Kilroy-Silk and racism

I think here it's more subtle than that.

If options #1 or #2 could be construed as to actually incite the actions prescribed by option #3 then you could be guilty of inciting racial hatred.

In other words, if you stated that "pink-nosed oxymorons" were subhuman and the next day someone physically or even verbally attacked a member of said group you could be be guilty of having incited the attack. Even if they didn't you could still be guilty (theoretically) of inciting such an attack...

Here we don't have a bill of rights as such despite the fact that our dear government did promise us one in return for electing them back in 1997.



Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on MONDAY 12 January 2004 at 06:17.]

I heard on the radio today, on Five Live discussing the Kilroy issue, one contributor guest saying that the term "Politically Correct" was a term misused by so many to poke fun at serious issues. So have we now got to the stage where "Politically Correct" is not "Politically Correct"?

Judd,

There has been some incitement to racial hatred offence since the original Race Relations Act of 1965. THere was then further legislation in the Public Order Act 1986 -- oddly it's Conservative legislation -- which says:

[i]“A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if:

-- He intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

-- Having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.

References in this part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.”

This is all separate from incitement to violence/riot type offences.

The law was then extended in 2001, partly in response to 9/11, to provide a similar offence but on religous rather than racial grounds. It was deemed unfair that religous groups with an ethnic element to their identity (such as Jews and Sikhs) got protection under the racial hatred laws but Christians and Muslims did not.

So AFAICT all of your examples would be unlawful and #3 would also be incitement to violence (or something).

However, all of this is widely regarded as badly drafted law in what is obviously a very dangerous and difficult area to legislate. It's further complicated by the UK's Human Rights Act 2000 which guarantees free speech and may well superceeds the former. Last I heard everyone was waiting for someone to get charged and then challenge the legislation under the HRA.

Obviously it appears that Steven was asleep for the introduction of the HRA (which covers the majority of rights a US citizen enjoys). Its interesting that since its introduction the Right have done nothing but complain about it because a) its meant lots more of those appeals going to the European Court which the right hate so much and b) its protection of free speech accidentally made hardcore porn legal.

Matthew

I've just skimmed this thread but nobody has quite stated what I found so offensive about Kilroy-Silk. This is that he appeared to be able to include the actions of all Arabs (or even everyone within a single Arab state) under one embracing description. Such simplification, ascribing a single set of characteristics to an ethnic group is the core of racism for me. Rather like saying that all the Irish are stupid, or every Jew is tight with money or all Albanians are criminals. To have such a view about 'Arabs' is not just racist but stupid. To denigrate Arabs or some scoring system of how much they have contributed to modern society is equally pathetic. I doubt that the residents of Ulan Bator have directly contributed much to my happy Western existence but I would not therefore consider them pointless.

These are the comments of a headline seeker, surely not made in error or unknowing of the consequences.

Bruce

So what should the BBC done about it? Was it right to pull his program, or should he have carried on to find his audience diminish and his career decline as a result? I think the latter would be more appropriate. People are not generally stupid. He might have learnt something from it.

I'm not sure. If he actually used the programme to forward such views then this would be easier to decide. I wonder if he can practically run it now anyway, based on the erosion of respect in the public eye. Or perhaps he will be a heroic figure now? Giving an exclusive interview to ITV when you are a BBC employee suggests he know which way the wind is blowing.

Bruce

It should perhaps be noted that when it comes to most offences in English law regarding homophobic or racist crimes, it is not what is said, or how it is said that could potentially convict the offender.

It is the way the victim is offended/alarmed/ distressed etc by what was said or done.

Its fine for someone to say what they like and then go 'thats just what I think' (re this type of offence, but in English law there may be consequences for that...

Its also worth noting that Religion is not specifically listed within the Definition of Racial groups...

no more freedom of speech in this country thats for sure
kilroy for pm

It is precisely because we have freedom of speech that Kilroy could present his opinion in a newspaper. With that freedom comes the responsibility for what you say and the effect it causes. This situation has nothing to do with censorship.

Bruce

quote:

---

With that freedom comes the responsibility for what you say and the effect it causes.

---

And acceptance of the consequences

andy c said "in English law regarding homophobic or racist crimes, it is not what is said, or how it is said that could potentially convict the offender"

Really? How so?

"Its also worth noting that Religion is not specifically listed within the Definition of Racial groups..."

But since 2001 there has been an offence to incite hatred on religous as well as racial grounds.

Matthew

Matthew,
FYI: Some reading...
Most of the legislation refers to race:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/rvah.html
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/rvah.html

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/rh0203.htm

Its assumed that the religious issue will be covered under racial or cultural...
'racial group' means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and in this definition 'nationality' includes citizenship; (The Public Order Act 1936)


The last link posted above explains this.

regards,
andy c!

[This message was edited by andy c on MONDAY 12 January 2004 at 19:55.]

Matthew,
did some research at work and you are quite right. My apologies.
Religion was included in the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001, and as such was added to the PO Act '36 definition above.

sorry if I mislead anyone...
Shows the HO website ain't up to date tho

I've not read Silks original article or in fact the reprinted version (with the 'Arab Nations' replaced by 'Arabs'). So I can't really comment on whether or not i think it's racist etc.

However I saw the Trevor MacDonald interview last night and have no real problems with what he said, now obviously he may be backtracking somewhat on the tone of the original article. But what he implys now is he was talking about Arab States and their support of the activities mentioned above.

Now if this is genuine then he's obviously a very poor journalist to leave it open to such inaccurate interpretation. Of course he could just be trying to save his bacon.

PS. Trevor Macdonald is an appaling interviewer.

RKS's interview was a pile of steaming, self-serving, nauseating nonsense. He showed no regret for or understanding of the insult and offence he has caused or what he had done wrong and came out with all this heroic sword to truth claptrap that made me want to throw things at the telly. I agree that McDonought's soft soap job was appalling.

This has nothing to do with legitimate objections to the practices of some Arab regimes (which lots of people write about extensively and regularly without running into such problems). It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. And it has nothing to do with the illusory "PC Gone Mad" nonsense.

It has everything to do with RKS -- who once described Ireland as "a country peopled by peasants, priests and pixies" -- authoring a deeply unpleasant violent, racist diatribe.

I find much to agree with in David Aaronovitch's piece in today's Graun.

The original article is below for those who haven't read it.

Matthew

Note: RKS's original article as published in the Sunday Express referred to Arabs rather than Arab States. He claims the "Arabs" version was published in error. Sources at the Express claim he oriignall wrote the "Arabs" version and sub-editors at the paper replaced "Arabs" with " Arab states" when it was first published in April 2003 but omitted to do so this time.

We Owe Arabs Nothing

We are told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should we be worried about that? Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim? After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they?

Few of them make much contribution to the welfare of the rest of the world. Indeed, apart from oil — which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West — what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland. We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States.

What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome.

But why, in any case, should we be concerned that they feel angry and loathe us? The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime — part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein -supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam. That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this and expect our respect? Why do they imagine that only they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews — and Arabs.

Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives. And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities? We have thousands of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries living happily in this country on social security. This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn't it? There is not one single British asylum seeker in any Arab country. That says it all about which country deserves the epithet loathsome.

(Robert Kilroy-Silk in The Sunday Express [London], January 4, 2004)
Not available online

It is worded provocatively I know, and it is certainly unfair to say that every Arab supports Saddam and ever Arab wants to commit atrocious acts of terror against Westerners because this clealy is not the case. However, I do agree with a lot of his article.

I agree with this:

Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim?

And this:

That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this and expect our respect? Why do they imagine that only they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews — and Arabs.

And I certainly agree with this:


Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives. And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities?

I condemn those Arabs who wish to kill us and terrorise us - they have no justification whatoever for so doing other than their religious bigotry, but I agree that it is unfair and verging on racist to suggest that all Arabs think like this.



Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really
valuable? ... [Do they loathe us] for providing them with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West?

---

If it weren't for his obvious racism, I'd almost feel embarrassed for this guy, parading as he does his ignorance in front of everyone.

The western world as we know it now simply wouldn't have existed if it weren't for Arab and Islamic scholars and scientists. Left to their own devices, the Roman Christians had made quite a mess of things. Christian fanatics like St. Cyril, Emperor Justinian, and Pope St. Gregory the Great did a thorough job of destroying the great libraries of Alexandria and Rome, closing the great schools and universities of the classical world (usually by killing the teachers and librarians), and plunging European world into eight centuries of intellectual barrenness and sterility (a.k.a. the Dark Ages).

It was Islamic scholars who broke the hold of the Christian fanatics and re-introduced science and the civilized world to the Europeans. Aristotle's texts, along with many other Greek documents, had been destroyed in Europe but were preserved in the Arab world.* There, Aristotle's work was actively debated by Muslims such as Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Al-Ghazali, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). The re-discovery of Aristotle in Europe was made possible by Islamic scholars who brought it up through Spain. Christian theologians such as Bonaventura were initially much too frightened of Aristotle to do anything with him. It was only when figures such as St. Aquinas studied the Islamic Aristotelians (Averroes in particular) and copied their ideas that Aristotle became acceptable to Christians, and the groundwork laid for what we now call western philosophy and science.

Incidentally, the Arab world was well ahead of the Christian world in the realms of science and philosophy until about 1600. Major Arab-Islamic scientists included Al-Tusi (an astronomer who elaborated Ptolemy's system), Al-Jabr (inventor of algebra), and Al-Haytham (inventor of optics).


I'm sure this Kilroy-Silk character doesn't give a rat's ass about any of this, because he's obviously not interested in historical facts. But it's worth setting the record straight.

Eric

* Aristotle, you'll recall, is the guy who defined most modern sciences and laid out their basic principles, who invented western logic, who invented political science, who produced one of the world's major systems of ethics, and who made major contributions to our western notion of democracy. It's worth observing that, as a subject of the Macedonian Empire, he, like the other ancient Greeks, was a man of the Middle Eastern world, not the European one.

Up to late april last year I had the pleasure of working closely together with a
gentleman from Syria who's been living in Germany for over thirty years. He
being my immediate boss and mentor we had on occasssion very interesting
converstaions regarding this very concept of racism and his version of it (In
German). Being a Syrian he is intristically distrustful of all Israelis, like
many other folk from Arab Nations, though much to my suprise this wasn't number
one on his list when it cames to bad guys. That honour befel "Saudi Arabia"
which is apparently the case with many other Arabs too ?
Silk Cut, or Cut
Kilroy, is a second rate journalist pretty boy who likes the limelight (like me)
and always has been; and panders to middle class English (not British ) views in
my opinion (also Private Eye's for that matter !)
Afore-mentioned Syrian (now
friend) who I shall not name, was paramount and exceptionally well respected by
our other colleagues many of who'm were long term established academics in their
field, we were in research (No). He also told me the first English words Arabs
always learn is "NO" when applying to get a visa for the States, and has always
been the case. As we know ten times more folk in Iraq tommorow would be queueing
for a US Visa rather than free membership of that Al - thingy lot ?
Yesterday
morning whils't queueing myself at the doors of the dole office on a cold and
early moaning, just before the doors opened, a young guy of seemingly non
German-European origin jumped to the front causing much ado amongst the throng,
and barged his way in, much to my private amusement. Being an old hat, I legged
it fast to the stairs and flew up three flights hitting the point first in line,
the rest of the heros, mostly much younger prefering the safety and speed of the
lifts, which somebody had mysteriously stopped on every floor on the way up (?).
I enjoyed getting sorted quickly (one has to sign on as a scrounger only three
monthly over here).
To kilroy-Cut a long Silk short as you all know is my want,
the gobshite who'd jumped the line, started freaking out bigstyle when the
person dealing with him, sent him away as his passport/ID card was two months
out of date, saying come back when you've got it sorted. Our Chappy was going
ape-shit² screaming blue murder about NAZIs and racists etc, he being of Turkish
origin. I enjoyed the fact that it was my 45th birthday, holding my British
Passport aloft (I may change it soon though for Democratic voting rights
reasons, if I can afford it) official translators are fuckin criminals worse
than Norwegian Lawyers. As I left the place happily; off to rape my savings book and buy lots of fresh orange juice & Fizz, as one must never drink OJ alone ? the guy looked at me in sheer contempt and bewilderment, as I told him to send my regards to his father (Who've I've known for eons) and to get his stuff updated asap, he being a Berliner (Born Here) and holder of a German Passport, some people seem to want things both ways don't they ?

Fritz Von Useyerowninstictsnototherpeoplesinnit:

And Yes I know it's spelt intrinsically, tis my bleedin secrytree innit, she's from Barfthelona.
Fritz Von Florencesaystimeforbedinnit.

Graham Ricketts

Matthew,

Thanks for printing out the article by Kilroy.

I'm not sure about the rules concerning the copy-posting on the internet of articles that are (allegedly) racist or (allegedly) might incite racial hatered etc, but I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Of course, once the police have completed their investigation, and presented their evidence to the cps (or whoever), we shall know what they think - and then, depending on their views, we might find out what a "judge and jury" think. After which it will be much clearer.

Cheers

Don

French Muslims of Arab descent

Driving back from work tonight, I was partially listenning to Radio 4 (about 22.30 hrs). It would seem that in France, Jews are being persecuted by French Muslims of Arab descent, and the situation has seriously worsened in the past year, to the extent that about 2,000 Jews left France last year for Israel, fearing for their safety. It is expected to be worse this year.

A Muslim Cleric accepted the persecuters were Muslim, but asserted that their origins were North Africa. He also pointed out that it was against the teaching of his Faith to perpetrate such persecutions.

The French Government accept this is a serious problem but don't really know what to do.

Whilst I doubt whether we have an expert in French Law on this forum to give advice, I am confident that any underlying moral solutions would transcend any legal requirements.

Any thoughts??

Cheers

Don

PS on re-reading the above, let me emphasise that this is not a wind-up. Did anybody else hear the programme ??

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
A Muslim Cleric accepted the persecuters were Muslim, but asserted that their origins were North Africa.
QUOTE]

Don, truly worrying if it is indeed true. It seems that religious hatred is now acceptable as long as the bigots (and that is exactly what they are) are born in another country.

I live in Glasgow, a city housing many diverse cultures, races and religions but really only noted for the religiously-driven football element, and thankfully there are very little racial or cultural issues of a serious nature.

The massive upside is a great plethora of wonderful restaurants !

I just wish people would accept each other regardless of their beliefs - after all, religion is meant to be between you and your God, isn't it ?

BTW - I am Protestant and my wife Jewish. Both of us non-practicising but respectful of all religions and cultures, it's the way we learn here.........

Steven Toy, when you say that you agree with the statement "shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim?", what exactly are you agreeing with / suggesting should happen?

Approximately how many civilians is it acceptable to kill in such an exercise? Where should we start, and in what order? All at once or one at a time? When we've finished should we move on to other non-Arab states? However, if this is just a legitimate war aim in the case of Iraq, then why Iraq and not, say, Syria or Iran? When the killing's done, will you be willing to pop round in your cab to the families of dead soldiers and civilians on all sides and explain to them why it was legitimate that their loved ones were slaughtered whilst slaughtering others?
Just interested.
Simon

PS - I think I'm right in saying that wine originated in what is now Iran. Just thought I'd drop that in there.

Don -- I'm not sure what your point about the rise of anti-semitism and racially motivated violence in France. Its rightly comdemed by every right thinking person and its not an easy problem to solve.

Simon -- According to Steven's theories you wouldn't be attacking Iran becuase although it's a despotic Muslim thoecracy it's not an Arab despotic Muslim theocracy. And you wouldn't be attacking Syria becuase it's Arab despotic but secular. In fact AFAIK the ony Despotic Arab Theocracy option is Saudi Arabia. So I suppose Stephen is actually being quite moderate in that he is only calling for the invasion of one country.

Matthew

Matthew

Don -- I'm not sure what your point about.....

I heard it on the radio, found it interesting (and actually surprising, because unlike you I was unaware of it), Thought others might be interested, felt it might widen the debate in this thread especially on how to set about dealing with such issues in practical terms, and didn't feel I wanted to start a separate thread.

Cheers

Don