Excellent points. I'm interested in why the Muslim Council for Great Britain is in such a lather. Which 'Arabs' do they represent? The British Arabic community are not Arabs, they're English, so where's the offence? Also, it is meekly accepted nowadays that offence given to any Muslim is offence given to all of them. The only parallel I can think of offhand is the Hell's Angels dictum of 'one in, all in', according to which any Angel who is attacked - or who has decided to attack - should be joined by any other Angels present.

Compare and contrast the treatment of Kilroy-Silk with, say... Michael Moore. Michael Moore writes a book titled "Stupid White Men". He includes a chapter titled "Kill Whitey" blaming white people (quite generally) for every earthly ill from the black death to slavery to pollution to the holocaust and the theft of Michael's stereo. The book sells millions of copies, he becomes a darling of the Guardian and Radio 4 demographic, he's intivited onto the radio to plug his films and books, and the Guardian runs special features interviewing him. Both Moore and Kilroy-Silk are dunderheads. Neither ought to be prosecuted.

This thing about ALL suicide bombers being Arabs, as opposed merely to Muslims. That is right is it? I wouldn't myself have been confident about this. Was that shoe-bopmber character, who surely counts even if the bomb didn't go off, an Arab? And what about the Bali bombers? Were they Arabs?

Just asking. If it's true, I want to be able to say so with confidence.

Which part of Bali is in the Middle East?
Just asking.

Brian, Stephen appears to be talking about the 9/11 hijackers, specifically. I think they were indeed all Arabs. The British suicide bombers (Reid; the Tel Aviv two) were/are not of Arabic descent, and neither, IIUC were the Bali bombers (although they may have had help from Arabs).

The question is, Morgan and Brian, would you rather that you were not able to criticise views you disagree with, because Trevor Philips had made everybody nervous about publishing their views?

Anthony,

My point was obviously not well made, no doubt due to the confusion I feel in being sympathetic toward Kilroy.

I was questioning why Brian mentioned the Bali bombers when Stephen had referred specifically and only to the 'Middle East' and '9/11' bombers.

Stephen, you're just plain wrong old bean. Kilroy has his own show with his name plastered all over the title of it. Paulin is simply a contributor to various BBC debating type programmes. That's the difference. No double-standards exist. Kilroy-Silk's ill thought-out comments gave the corporation no choice. The fault is Dr Kilroy-Silk's alone.

I'm sorry, Ben. It's not Stephen who's wrong but you....totally and utterly. Why does Paulin get invited back time and again by the BBC after spewing out anti-semitic bile while Kilroy-Silk (whose sweeping generalisations strike me as way over the top) gets treated differently? Your distinction is an irrelevant quibble. Libby Purvis' article in today's "Times" offers an interesting insight into the authoritarian liberal mindset: freedom of speech can be abruptly suspended if the illiberals decide that what the speaker did was "rant". Of course, only they get to judge what is a "rant" and anyway, "rants" against the US, George Bush, Israel and Jews are OK, if not positively good.

The majority of Muslims in Briton are from Bangladesh and Pakistan,they are not Arabs.Neither are the substantial numbers of Turkish Muslims living in this country.Whence came the indignation concerning Kilroy-Silk's alleged insult to Arabs? Further Silk's remarks were not made on the BBC but in the Express,where were Paulin's remarks made?

Interesting comments, although the 'goodness' of the US experience with Iraq is - to me at least - debatable. I am an Egyptian living in the UK (no, I'm not on social security, and yes I pay tax just like the rest of you) and I am Muslim (don't worry I won't amputate you - yet), so I fit the 'bill' perfectly. I found it profusely stupid of the Muslim Council of Britain to respond; they have automatically fixated people's suspicion, and practically finished off Kilroy's sentence. Not all Arabs are Muslims - in fact, nearly 30% of all Arabs are not Muslim. Kilroy's comments were made against Arabs/Arab governments, not Muslims. As was said earlier, most Muslims in this country aren't of Arab decent anyway.

As for Kilroy's arguments, most of them are true, yes. That does not however give him the right to publish them without being very, very specific about his accusations, if not only for the mandates of good reporting. Additionally, what I and many Arabs feel is unjustifiable is the acute double standard that is adopted when reports like these refer to Israel, Jews or African Britons. I know that some seemingly racist remarks made against Jews have went unnoticed, but I think it must be said that the number of times governments, societies and people have apologized for insinuating even the slightest hint of anti-semitism are numerous. I wouldn't have suggested that his show be taken off the air - on the contrary, I think this has given the topic more attention than it deserves. I think Kilroy should've been kept on air, told to formally apologize and maybe bring on an Arab thinker or politician to discuss this.

Helmy is spot on. Just as I'd require criticsm of israel to be specific and informed if I am not to suspect that the speaker is a racist or a fool, I would expect the same of criticisms of a policy of "arab states" in general.

And when those generalisations are expressed in terms, not of Arab states, but of "the Arabs" - and just look at the state of the second article which wasn't toned down by a switched on sub - my gut reaction is that they betray fuckwitdom at the best and racism at the worst.

BBC, you are only missing a koran in your hand and a fez on your head.

A perfect example of why I hate 'hate speech' laws. Better to have idiots spew, and show them up. I do think incitement is in a different category, and in that regard, Paulin's comments, whatever his background, seem far more reprehensible than those of Kilroy-Silk. "Brooklyn Jews"? Well, those two attributes clearly constitute three strikes; legitimate targets, then.

Generally, I'd say that a broadcaster (or other company) has the right to fire or suspend an employee who offends its listeners (or clients)--or not, but usually that would be based on the effect on market share and the bottom line. I'm less certain about the BBC and its kneejerk response.

But what is one reminded of when one reads the prescription for the accused from Mr. Phillips:
“What Robert could do is issue a proper apology, not for the fact that people were offended, but for saying this stuff in the first place.

“Secondly he could learn something about Muslims and Arabs, they gave us maths and medicine, and thirdly he could use some of his vast earnings to support a Muslim charity.

“Then I would say he has been properly contrite – the issue about going back on television is for the BBC.”

Proper contrition for inartful expression--that's the ticket!

High profile case ,new man at the CRE,lots of publicity,perish the thought.

A. Helmy
Are you sure about the 30% figure? I think that's a bit high.

David T.
I think the difference between Arab states and Arabs is rather small at the moment, to judge by polls. Nothing to get upset about. Definitely far more accurate than implying that settlers tend to come from Brooklyn (not that there's something wrong with Brooklyn)

Saying that Moslems and Arabs "gave us" math and medicine is very problematic. I'm sure the Moslems would have won all the math contests 1000yr ago, but that's simply not the same thing.

Maor;

Yes, the average population of non Muslims in all Arab states (i.e. states that are members of the Arab League) is around 30%. This includes countries that most people in the West do not regard as 'Arab' (i.e. Algeria,Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan and Lebanon).

Also, your observation that the difference between Arabs and Arab states is marginal couldn't be farther from the truth. It's just like it everywhere else - I doubt the George Bush represents the whole of the US and its attitudes. Similarly in the Arab world, governments do not necessarily represent the opinions of the majority (they're not perfect democracies). In like manner, religious leaders and political extremists are, fortunately, a minority. But, like everywhere else they are the most vocal minority that have the loudest voice and the will to make that voice heard in whatever way they can. It is easy to assume that all Arabs share the same convictions, but the vast majority of them only want to make a living and get by.

Finally, Arabs (not necessarily Muslim, mind you) did give the world plenty, way back when the West was still pretty much in the Dark Ages. Maths as a whole? No not necessarily true, but certainly some pillars of mathematics, medicine, astronomy and algebra (an Arabic concept) were conceived by Arabs. That said, Arabs have long not given the world anything - except for Magdi Yacoub and Ahmed Zuwail and a few other men and women of science, both educated and 'discovered' in the West. In that respect, I can understand what Kilroy is referring to and he has every right to be frustrated, just like many Arabs feel 'embarrased' about not being able to contribute. I think a clear distinction between Muslims and Arabs needs to be made here - both are not one and the same.

Just for your information - there around half a million Arabs living the UK - a mixture of Muslims, Christians and indeed secularists. These people, many of whom are British citizens, are perfectly justified in being offended by Kilroy's comments that were directed at Arabs in his article - and not merely Arab regimes.

I've only met a few Arabs in my life, but once had a flatmate with a friend from Saudia Arabia whom I had the misfortune of meeting. In the process of drinking tea we got on to the topic of the then war in Afghanistan, which I said I supported on the basis that the Taliban were rotten. To cut a long story short, the chap from Saudia Arabia, after lecturing me for what seemed like hours on how Islam was the best thing since sliced bread, told me how his brother (literal that is) had perished fighting for the taliban and how the Afghani's appreciated and supported the work of their group. I tried to argue that this may not have been the case but he was obsessed with the point and thought there was much benefit to be had from Taliban governance. He doubted that the 11 September attacks were undertaken by arabs, and, like others, that Mossad were somehow involved. Anyway, he had no real sympathy for America and thought they deserved it. All this despite the fact that he's lived in America long enough to get a green card and has since moved to a British university to do his PhD.
Just how representative he is of the general arabic populace I'm not sure, but I felt deeply uncomfortable meeting him and may perhaps have some sympathy in extending Kilroy Silk's views downwards.

Frank;

Unfortunately, there are plenty of outspoken people like your Saudi friend.

The fact that he argued Islam's value is pretty much standard - talk to a practising Catholic and he'll tell you why Catholic Christianity is better than any other, including microwaves. I'd say your Saudi friend's defense of Islam is nothing to be upset about.

The 'big' conspiracy obviously stems from one of the region's worst cultural pitfall; Arabs - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - have always resorted to the 'it's someone else's fault' line. It's ridiculous, damning and etched deep within Arab intellect (despite wonderful concepts such as 'pride,' 'dignity' and 'honour') and is probably one of the many reasons behind Arab 'de-volution.' The usual suspect is always Israel, only because US support for Israel is not a state secret and isn't in any way discrete. The reasons why Arabs feel Israel is the root of all evil are plenty and I do not feel that here is the place to discuss them.

The hypocrisy displayed by your flatmate is also pretty wide spread. Most Arabs will curse the West and then wish for a Visa all in the same breath. Why? Because they hate the West for misunderstanding them, for - what they think - causing so much grief to Arabs (indirectly as well through support for Israel), and for countless other 'atrocities' people tend to think were a direct result of Western colonization in general. Ill informed? Definitely, but it seems Western politicians feel no need to counter these misconceptions. So-called religious and political joy-riders have found something to talk about in the Arab world, and they know these 'arguments' are faultless campaign winners. As a result, most outspoken Arabs have nothing else to say. Is it because Arabs are evil? No, it's because their politicians, reporters and religious leaders are sensationalists, after ratings more than anything else, just like they are everywhere else in the world. It just so happens that Arab politicians and reporters always use the same story, over and over again because it fuels pubic support and distracts from more pressing internal matters (sounds pretty much 'tabloid-ish' - the Arab equivilant of the Daily Express).

Outspoken being the key word. Note that if you met a 'normal' Arab who had nothing to say about the US or Israel or Taliban or Al Qaeda, it would've been a non-experience, not memorable enough to remember and you certainly wouldn't have mentioned it here. The 'normal' Arab would have passed through you like a ghost - just another 'normal' human being with 'normal' opinions. It's the people who disagree with us that leave the biggest impression.

Case in point: foreigners visiting the Middle East are usually thought of as happy-go-lucky, outgoing, drunken, fornicating money burners. Why? A select few foreigners who are exactly that have given bad rap to everyone else. Why? Because people will remember the happy-go-lucky drunks and totally ignore 'normal' tourists doing 'normal' things. Is that prejudice? Yes. Is it acceptable? No.

In summation, your Saudi friend is probably pretty representative of those Arabs who have an opinion. Evangelical Muslims are the ones others hear the most, and if you 'hear' an Arab, he's usually Muslim and evangelical. But representative of the Arab populace? Certainly not. Like I said earlier: most Arabs realise that the real problems stem from within, and nearly all Arabs feel not an ounce of compassion for Taliban, Al Qaeda or Bin Laden simply because they've caused more damage within the Arab world than they've ever caused to any other foreign country. In the last 10 years alone, Islamic fundamentalism has cost Egypt around $10 billion in lost revenue, job cuts in the 60% figure mark in the tourism industry and nearly 500 deaths, with countless injuries. That's just Egypt; nevermind Algeria or Tunisia.

I find it terribly interesting to listen to those who believe that KS should be fired and or persecuted but defend Paulin for this comments.

First, I believe that BBC has every right to fire KS should they wish. However this does make them incredible hypocrites (for a change). KC did not call for genocide or commit incitement to murder, unlike Paulin on Late Review. I watched the particular loathsome episode. Paulin makes vile statements on a publically-funded network, while KC makes comments in a low-circulation tabloid. Paulin is not the only one to speak in such terms either, yet no one who makes similar statements on air or in larger circulation papers (like the Groniad, Evening Standard or the Indy) seems to get any criticism or prosecution.

Secondly I agree with the commenter that the MCGB has basically made a huge tactical error is going against KC. KC did not mention Muslims but Arabs. The fact that idiot Philips is running around bleating about KC just shows you that he is a hypocritical anti-semitic shite. Of course, he too is doing all he can to give those whose dislike the CRE and his leadership fodder.

You either love him, or you hate him :-)

I did a little research on Google and knocked this together. I also found out he left Veritas over a year ago. Although "officially" his formal leaving took place after he failed to renew his membership in January 2006.

For what it's worth.

ROBERT KILROY-SILK

Born in Birmingham and educated at Saltley Grammar School and The London School of Economics; Robert Kilroy-Silk carried out research for his PhD. Dr Kilroy-Silk was then offered a post as a lecturer in politics, at Liverpool University, between 1966 and 1974.
In 1974, Robert won his seat in Parliament and served as a Labour MP until 1986 first for Ormskirk and then for Knowsley North. He held numerous posts, including that of shadow home office minister. He also held the chairmanship of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group and became civil liberties ‘Man of the Year’ for several years for his campaign on human rights and penal reform.
Robert left Parliament for the BBC in 1986 to present the extremely successful morning show called, simply, “Kilroy”. Even though he brought millions into the BBC in this five day a week show, their Politically Correct police forced the BBC to close the show in 2003.
He has written three books: “Socialism since Marx”; “Hard Labour”; The Political Diary of Robert Kilroy-Silk; and a novel, “The Ceremony of Innocence”. In addition to these books, he wrote a political column in The Times for five years, for The Daily Express for another five years and The Sunday Express as well as columns for Time Out, Chat, The Sunday Mirror and the Today Newspaper.
Robert Kilroy-Silk is currently the MEP for the East Midlands Constituency.
He enjoys gardening and the theatre.

ass traffic galleries* ass traffic gang* granny hairy pic* granny hairy tgp* busty star lorna morgan* busty star nadine jansen* cora allinternal* cynthia allinternal* ass parade sidnee* assparade vida guerra* boatbangers fuck* boatbangers fuckers*