he has never been to South Africa before”.
“On principle ??????” WTF ?
I can understand that he perhaps wouldn’t have wanted to visit before 1994, say, but what’s objectionable to him in post-apartheid SA for goodness’ sake ? Mandela not black enough for him ? Not enough whites murdered yet ? I’d sincerely like to know, ‘cos this is potentially a bit worrying.
I’m not sure which one it was; I switched of Radio 5 in protest.
There are so many of these BBC anti-apartheid propagandists using the World Cup event as a pretext to air the BBC’s continuing anti-apartheid politics. It’s supposed to be about the WORLD CUP, BBC; not your ZUMA politics.
And there’s much, much more of this BBC political propaganda to come.
E.g.,
BBC propaganda pre-publicity:-
‘Football’s freedom fighters’ (BBC Radio 4, June7.)<!– end of press pack link –>
“Fergal Keane travels to Robben Island to find out how a group of former prisoners used football in the fight against apartheid.”
The BBC has apparently decided to re-form its branch of Anti-Apartheid. Its members are about to undertake their tour of anti-apartheid tourist spots in South Africa, at British licencepayers’ expense.
The World Cup is incidental to the BBC political message.
Charlie Wolf just did BBC paper review. Ugly female beeboid was attacking George Bush when Wolf pointed out that Obama is just as helpless as Bush was. Female beeboid clearly NOT happy with Wolf taking the piss out of Barry (Charlie did the Obama will heal the planet and send back the seas line which was funny).
BBC not happy that Barry is getting attacked on this.
The BBC as a leftist institution cannot conceive that the answer to everything would not be BIG GOVERNMENT.
That’s their default view:
GOVERNMENT can solve anything. So the MORE government we have rammed up our arse, the BETTER our lives will be.
It’s weird. But there you have the basis of everything that is wrong with the BBC.