BBC disinvited us after we stood by Kate Forbes’s freedom of speech, claims LGB group

[IwantToRetire]

The BBC has been accused of disinviting a gay group from a programme because it refused to attack Kate Forbes, the under-fire Scottish National Party (SNP) leadership hopeful.

The LGB Alliance (LGBA) was approached on Friday by BBC One’s Sunday Morning Live to debate whether “traditional Christian views are incompatible with modern politics” on a studio panel, in the context of Ms Forbes’s views on same-sex marriage.

When a producer canvassed its opinion, the group of lesbian, gay and bisexual people said it “completely reject[ed] her views” but insisted “we have freedom of religion” and that religious beliefs are protected under the 2010 Equality Act.

Shortly after that phone call, the BBC producer sent an email, seen by The Telegraph, saying the programme had “decided to go in a different direction with the debate, and we’ll no longer be requiring Kate [Harris, co-founder of LGBA] on Sunday”.

Instead, the BBC invited Natasha Devon, a bisexual campaigner, who argued Miss Forbes’s views should rule her out from replacing Nicola Sturgeon as Scotland’s next first minister.

More uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-disinvited-us-stood-kate-194201144.html

(Article is from the Telegraph but reproduced by yahoo)

Everyone knows that BBC have certain views and certain other views can’t co exist if it doesn’t fit their doctrine.

The BBC always have to “balance” every single item so it doesn’t surprise me that they’d disinvite anyone who wasn’t up for a fight.

How can someone's religion rule them out from being First minister? That's just such an intolerant and bigoted opinion. I bet they consider themselves progressive as well 🤔

To me this may or may not be a problem.

It's possible that they were looking to get some examples of different viewpoints, or specifically wanted to explore the idea that there was a problem with a religious person being in politics. It's not always good to have guests that just agree. I think that can be fine if it's done properly.

The problem with the BBC, and some other news sources, is they don't do that. You don't hear serious discussion of the other views. Or if you do, they are very stereotyped. So you end up with the general public thinking, for example, that all gay people have pretty much the same opinions on some topics, when that is really very false. And those who disagree are all right wing nutters.

I would just once like someon on a show like this to point out that even non-religious people have all kinds of ideological beliefs, and they really shouldn't have any more, or less, of a free pass to impose them on others than religious people should. Why should a Marxist or humanist viewpoint be seen as somehow neutral, while a Presbyterian one isn't?

I think as has been said, this is not just about whether the BBC is captured, but their thinking to limited and boxed in.

Bev Jackson, co-founder of the LGBA, said the row showed how the BBC “wanted a specific narrative”.

She told The Telegraph: “Producers have the right to make the programme their own, but if you always only present these TQ+ people who are very aggressive and uncompromising, it gives the public a very bad impression of gay people.

“It looks to me as if what they wanted is a gay organisation to come on and join the attack on her and say ‘you can’t have those views’.

“It’s a cynical character assassination because it is now convenient to attack her religion – we totally reject her views on abortion, same-sex marriage and children being born out of wedlock, but we believe in the Equality Act, which protects religion.”

Ms Jackson claimed the LGBA had previously been disinvited from Newsnight too as the charity Stonewall would not appear alongside it.

She also questioned why the BBC continued to ask Peter Tatchell, a trans activist, onto programmes when the LGBA is “not anti-trans people, we simply stand up for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights”.

I now feel more and more that people saying they are alienated from politics are actually saying we are alienated by how politics is covered. If it isn't a presenter constantly interrupting because outrageously a politician has given an answer that doesn't follow the broadcasters fixed view of what should be said, it turns into silly persistent questioning on some issue or anther just because the presenter wants to be the one who got a "gotcha" moment.

Its all just become a silly game.

I really posted because I think it is good that LGB Alliance is prepared to stand by principles.

It isn't that long ago, that Blair was said to have agreed not to talk about being Catholic, but shortly after leaving as PM there was a news story about him joining the Catholic church.

I thought MPs were allowed to abstain on the basis of beliefs, and that on crucial votes them abstaining is meant they are paired with someone from the other side abstaining, or known not to be attending.

I wonder whether a lot of this is the legacy of Paxman. It seems that so many BBC presenters and interviewers want to emulate his style, but just don't understand how to remain neutral at the same time, so they paint themselves into an ideological corner by virtue of their questions, the framing, and their mode of delivery.

They also don't seem to understand that "balance" means a range of perspectives, not just parties that disagree. Pretty much everyone, regardless of what creed, will agree that no one should eat live bats, for example. Balance here would mean getting the perspectives of a range of people, not desperately trying to find the one person in England that thinks we should eat live bats.

Balance here would mean getting the perspectives of a range of people, not desperately trying to find the one person in England that thinks we should eat live bats.

Even people in the media now agree that them doing that during the Brexit campaign gave a false picture.

Having an charity on that represents the LGB is more broad-minded that having on one individual activist who is bisexual.

The BBC in their assumed infinite wisdom chose a specific person to fit the narrative they were peddling rather than invite someone who represents a group of minorities sexualities (plural) on to share an alternative opinion.

It used to be that you would invite someone to speak because they had relevant experience, now you get someone to say what you want them to say, as you can't say it yourself and appear unbiased.

I look at this differently. How can someone represent Scotland - which is my country - to the world, as an open, tolerant, progressive nation when they don't believe gay people are deserving of equality?
And how can Kate Forbes represent gay people in Scotland? A first minister has to represent the country and stand for everyone in it. I don't think she can.

I wonder what Forbes would have said if asked whether she believed in same-sex civil partnership?

For some Christians, marriage has a specific sacremental meaning and which is particularly relevant where a union may result in the making of babies. She may be perfectly happy with CPs.

There were some Lesbian and Gay people who opposed Gay marriage.

This is typical of the BBC. I know several people who have been invited on to a program and then their invitations have been rescinded because their views didn’t agree with what the producer wanted. The British biased corporation apparently knows what it wants and pushes an agenda

Good luck with finding someone that can represent every single person in Scotland.

I doubt Kate Forbes has said that gay people are not deserving of equality. I wouldn’t be allowed to get married in the church that she attends. I’m not religious and I don’t go to that church. I can, however, achieve exactly the same legal protections etc as a marriage in her church would provide, either by marrying in another church, marrying in a registry office, getting a civil partnership at a registry office, getting a solicitor to draw up a bunch of legal agreements between me and my partner (the expensive option and why I went for a £50 marriage instead). At which point do we say that’s equality? Should I be able to demand access to a particular church, or just a church or a council-owned building?

I believe that equal marriage is an important statement of acceptance by society for same-sex couples. I’m glad we have it.

I don’t know Kate Forbes full views on the issue. Not living in Scotland, I’ve not been motivated to find out. If it’s that she’s able to accept that the society around her has chosen a view of equality that doesn’t match her view, then I’d be ok with that. I probably wouldn’t vote for her, but I’d like to hear her out, and if she was my only option to stop the GRR, then that would change my mind.

Has she said anything at all about rolling back same sex marriage?

Or is she allowed to have her opinion while not imposing her beliefs on others by restricting their rights?

Has Humza Yousaf fully supported same sex marriage? He seems to be leveraging it against other candidates. Candidates who have not platformed changing these laws at all. Yet he didn’t even vote if I remember correctly.

Seems hypocritical to me.

And as Dimpsey has said, it isn’t that straight forward as some LGB people still don’t support ‘marriage‘ either. And there are MPs who don’t support same sex marriage but DO support other arrangements to ensure same sex people have support in all other things.

I would be interested to know if it came down to Yousaf and Forbes, who people would vote for.

I agree that this is definitely a thing. BBC balance and non-bias my arse!!

Whenever there is a BBC article about Kier Starmer becoming PM which allows comments I always post the same thing -

I respect Kier and think he is a good man of high principal but while he continues with Self-ID and I will not be voting for him.

My post is respectful and not abusive but not once have the BBC Mods allowed it. The mods have allowed all sorts of random discussion about anti-semitism, Starmer being Tory-lite etc non of which have been relevant to the article. But my comments about Self-ID are not allowed. I have appealed and been told my comments are off topic and divisive (they are not and certainly no more so than many others).

I have heard lots of other people have similar issues with the comments section of the BBC.

It's was quite a surprise to me that the BBC are actually very biased after a lifetime of being told the opposite (by the BBC ).

I take everything they report with a pinch of salt now.

I can find no reason for the difference in the treatment in this issue between Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf other than their sex and the belief of the latter that men can be women if they say so, (unless they are double rapists).

The BBC bias shines through on this one.

I think Kate Forbes is being treated appallingly for daring to be a woman with religious beliefs.

I look at this differently. How can someone represent Scotland - which is my country - to the world, as an open, tolerant, progressive nation when they don't believe gay people are deserving of equality?
And how can Kate Forbes represent gay people in Scotland? A first minister has to represent the country and stand for everyone in it. I don't think she can.

But can you not see that you are being intolerant against religious views here? It's totally discriminatory to say that someone with particular views should be excluded from a job because of them.

You're essentially saying that only one religion, atheism, gets to have access to the top job.

People seem incapable of grasping that being open and tolerant means that people are allowed to not only hold opinions you find objectionable but voice them and vote in a way that you fundamentally disagree with.

It's not tolerant to say there's only one way to think.

You're essentially saying that only one religion, atheism, gets to have access to the top job.

Yes but it's more than that. These atheists follow a new religion. One which many many of the voting public do not believe in and that is genderism with all of the harms that that foists on children and women, and gay people.

So traditional religion =bad even though it is a pc in the Equality Act.
New religion = good even though it directly clashes with parts of the Equality Act.

I don't understand why Humza isn't being grilled over his views on gay marriage as I expect they may be similar to Kate Forbes. I think I know the reasons for this, and they are mostly because in spite of his religious belief he is a also an overt believer of the new religion (except when it comes to double rapists).

You might just as well say how can Kate Forbes represent Unionists in Scotland to the world? How can Mr Sunak represent me when he is a Hindu and I am a Christian, I might say? He obviously has different religious views than me but as long as they don’t impinge on the democratically agreed will of the people then that is how politicians represent us. If we only had people whose personal views represented our personal views democracy would be ended.

”I don't understand why Humza isn't being grilled over his views on gay marriage as I expect they may be similar to Kate Forbes. I think I know the reasons for this, and they are mostly because in spite of his religious belief he is a also an overt believer of the new religion (except when it comes to double rapists).”

I suspect you are right. There does seem to be a disconnect somewhere. That she is not platforming to roll back any protections at all, but is being vilified effectively and yet he may very likely share the same opinions as she does. But is pointing fingers at her and obscuring his own personal opinions on those issues.

And people have allowed him to do this.

It defies belief .

Bloody non issue. They were looking for a group to represent a particular viewpoint. They will be presenting both sides.

It's becoming increasingly clear, that what people mean when they say they want a progressive country, is that they want the protected characteristic relating to LGBTQ++ to override the boring old protected characteristics of sex and religion.

And when we're talking about LGB, it's not the boring old same sex attracted type but the blue haired homophobic Q type that want lesbians to accept ladydick.

A lot of what the BBC do with this sort of thing may not be ‘real’ in that it is not true, exploratory discussion. They know in advance what they want and cut out what doesn’t fit.

I wonder about this about an organization being more representative.

In some cases, maybe. But I thought that the comment by the LGB alliance that they didn't agree with Forbes's views on marriage, abortion, etc, was interesting from that perspective. Because I know gay people who have a variety - as in more than two, different viewpoints on marriage. I know some gay people who are deeply pro-life about abortion, and in that case I am not sure what the connection to their sexuality is supposed to be. Why would the LGB Alliance as an organization have an opinion on that at all?

If they are representing the organizations views as somehow reflecting the views of the group they are attached to, it seems like they would have to be very limited in the stances they take.

But I thought that the comment by the LGB alliance that they didn't agree with Forbes's views on marriage, abortion, etc, was interesting from that perspective.

I dont know for a fact but as an organisation they would obviously comment of someone saying they didn't believe in same sex marriages, not because the organisation has a postion on it, but knowing that it is effectively someone saying gay men and lesbians shouldn't be treated the same as heterosexuals.

Their point is about free speech. Not only for prospective First Ministers but for the range of views within the membership of LGB Alliance.

Just a shame that the BBC doesn't believe in it, but only promotes one dimensional stereotypes that have helped foster an antagonistic and divisive approach to just about every topic.

That is the BBC though. I think they foster division and aren’t interested in diversity. Diversity to them is good ole white men in frocks not listening to men or letting them speak.