Kilroy-Silk and racism

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Steven,

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

---

Much as I dislike agreeing with you Matthew I can find nothing to fault with that comment.

Regards
Steve

Matthew,

Could you clarify which part(s) of Steve's last post you consider utter and complete bollocks?

For my part, I found this applied to the last sentance of his post ie the bit starting we condone the above...

Cheers

Don

Thank you Don.

Obviously it is utter bollocks that women are suppressed, stoned to death, and amputations take place (including heads.)

Or it is utter bollocks that the above is wrong (morally that is.)



Regards,

Steve.

Don,

The meaning of Steven's post was essentially contained in the last sentence which was what I mainly objected to.

Its also, fwiw, wrong to generalise about Arab nations based on the evidence of a few of them. It would be just as wrong, for example, to say that Western nations start illegal and unnessecary wars based on the evidence of the actions of the US and UK. (And this is being charitable and noting that Kilroy-silk's article actually talked about Arabs rather than Arab states).

Steven's statements about the rights and wrongs of Sharia law and the practice of perverse theocracies are of course correct but are in that class of statement that includes "It's wrong to eat babies" so I see them as largely without much merit beyond stating the obvious.

Finally, can we knock on the head this idea that the mythical "PC brigade" Steven is so concerned about they lead him to implicitly condone a racist article in any way condone the stoning of women for adultery and the like. In fact the people who have been opposing and campaigning against exactly these issues for the longest are frequently the very people Steven would mistkenly think of as "PC".

Matthew

Steven said "Obviously it is utter bollocks that women are suppressed, stoned to death, and amputations take place (including heads.)"

That was, Steven, just about the dumbest thing you could say at this point.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
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.)

---

You can condone it all you want Steve. But don't put words in my mouth and don't think everybody's logic is the same as yours.

I don't condone any of the above and the fact that you do makes me sick. But you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

I still can't believe you wrote it though.

Cheers

Harry

Steve,
Have you heard of predjudice or discrimination?
Do you know what equality and diversity mean?

Just wondered, thats all...

quote:

---

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

---

Am I reading this right!!?? That offensive views, because they may be believed should not be published at all. Now THAT's a stupid idea, isn't it.

That is exactly the sort of sentiment that prevents the expression and desemination of new and (sometimes) valuable ideas. It is EXACTLY the sort of principle used to prevent the publication of Shi'ite press in Sunni controlled Saudi Arabia. I won't get into the specifics, but I should hope it goes without saying that popular viewpoints are in no need of protection. It is the unpopular viewpoints that we must protect the most.

What is this about getting the police involved? I always thought the Brits were much like the Americans in this regard. I could write the most seething and offensive antigay, antiblack, antisemetic, antimuslim, and/or antifemale editorial for the New York Times, have it published on the Sabath (whosoever's) and still be comfortable in knowing that there can be no legal or state repracussions for me (only private losses). What's this about the police, then?

Judd

Matthew,

It would be just as wrong, for example, to say that Western nations start illegal and unnessecary wars based on the evidence of the actions of the US and UK.

Obviously a red rag........

But then I know you are misguided on this issue about the USA and the UK, so I will let it drop now.

However, based on my experiences, having lived and worked in the Middle East (Jordan, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar, The Emirates (all seven of them), Oman and Yemen), a small number of them do still practice amputations and public executions; and a fair number of them did so until quite recently. These atrocities were carried out by people who were Arabs, and to the best of my knowledge, Muslim. Many of these States didn't then, and still don't treat women the way I believe women should be treated. Now these are facts and do not make me racist.

I find these atrocities grossly offensive and I believe that I have the right to say so, and to try to persaude the perpetrators of these acts to change their ways. I spent 5 years in the Middle East doing that, from 1968 to 1973.

Cheers

Don

Of course you all know this as well, but Steven's point was that a failure to condemn those Arab states which carry out oppression of women, stoning and amputations is in fact a condonation of those practices. By way of extension, he means to suggest that we fail to condemn these arab states because we have elevated the "dignity" of being Arab (or Christian or Muslim or Gay or whatever) to some position higher than the recognition of basic human rights. There was a time, I would argue, that what is today called our "left" would have championed the recognition of basic human rights in favor of the blanket dignity of being brown or jewish or whatever. But the military and technological superiority of the West (white Jews and Christians, I suppose) has caused a reallignment of the political priorities of the left (don't worry, the "right" still believe in wealth, capitalism and oil ).

Anyway, I have not read the article and so can't comment. But I think you are all reading Toy wrong, and deliberately at that.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexgerrard:
Justin

Over here it is a crime to incite racial hatred.

The Commission for Racial Equality have referred the matter to the police to decide whether or not there is a case to answer.

Needless to say, the legal team for the newspaper in question suggest that there is no case to answer.

I agree, there is a fine line between allowing freedom of speech/publication (etc), and not allowing this poisonous bile to have a public platform. IMHO, given the position that Kilroy-Silk holds (he is a broadcaster, hosting a chat show not disimilar to Oprah), this article should not have been published, and I think it's right that he has had his show pulled (duty of care and all that). My knowledge of the law isn't sufficient to know whether or not there is a legal case to answer, although I suspect that there isn't (there aren't riots on the street as a result of this article, etc etc).

IMHO, anyone who supports Kilroy-Silk's viewpoint is beneath contempt.

ag

---

I assume, then, that the prosecutors have set up a field office outside the Finsbury Park Mosque each Friday, no? Or are the vile racist leaflets distibuted there exempt?

Judd

Alex,

You have very nicely outlined the legal position here in the UK, with which, incidently, I whole-heartedly agree; and I also agree with your view that it is a very fine line etc, etc

However, despite accepting that there probably isn't a case to answer, you then pass sentence on Kilroy and all his supporters.

Seems to me like you would like to kurb freedom of speech when it suits you...?

Cheers

Don

Did anybody else spot this piece -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/11/nsilk112.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/11/ixnewstop.html
It appears to be written by an Egyptian Arab, who is strongly defending R.K-S's position on the grounds of free-speech.

David

Justin,

I don't know whether your first post above is what Steve T really meant (I think it is) but you have managed to express my views very accurately.

Cheers

Don

I have read Kilroy's article and think that its a piece of racist drivel. Before anyone starts defending it I'd advise them to read it, or risk looking like a complete fool.
Simon

Alex,

Obviously you have a problem with my not agreeing with K-S's view,

None whatsoever.

and my views on the racists that support this shit.

Only that you unjustifably and viciously condem such people as racists, and their views as shit.

Cheers

Don

Don said "I find these atrocities grossly offensive and I believe that I have the right to say so"

Well (obviously) I agree with your point and absolutely support your right to voice such views. I think you'll find that just about everybody does.

That wasn't Steven's point though. And it certainly wasn't Kilroy-Silk's.

Matthew

Matthew,

Its nice to agree once in a while!!!

That wasn't Steven's point though. And it certainly wasn't Kilroy-Silk's.

Let Steve (and Kilroy) clarify their points of view. I think we sometimes have a tendancy to pick specific words and jump down peoples' throats.

Cheers

Don

Amazing to see that Kilroy-Silk appears to be a Weapon of Mass Disruption.

Can't wait to see the invasion of the BBC by GWB on CNN !!!

Kilroy: I blame my secretary, the BBC, sub-editors...

By Charles Begley

11 January 2004

Accusation and counter-accusation were flying thick and fast last night in the controversy over Robert Kilroy-Silk's comments on Arabs. In the past 24 hours, the TV presenter has blamed his secretary, the BBC, the "forces of political correctness" and the Sunday Express.

The newspaper, meanwhile, blamed the BBC, and some sources at the paper blamed Kilroy himself. If the arguments in his television studio had been this good, his programme would have been compulsory viewing.

At the centre of it all was his column last Sunday in which he described Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressers". This led to him being reported to the police for incitement to racial hatred and his show being suspended by the BBC.

Complicating matters was the fact that this column was an inadvertent repeat of one published last April. And clouding things even further was the fact that the earlier column referred to "Arab countries", while the 2004 version used the ethnic term "Arabs".

Last night, in early editions of the Sunday Express, Kilroy said his secretary sent the wrong email attachment, and he insisted that his remarks had not caused offence when they were first published in April last year. However, a senior source at the paper claimed that, far from removing the word "countries" in the second article, editors had added it to the first one to "make it less inflammatory".

The truth was unclear, and, just for good measure, Kilroy-Silk took the opportunity in today's paper to invoke the Second World War and the memory of his late father, who died defending the "rights to freedom"

From The Sindy

Robert Kilroy-Silk

is an anagram of

Sir - Kill Broke Tory

Oops - I've left the kettle on !

Alex,

I said that there probably isn't a legal case to answer, which is completely different to not having any case in terms it being an anti-Arab polemic.

My reponse was based on the fact that you were talking about the legal situation and I anticipated that this could be taken as understood.

You seem to want to go further than the law currently requires, and cast a (much) wider net to entrap racism. In doing so, you appear to be in danger of stiffling freedom of speech and healthy debate on a very important subject.

If the courts decide that Kilroy is guilty, then we shall have a more up-to-date boundary for debate. Note, neither the police nor the cps will define that new boundary. Like you, I doubt if there is a case to answer, in which case the boundary remains as today, somewhat vague but, at the same time, rather fine.


Cheers

Don

It’s self evident that in this multicultural, multiracial world we live in we must all be tolerant and understanding of our neighbours. We all need to be more aware of the positive (and frankly negative) attributes of our fellow societies.
I look forward to discussing this over a beer the next time I’m in Saudi.

quote:

---

You can condone it all you want Steve. But don't put words in my mouth and don't think everybody's logic is the same as yours.

I don't condone any of the above and the fact that you do makes me sick. But you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

---

I don't condone Shariah laws one bit. If it were feasible for the Western military powers to go through every nation practising Shariah law without the obvious adverse consequences for world stability and loss of innocent life, I'd be for it.

Thanks Justin, you said it all.



Regards,

Steve.

I hate to hijack this thread, but I'd like to explore this "incitement of racial hatred" thing a bit further. I was not under the impression to we have deviated so much over the past 250 years.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that speech (or print) that incites racial hatred is illegal and punishable by fine or imprisonment, right? Of what does this incitement consist? Consider the following three situations:

1. "all whities are filthy animals - I hate them all".

2. "all whities are filthy animals - I hate them all, and you should too."

3. "All whities are filthy animals - I hate them all, and you shill kill them wherever you may find them."

In the US, only #3 would be punishable by an official body (and even then, probably not). It is my impression that #3 is actionable because it explicitly calls for the use of violence, which invokes one of the rare exception to the protections afforded by the First Amendment to our constitution (free speech and press). However, numbers 1 and 2 represent the very CORE of the sorts of speech the first amendment was designed to protect - that is, the expression of unpopular opinions. That's why KKK rallies are permissible in the US (though local jurisdictions do everything they can to prevent the issuance of parade permits the like under the auspices of "traffic control" and other like-minded reasons.

Am I to understand that the KKK or your local skinhead group may not hold rallies in London where they would, presumably, spout off about gays, jews, etc, or am I missunderstanding this? Are #'s 1 and 2 also impermissible in the UK?

Help me out here.

Judd