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
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 Don Atkinson
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
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Former member
Don
If you can read Kilroy-Silk's article and not view it, and by extension anyone that supports/condones or agrees with it, as racist, then we have differing definitions of the term.
All the best,
ag
quote:
Only that you unjustifably and viciously condem such people as racists, and their views as shit.
If you can read Kilroy-Silk's article and not view it, and by extension anyone that supports/condones or agrees with it, as racist, then we have differing definitions of the term.
All the best,
ag
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Former member
I think that any genuine point of concern Kilroy-Silk was hoping to get across was utterly lost within the crude, objectionable and inflamatory language. The constant reference to 'Arabs' did come over as racist.
However, if people are intertested and do want to read a more considered approach to the reasons why certain Muslim countries implementation of Sharia (Islamic) law is incompatible with what most of us consider to be human rights, check out some reports at http://www.amnesty.org or http://www.hrw.org
However, if people are intertested and do want to read a more considered approach to the reasons why certain Muslim countries implementation of Sharia (Islamic) law is incompatible with what most of us consider to be human rights, check out some reports at http://www.amnesty.org or http://www.hrw.org
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by long-time-dead
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 !!!
Can't wait to see the invasion of the BBC by GWB on CNN !!!
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by matthewr
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
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by long-time-dead
Robert Kilroy-Silk
is an anagram of
Sir - Kill Broke Tory
Oops - I've left the kettle on !
is an anagram of
Sir - Kill Broke Tory
Oops - I've left the kettle on !
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
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
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by TomK
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.
I look forward to discussing this over a beer the next time I’m in Saudi.
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Steve Toy
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.
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Justin
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
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
Posted on: 11 January 2004 by Steve Toy
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.]
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.]
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Rasher
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"?
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Former member
Bollocks to pc ! Lets call a spade a spade.
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by matthewr
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
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
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
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
These are the comments of a headline seeker, surely not made in error or unknowing of the consequences.
Bruce
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Rasher
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.
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
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
Bruce
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by andy c
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...
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...
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by minime
no more freedom of speech in this country thats for sure
kilroy for pm
kilroy for pm
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
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
Bruce
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Rasher
quote:
With that freedom comes the responsibility for what you say and the effect it causes.
And acceptance of the consequences
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by matthewr
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
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
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by Former member
Anyone know where I can read the RKS article online? I'd like to do that before forming an opinion...
(Serious question, though I am amazed by how many people here apparently read the Sunday Express...)
(Serious question, though I am amazed by how many people here apparently read the Sunday Express...)
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by andy c
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.]
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.]
Posted on: 12 January 2004 by andy c
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
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