Kilroy-Silk and racism
Posted by: DAVOhorn on 10 January 2004
So the PC Minority have got upset at an article in a newspaper.
Funny it was published previously but no complaints.
Anyway He used the term ARABS.
So who starts shouting and screaming, the Muslim Council.
He did not state Muslims which is a religion and not a racial group.
There are Arab Jews,Arab Christians and Arab Muslims.
I presume that the Muslim Council identified themselves with this presumed prejudicial statement and were thus offended.
Funny they dont sem to protest at the offensive racial and religious material put out by some of the more extreme Mullahs in London and other major towns.
Oh yeah i forgot only white anglo saxons are racist and every body else is justified in their prejudice as they are a minority.
The CRE also are very outspoken on this but again they ARE SELECTIVE IN WHAT AND WHO OFFENDS THEIR SENSIBILITIES.
If we are to have true tolerance then all peoples regardles of race must learn to live in harmony and respect.
One question, if many Muslims find life in the UK so objectionable why do they not live in a MUSLIM Country where their way of life is the norm?
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.
I hope this post is read in the manner it was posted.
regards David
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Former member
Yes, and that's exactly why it shouldn't be published in the first place.
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by John Sheridan
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.
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Paul Ranson
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Steve Toy
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.
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by matthewr
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Steve G
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Steve Toy
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.
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by matthewr
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by matthewr
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by HTK
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by andy c
Steve,
Have you heard of predjudice or discrimination?
Do you know what equality and diversity mean?
Just wondered, thats all...
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Justin
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Former member
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Justin
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Justin
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Former member
Just a thought,
But the views and wisdom of Steven Toy do seem to be taken very seriously over here. I commend your tolerance gentlemen.
I had that Norman Tebbit in the back of my cab once guv.
Paul Duerden
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by David Stewart
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Simon Perry
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Former member
Don
quote:
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...?
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. I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge in this area is, at best, sketchy.
IMHO, the piece is an unnecessarily inflamatory, inaccurate, bigotted piece of shit that didn't deserve to see the light of day.
I am a big supporter of freedom of speech, and as K-S has freely expressed his views (to the obvious delight of the far-right, BNF, crypto-fascist brigade), the BBC have expressed their right to protect themselves.
Every employment contract I have had has had a clause that said something along the lines of "not bringing the employers name into disrepute".
This is completely separate and distinct from "kerbing freedom of speech". I am sure K-S can find an audience for his venomous views, but it's wholly inappropriate for those views to be associated with the national broadcaster.
Obviously you have a problem with my not agreeing with K-S's view, and my views on the racists that support this shit. And?
Juddquote:
Mr Sacranie was asked what he thought of Abu Hamza, the inflammatory Muslim cleric who operated out of a Finsbury Park mosque until it was closed down last year.
"There are loonies around and of course if they make [racist] comments they should be condemned. But they [Hamza] are at the margins; Kilroy-Silk is part of the mainstream."
The field office would be a waste of time. The Mosque is closed, on precisely the same grounds that you commented on.
ag
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by matthewr
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
