In its coverage of the birth of a surrogate son to Sir Elton John and his civil partner David Furnish on Christmas Day, the BBC had Stephen Green, of right-wing group Christian Voice, as the sole commentator in a news report that was repeated on a number of occasions on BBC’s flagship News at Six on BBC One on the evening of Dec 28, 2010.
"This isn't just a designer baby for Sir Elton John, this is a designer accessory," said Green in the interview. He is the national director of the organisation which says on its website that their members “have had enough of secularist politicians imposing wickedness on the rest of us (Christians)."
"Now it seems like money can buy him anything, and so he has entered into this peculiar arrangement. A baby needs a mother and it seems an act of pure selfishness to deprive a baby of a mother," he added.
The UK gay news website Pink News, which slammed BBC’s choice of interviewee in an editorial published last week, called for viewers to take co-ordinated action against the corporation as a way of making their voices heard on this issue. It asked: “Would they ask a member of the Ku Klux Klan to comment on the birth of a surrogate child to a mixed raced couple?”
The website further noted that Green has also publicly supported the death penalty for gay men. In 2009, Green supported a proposed death penalty for gay men in Uganda saying: “The contrast between our politicians and those of Uganda could not be more stark. A Parliamentarian in Uganda is trying to protect his nation’s children. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom is trying to corrupt ours. Which country is the more civilised, I wonder, in the eyes of Almighty God?”
Last year, Green criticised Gareth Thomas, the former Welsh rugby captain for becoming patron of LGBT History Month, saying: “Gareth Thomas is urging such children to identify themselves as homosexual, and to inhibit their normal development into heterosexuality. That is a wicked thing to do to impressionable young people. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke about millstones being tied around the necks of those who lead children astray.”
Pink News last week urged readers to send complaints to BBC and Ofcom, UK’s communications regulator and suggested refusing to pay the television licence fee although it also noted that it a legal requirement to do so.
"No other group of people is subjected to the same level of insult by the BBC as the LGBT community."
The report says between 3.5 to five million LGBT people in Britain own a television set and all of whom are forced to purchase a television licence fee in order to fund the BBC regardless of whether they watch any BBC programmes.
“This monopoly over an effective tax on television consumption means that the BBC has a greater duty than most to accurately reflect the nation.”
In December last year, as news of Uganda’s proposed anti-gay bill made world headlines, the BBC’s decision to ask its readers “Should homosexuals faced execution?” similarly attracted controversy. The question was later changed to: “Should Uganda debate gay execution?”
When contacted by Pink News, the BBC defended its choice of interviewee: “The practice of surrogacy is a sensitive subject and remains controversial in some quarters. Our short news bulletin featured Elton John talking about wanting to have a child and an opposing viewpoint. All sides of the debate on surrogacy have been widely reported in the news media and our coverage has reflected this.”
Pink News however also points out that the sound-bite used of Sir Elton significantly pre-dated the announcement of his surrogate child and that a BBC source said the corporation did attempt to reach the star for a new interview.
In an update posted on Dec 30, Pink News said: “The BBC has effectively admitted interviewing a known homophobic extremist in order to ‘reflect’ what they perceive is a genuine debate over gay couples having surrogate children. The corporation makes no apology for the choice of interviewee. PinkNews.co.uk believes that the BBC were unable to find anyone else willing to give an interview on camera in opposition to Sir Elton’s decision to have a child.”
“There are no ‘two sides’ to the issue of LGBT rights”: Dan Savage
In a November 2010 television interview, Dan Savage, an openly gay syndicated relationship and sex columnist who kickstarted the It Gets Better project said: “There are no ‘two sides’ to the issue of LGBT rights. Right now one side is really using dehumanising rhetoric. The Southern Poverty Law Center labels these groups as hate groups and yet the leaders of these groups, people like Tony Perkins, are welcomed onto networks like CNN to espouse hate directed at gays and lesbians. And similarly hateful people who are targeting Jews or people of color or anyone else would not be welcome to spew their bile on CNN.”
He was being interviewed in a story about the new hate crime statistics and the fact that gays are the most likely to be targeted in hate crimes of any minority.
Reader's Comments
Not all the gay people want children, but those who do and are capable of being most caring and loving parents are heavily discriminated.
But yeah seems like would be better to adopt an orphan or even foster some childern in need of care and protection.
Why make things more difficult than they need to be?
Hell does.
It worked out well for all of us.
But what people do is their own business or affair.
My core Buddism is kicking in now......................
It worked out well for all of us.
But what people do is their own business or affair.
My core Buddism is kicking in now......................
Quick, somebody get me a horse - I'm orf to tell all those Single Fathers and Widowers and other Males who're raising wee bairns by themselves how Wicked they're all being! Gentlemen! Get thee a Wife, forthwit! For thy shalt not dare to raise children without a mother in the home without offending thy neighbour who art of the Christian fundamentalist variety!
So, giddyap, Daisy! Hya! Mush! Schnell! Are you SURE I'm supposed to face the Tail end on this thing? And why does this horse have udders?
[Exits, clip-cloppingly.]
Furthermore, why is this even a story? It would seem to be that if Mr. Elton John and his boyfriend wish to have a baby, by whatever means, it is and ought to be a private issue between the parties involved.
1. wasn't the birth a story of fact and not a matter of opinion? either the child is born or it isn't! The only balance to "fact" is "fiction".
2. wasn't jesus himself a surrogate implanted into a virgin and delivered as the son of God?
Homophobes are full of hypocrisy. There are so many holes in their arguments.
UK is still a backward country like ALL muslim countries in term of human rights (FCUK BBC). I am not going to watch BBC anymore. USA is getting better but still far to go until The Supreme Court of US declares gay marriage is legal. Then Gay and straight no longer an issue in all aspect of life like CANADA.
Stephen Green, Fuck you babe. Your Christian view has nothing to do with Elton and his partner. Do not impose your religion into other people's private life. What is the different between Muslim and Christian when u are forcing someone to accept your religion belief? Religion and Sex are private matter, keep it to yourself, Don't fuck in the public. Respect others' rights who are not Christian.
"Thank you for your feedback regarding the BBC News bulletin at 18:20, broadcast on 28 December 2010.
We appreciate some viewers were unhappy that a report on Sir Elton John recently becoming a surrogate father included the views of Mr Stephen Green.
We recognise this issue can arouse a diverse range of contrasting opinions. This brief report featured Sir Elton John's thoughts and an opposing view on the matter at hand. It must be stressed that over time we have heard from all sides of this debate, dealing the subject in a fair and impartial manner.
We acknowledge the strength of sentiment on this matter, thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
BBC Audience Services"
Which I interpret to mean that they really don't take my complaint or the fact that it offended me- and other LGBT people- very seriously at all.
Motherfuckers.
These people are extremists and to give them a platform to air their heinous views as giving them legitimacy...something that a responsible news agency should never do.
If a law is put up in America banning discrimination against black people would CNN interview the klu klux klan to get a "spread of opinion?'
If a jewish synagogue is to be opened in berlin does the BBC go and interview a member of the german nazi party to get an opinion?
If there is pending legislation to lower the age of consent, does the BBC interview a pedophile???
You get my point? These news agencies have no principles.
Dear #30 and 29. One main issue here is as follow:
UK and USA do not recognize gay marriage, therefore it is hard to use laws to keep them from getting anti-gay ppls who promote hatred to gay ppl. Unlike this could happen in Canada because the laws here simply do not allow having a discrimative subject for public discussion and moreover Canada laws do recognize gay and straight ppl are the same. No issue to discuss allowed in public.
To stop CNN, BBC and any media to have such a fucking discussion, the ultimate way is to use court to stop their mouths. I believe changes are high to win the battle in the courts. Freedom of speech to create confusing, hatred and causing harm are no room in any civilize society.
#30. U r right. News agencies have no principles because what they want is $$$. I'm lucky being Canadian. No fucking such a gay discussion in Canada. Dear Americans and Britishes, please use your cocks to keep fucking them all the way to the courts' toilets. lol Never give up.
Please log in to use this feature.