Kilroy-Silk and racism

"I hope this post is read in the manner it was posted"

With equal parts hatred, fear and stupidity?

Well,

So i presume guys consider me beyond the pale.

I do not cosider myself prejudiced or racist.

I was born in nairobi and lived in Hong Kong for 20 years .

So i have lived in countries where i was the racial and religious minority but found little if any prejudice.

I was brought up to treat others as i would have them treat me.

Which is with respect and dignity.

So i am surprised by the strength of your replies to my post.

I did not intend to cause offence but tried to highlight the prejudice of the groups who were most vocal regarding the article in the news paper.

The outrage expressed by them i felt was totally inappropriate to the content of the article. Which had been previously published and at that time caused no offence.

I have a relative who lives in the UAE and he ensures that he does not cause offence to the majority population by his daily conduct there.

regards David

quote:

---

Originally posted by DAVOhorn:

I hope this post is read in the manner it was posted.

regards David

---

Yep. Loud and clear.

Cheers

Harry

David,
I think the strength of the response to your post was partly to do with the facts that your arguments were rather difficult to follow and that there was no explanatory linking material between the different topics explored, which in the context of what you wrote makes it difficult not to assume the worst when mentally filling in the gaps.

For example, you seem to be suggesting that Kilroy's article was not offensive because it failed to cause uproar the first time it was published. But it is far from obvious that the former follows from the latter: one usually judges the offensiveness or othwerise of an article by its content rather than by how much protest it generates.

You emphasise that Kilroy was talking about Arabs, as if it were somehow less offensive to make such generalisations about Arabs than Muslims. If anything the reverse appears to be the case, since people can choose their religion but not (generally) their race.

Further, on the grounds that the Muslim Council is a religious organisation rather than a religious one, you criticise it for protesting about Kilroy's article. Again, it is rather hard to see the logic behind this: Why should a religious (or any other) organisation not protest against alleged racism (or any other form of bigotry)?

You then point out the apparent inconsistencies in the approaches of both the Muslim Council and the CRE. Unfortunately, the relevance of this to the your chosen topic, Kilroy and racism, appears to be minimal. Besides which, a failure to criticise offensive behaviour in other cases cannot invalidate the criticism of offensive behaviour in this case - this inconsistency is another issue entirely.

Later, you ask why Muslims who find life in the UK objectionable do not live in a Muslim country. While this would an interesting question (if slightly reworded) it has nothing whatsoever to do with Kilroy or racism. It's apparent intent becomes clearer when read in conjunction with the next paragraph "I presume they seek Asylum here as we are generally a tolerant society and allow people to live how they chose as long as it is within the law" thus conflating the issue of asylum seekers with that of those Muslims who are opposed to to the fundamental values of this society.

I am sure you did not intend it this way but this conflation strikes me as shorthand for an appeal to the visceral, unthinking reactions that the words "Muslim" and "asylum seekers" provoke in some people. What you actually meant remains unclear to me.

I think this goes some way towards explaining the response to your post.

---

Incidentally, one of my many criticisms of the CRE is its use of the politically correct term "racial tolerance". Even John Major was smart enough to know that the term is intrinsically offensive, if not racist, containing as it does the implicit assumption that contact with people of other races is something unpleasnat that needs to be tolerated or endured.

[This message was edited by JeremyD on SUNDAY 11 January 2004 at 03:00.]

Kilroy-Silk had the the courage (or stupidity?) to voice an opinion that many of us think silently but dare not voice.

Amputations and suppression of women (terrorism - I'm not even going to go there) are very politically incorrect until they happen to be the norms and practices of another race or religion. Then it's politically incorrect to question such practices.

Perhaps the BBC is distancing itself from Kilroy-Silk and the implications of what he has said for fear of a terrorist attack.

Bugger! I said I wouldn't go there...

quote:

---

You emphasise that Kilroy was talking about Arabs, as if it were somehow less offensive to make such generalisations about Arabs than Muslims. If anything the reverse appears to be the case, since people can choose their religion but not (generally) their race.

---

I think it would have been much more inflammatory had he said "Muslims" instead of "Arabs."

Blasphemy can have much farther reaching ramifications than racism, and I think we agree that only certain types of racism are met with venom by the CRE. Also, by citing Arabs and not Muslims he is able to pinpoint one particular part of the world that is extremely troubled. After all, it is the Arab world that apparently threatens world peace and not the Muslim world - the two may overlap but they are by no means one and the same. Moreover, there are many Muslim states that do not practise the barbarism and suppression of women of certain Arab states

quote:

---

I presume they seek Asylum here as we are generally a tolerant society and allow people to live how they chose as long as it is within the law.

---

My translation of this is as follows:

They (quite reasonably) expect us not only to tolerate but to also respect their religion - I have no problem with that.

However, they don't reciprocate by extending the same level of tolerance and respect to those who may criticise how their ilk may choose to live intolerantly and with barbarism beyond the shores of this tolerant and respectful nation.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 11 January 2004 at 06:05.]

What have they given the world?
Just off the top of my head, algebra, mocha coffee, pizza and, I think, alcohol.
Anything else?

Tony

Arab Jews ???

Arye

While the BBC may be distancing itself from the article by dropping Kilroy Silk's program. It did not hold back on announcing the controversial statements at every news break, and sometimes several times during the news programs thus ensuring that the people who do not read the newspaper in question will be fully aware of the message.

Derek

<< >>

Chaps

My view is that Kilroy-Silk's comments are undoubtably rascist. They are inflamatory and are bound to cause trouble. I suspect he thought it would be fodder for any future programme.

If he works for an organisation such as the BBC, then he has to expect them to protect their image and the suspension of his programme is a matter between him and them.

Having said all that, I think the CRE's intervention is also unhelpful and referring the matter to the Police is way over the top.

Kilroy's punishment will be that he will soon realise that his views are detestable and the public just don't want to hear them. He has made himself look a buffoon.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Kilroy-Silk had the the courage (or stupidity?) to voice an opinion that many of us think silently but dare not voice.

---

A dangerous assumption that no one individual is qualified to make.

One more item to add to Tony's list. Christianity. Another esoteric eastern relegion, now 'owned' by the West but imported from a long way away.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by HTK:
One more item to add to Tony's list. Christianity. Another esoteric eastern relegion, now 'owned' by the West but imported from a long way away.

---

Unfortunataly his question was "what DO they contribute" not "what HAVE they contributed".
Why is it that people on here are more interested in censorship than freedom of expression? It seems nobody on this forum other than Jeremy has managed to offer any more of a rebuttal than "you're a racist, nyah nyah nyah." Great way to kill off a any meaningful debate and, as a consequence, entrench people's views even more. If you're all so upset by them and convinced that they're wrong, why not point out just why that is? That way those who agree with Kilroy-Silk may just learn the error of their ways.

I agree with Ross who summed it up very nicely. There's not much more to be said really.

A lot of the mealy-mouthed defence of Kilroy seems to come down to "Have we become so PC that we no longer allow someone to be racist?"

Matthew

PS This issue is also being discussed at the Femail (which is the militant fishwife wing of right wing hate rag the Daily Mail for those who don't know) mesage board as you can read here. The similarity of views expressed make me wonder if DAVOhorn and Steven Toy are in fact middle-aged, sexually repressed housewives from Surrey sent temporarily insane by the ravages of HRT.

quote:

---

This is overtly racist drivel that should never have been published in a major newspaper (or any newspaper) and I seriously question the motives of anyone who would defend these obscene views.

---

quote:

---

I agree with Ross who summed it up very nicely. There's not much more to be said really.

---

like I said, "you're a racist! Nyah, nyah, nyah!" Who will be the first to provide a valid argument for why Kilroy-Silk is wrong? Certainly not one of the news agencies has said anything other than the above...

John said "If you're all so upset by them and convinced that they're wrong, why not point out just why that is?"

Becuase we have had similar disucssion with DAVOhorn and Toy before and it seems ultimately futile. DAVOhorn usually just says "I'm not a racist I was born in Nairobi" and Steven just does his odd "It's PC gone mad" stuff.

Besides Kilroy basically said being Arab makes you a worthless scumbag terrorist woman oppressing torturer. And if you cannot see that is self-wrong and in need of condeming then there's not much left ot say surely?

Matthew

"Who will be the first to provide a valid argument for why Kilroy-Silk is wrong?"

To suggest that Arabs are all suicide bombers (etc.) and collectively responsible for 9/11 is not only racist, its incorrect. It's incorrect becuase, well, becuase they aren't.

Is that ok?

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
"Who will be the first to provide a valid argument for why Kilroy-Silk is wrong?"

To suggest that Arabs are all suicide bombers (etc.) and collectively responsible for 9/11 is not only racist, its incorrect. It's incorrect becuase, well, becuase they aren't.

Is that ok?

Matthew

---

Ahh, now that's better. Now how do we address the niggling problem that their don't seem to be too many complaints about those who do decide to blow themselves up?

So your idea of "meanginful debate" is to change the subject completely?

Like I said -- I agree with Ross. Kilroy-silk wrote a gratuitously offensive racist newspaper article. He has every right to do that but was quite rightly condemed for it and his employer chose to take action against him. Some people have defended his remarks which is (at best) defending the indefensible.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Amputations and suppression of women (terrorism - I'm not even going to go there) are very politically incorrect until they happen to be the norms and practices of another race or religion. Then it's politically incorrect to question such practices.

---

Steve, I am not sure that you realise what you have said.

First, you seem to be saying that to oppose racism is to support amputations, suppression of women and terrorism. I sincerely doubt that anyone who has contributed to this thread is anything but disgusted by amputation, the suppression of women and terrorism.

Secondly, you refer to the "norms and practices of another race". This is the whole point about racism: races don't have norms and practices*. To suggest that they do is deeply political correct, being akin to the arguments of those who introduced the (now abolished) practice of not allowing "white" families to adopt black children on the grounds that they would be deprived of an opportunity to learn about their "own" culture.

*I think much of the problem is related to the fact that while race is usually defined in a useful way, ethnicity tends not to be. Hence the absurd CRE-inspired ethnic monitoring form that I have come across on job application forms, asking me to state (I seem to remember) what ethnic group I consider myself to belong to. I could only answer this question honestly by saying mainstream British society [albeit an anachronistic version of it] but what is relevant for the purposes of monitoring descrimination is not my own description of my ethnicity but other people's perception of my race.

[This message was edited by JeremyD on SUNDAY 11 January 2004 at 12:45.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
Steve, I am not sure that you realise what you have said.
First, you seem to be saying that to oppose racism is to support amputations, suppression of women and terrorism. I sincerely doubt that anyone who has contributed to this thread is anything but disgusted by amputation, the suppression of women and terrorism.

---

I didn't immediately read it that way but your interpretation seems valid. This is madness - how can you possibly hope to have a meaningful discussion? Another pointless thread where he who shouts loudest assumes some sort of moral/intellectual highground. Where's the bucket?

quote:

---

So your idea of "meanginful debate" is to change the subject completely?

---

Matthew, I'm not changing the subject at all, just expanding on one of the points raised. Just saying it's a "gratuitously offensive racist" article is not going to change the mind of anyone who agrees with it - only education can possibly do that. Let me put it this way to hopefully explain better what I'm getting at. If a child came up to you and said "2+2 = 5" would you say "that's a gratuitously stupid comment" or perhaps explain what the correct answer is and why?
Something I've been wondering is this: are statements like "poms are a bunch of whingers", "yanks are all loudmouths", "australians are all chauvinists" etc racist or just uninformed generalisations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
John, this is not "2+2=5". It is "all Arabs are terrorists" and "all Arabs are worthless". Apart from being factually incorrect, I don't believe much "meaningful debate" is required to establish that these are stupid, offensive views.

I also don't believe that these views should be given any legitimacy by suggesting that they require reasoned rebuttal or that they have any entitlement to be published.

Ross

---

Ross, in your utopian world that may be correct but unfortunately I think you'll find that a large percentage of the population believes what has been published is 100% true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
Yes, and that's exactly why it shouldn't be published in the first place.

---

Fair enough but not publishing such articles won't do anything to stop people holding those views - and it certainly won't start any sort of reasoned discussion on the subject. At least by publishing controversial views they are out in the open and it can then be shown how flawed they may or may not be.
The same lack of debate tends to happen with immigration. As soon as someone suggests that either there's too much or we should cut back they're shouted down as being racist/selfish/ignorant - pretty much anything other than the person doing the shouting believes why immigration is a good thing. This really is not a very good way to educate people.

I believe that Kilroy-Silk claims that his reprinted article has been slightly edited by the Express and 'Arab Country' replaced by 'Arab'.

Of course most Arab countries that are 'bad' are that way due to a combination of ancient Arab culture and perverted Islam...

Paul

quote:

---

I didn't immediately read it that way but your interpretation seems valid

---

HTK,

Your initial interpretation of what I said was obviously correct.

It is not unfair to generalise about the practises of some Arabs states when such practises are indeed the laws of their land.

Amputations are wrong.

Suppression of women is wrong.

Stoning women to death for adultery is wrong.

There is no excuse for practising the above, not even religion.

We condone the above partly out of fear and partly out of political correctness. (PC often equals double standards rather than equality.)



Regards,

Steve.

Steven,

At the risk of becoming the new Mike Lacey that is utter and complete bollocks.

Matthew
In no mood to teach Steven basic arithmetic