Bbc Free Speech Audience Banned From Debating Lgbt Issues In A Mosque.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2580999/Britains-Muslim-drag-queen-banned-discussing-homosexuality-BBC-Free-Speech-debate-mosque.html

Why did the BBC deem it necessary to film this 'non-debate' in a Mosque, then to find it necessary to conduct a 'free-speech' debate in another venue at a later date?

[sp1814]

Stupid decision compounded by another stupid decision. It goes against the whole purpose of the idea of free speech.

[ChillDoubt]

Never thought I'd read the words 'free speech' and 'mosque' in the same sentence.
Free speech? In a mosque? Contradiction in terms springs to mind!

[ToraToraTora]

frankly I'm amazwd they haven't bumped him off!

[LazyGun]

Not sure quite what you mean when you say it is a "non-debate"?

[naomi24]

I can't understand why the BBC thought free speech was an option in a mosque. They should have chosen a different venue to begin with.

[Gromit]

1. This was not the BBC, it was an independent production company.
2. It was stupid to book a venue that does not allow free speech to talk about free speech.
3. They knew what the clip contained, so it was stupid to show it and then not allow a debate.
4. Birminghan Central Mosque should repay the venue hire fee.
5. The BBC and its affiliates should not book this venue again.
6. When this is debated in a later programme, it would be amusing to deny the mosque their opportunity to condemn homosexuality.

[anotheoldgit]

LazyGun

/// Not sure quite what you mean when you say it is a "non-debate"? ///

Because they wont allow a debate to take place, therefore it becomes a 'non-debate' as simple as that.

[LazyGun]

@AoG OK. But it seems to me that we should be challenging such institutions and religion and beliefs that attempt to impose control over what others can say or do or believe, don't you?

[anotheoldgit]

LazyGun

Very wise words, couldn't agree with you more.

[jomifl]

LG, people can say what they like just as long as it doesn't offend anybody, is that quite clear? no it isn't is it?

[anotheoldgit]

jomifl

/// people can say what they like just as long as it doesn't offend anybody, ///

Then one is forced to say it out of hearing range of anyone else, because no matter what one says there is always someone who will take offence, just take this site for example.

[LazyGun]

You still seem confused, AoG. No society anywhere offers the completely untrammeled right of free speech. What you say to other people, what you say in public will have consequences, hence some things are proscribed by law and by cultural convention and by being polite and considerate of others.

Only the most bigoted individual seems to think it is their right to say whatever the hell they want to whoever they want without any regard as to the effect of that speech.

What I want to challenge is this notion held by some -mostly religious- institutions or individuals that their ideas or beliefs are closed to challenge, and that they can extend their proscriptions to non-believers. In a secular society this is just not acceptable.

[anotheoldgit]

LazyGun

/// You still seem confused, AoG. ///

Since your answer to what I put ("Very wise words, couldn't agree with you more") accuses me of seemingly still being confused, I can only assume that I am confusingly agreeing with you.

Unless of course it is yourself who is being confusing all along?

[emmie]

i was wondering that as well, why put it in a mosque, they are not exactly places of jollity.

[LazyGun]

"Then one is forced to say it out of hearing range of anyone else, because no matter what one says there is always someone who will take offence, just take this site for example"

This sentiment of yours is why I think you remain confused, AoG.

[mushroom25]

from BBC news website:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26576673
"A statement from BBC Three's Free Speech, issued on Friday, said: "The mosque received threats which gave us cause for concern to the security of their community."

so it's a case of religious nut-jobs threatening to throw things that wins out over free speech, perhaps?

[jno]

it's a case of religious nut-jobs threatening to throw things that wins out over free speech

Sensible decision, then; it's not the BBC's job to broadcast things that put anyone's life or property at risk. Other broadcasters might like to take the risk, but the BBC always attracts more public fury whatever it does.

If the debate had gone ahead and there'd been a riot the BBC would have been criticised for that too. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[sp1814]

For anyone who wants to read the full story, please check this link.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/14/bbc3-free-speech-debate-gay-muslim

The story from the link provided in the OP doesn't include a very key fact.