|
« The global warming scam
Main |
January 12, 2004
The McCarthyism of the left
Fine piece by Stephen Pollard on the Robert Kilroy-Silk affair. Stephen exposes the hypocrisy of the illiberal establishment in swiftly turning Kilroy-Silk into an unperson for his remarks that Arabs were 'suicide bombers, limb amputators and women repressors', while doing zilch about the current outpouring of Jew-hatred and Judeophobia. This is not to condone Kilroy-Silk's now notorious article in the Sunday Express. Even given the fact that it was a reprint which apparently excised the point made in the original that he was attacking not Arabs but Arab states, it still displayed ignorance about Arab civilisation and was wrong to generalise in the way that it did. But for heaven's sake -- as Ibrahim Nawar, head of Arab Press Freedom Watch, has said, much of what Kilroy-Silk said was simply the truth. Here is what Nawar said: '"I fully support Robert Kilroy-Silk and salute him as an advocate of freedom of expression. I would like to voice my solidarity with him and with all those who face the censorship of such a basic human right. I agree with much of what he says about Arab regimes. There is a very long history of oppression in the Arab world, particularly in the states he mentions: Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, as well as in Sudan and Tunisia. 'These regimes are not based on democracy and their legitimacy comes from military dicatorships or inherited systems. The basic right of an individual to voice his or her opinion is not granted in any kind of form in the Arab world. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, there have been seven Saudi editors sacked from their jobs for criticising the regime since March 2002. In Algeria, we are currently fighting 70 defamation cases against journalists who spoke out against the state. 'I would also agree with Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments on the oppression of women by totalitarian Arab states. Women in Saudi Arabia even have to struggle for the right to walk unaccompanied in the street or to drive a car. It is worth remembering, however, that there are individual Arabs who do work hard to defend human rights and one cannot make a blanket generalisation about Arab people. We support Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments specifically in reference to Arab regimes because we are against the oppressive policies supported by rulers in the Arab world. 'I condemn the decision to axe his programme and call for the BBC to reinstate him forthwith. Indeed, the treatment of Mr Kilroy-Silk is very worrying because it indicates that censorship is now taking place in liberal, Western countries like the United Kingdom. These countries should instead be setting an example to the oppressive Arab regimes that violate freedom of expression on a daily basis.' An utterly balanced, objective and fair assessment from an Arab. Now look at what our own illiberals are saying, in particular Trevor Phillips. head of the Commission for Racial Equality -- which actually reported Kilroy-Silk to the police -- who is well on course to become the Joe McCarthy of the British left. 'Mr Phillips called on the former Labour MP to “learn something about Muslims and Arabs” and use some of his “vast earnings” to support a Muslim charity. “Then I would say he has been properly contrite,” he said.' Phillips, who has said the BBC should never employ Kilroy-Silk again, has of course been silent over Judeophobic outbursts, such as that by Tam Dalyell against the 'cabal of Jewish advisers' around Tony Blair and President Bush; or the BBC TV Newsnight discussion which followed, which concluded there was indeed a 'tightly-knit' group of Jews in the US which was having an undue and malign influence over its foreign policy, illustrated by a graphic claiming a spider's web of Jewish influence acompanied by suitably sinister music; or indeed, the now countless articles alleging sinister Jewish power controlling Britain, America and the world. Nor will Phillips presumably have anything to say about the disturbingly (and not for the first time) offensive article by Faisal Bodi in, of course, the Guardian. Revealingly, Bodi attacks Kilroy-Silk for taking Salman Rushdie's side, when he had the sentence of murder pronounced on him, in a ' debate that was wrongly characterised as free speech versus censorship'. He then says: 'Suffice it to say that neither Kilroy-Silk nor anybody else would have been allowed to say the same thing in our national newspapers about black people or Jews.' Black people, maybe; but it's open season on the Jews, not least by Bodi himself, author of a previous Guardian rant in which he said Israel should not exist, and many other inflammatory, hate-inciting attacks on Israel. In today's article, he delivers himself of the following remarkable statement: 'The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, must decide if a prosecution for incitement to racial hatred is warranted...And, given Goldsmith's perception in the Muslim world as pro-Israeli, Britain's Muslims are not holding their breath that he will initiate a prosecution against someone writing for a proprietor with similar political leanings.' 'Pro-Israeli'? 'Similar political leanings'? To my knowledge, Lord Goldsmith has never uttered a syllable about Israel. What Bodi means is that he is a Jew; as is Richard Desmond, proprietor of the Express. Will Trevor Phillips demand that Bodi never be employed again by any newspaper? Will he demand that the Guardian donate to a Jewish charity to show its contrition? Or will he, like the rest of our dhimmi establishment, continue to indulge bigots, Judeophobes and hypocrites as long as they are Muslims and the Jews are the targets? Posted by melanie at January 12, 2004
Comments
It is stange how the Beeb had no problems with Tom Paulin's remarks that American born Jews who live on the West Bank are Nazis and should be killed. Paulin is still employed by the BBC. As I have said previously the anti Semtiism of the BRitish chattering classes is revolting. Kilroy-Silk told the truth, what has the Arab world contributed to civilization recently outside of jihad, hijackings, honor killings, and suicide bombings? Posted by: Trevor at January 12, 2004 01:09 PMIt is no loss to Britain that Kilroy-Silk's programme has diappareared from the airwaves, it probably does nearly as much damage to our culture than some of the dark forces of whom he complains (LOL). It had passed it's sell-by date years ago. But for the BBC to dump him because, in a newspaper, he expressed views damaging to their own egregious political agenda, is just another example of just how arrogant the leftist agitprop cabal at the BBC has now become. They are out of control and NO political party here has got the bottle to take them on. We must fight to defend anyone's right to free speech, even when it emanates from RK-S. We're under one of the worst ideological and terroristic threats this country has ever known and our national broadcaster blatantly stifles any criticism about the countries where terrorism and oppression is fomented (including, increasingly, our own, it seems.) Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 12, 2004 03:10 PM"Tom Paulin's remarks that American born Jews who live on the West Bank are Nazis and should be killed." There's more about this - including a link to the Paulin interview in an Egyptian newspaper - here: BBC Regular: Jewish Settlers Should Be "Shot Dead" http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2004/01/bbc_regular_jew.html Posted by: The Tapir at January 12, 2004 04:46 PMWhy are they no race hate charges being brought against Capt. Hook and Sheik Half-Baked, both of whom have actually incited others to target groups of people for violence, rather than just issuing a few nasty insults? A perfect example of how "hate speech" laws will never be just, as, like "blasphemy" laws, they are never applied fairly and are very easily manipulated to destroy political opponents. It breaks my heart to see Britain deviate so much from the path of liberty. Oh wake up before it's too late! We need Churchills and Roosevelts and Queen Wilhelminas, and all we've got are airheads, Fifth Columnists and blow-dried wimps! Posted by: Susan at January 12, 2004 04:58 PMLet's not be wishy-washy about it. This country is being betrayed by a class and generation of people who've 'never had it so good' and as a result don't understand or care about the realities of life - or any one else - as long as they can preen and poster for each other, spreading their fantastically sensitive, caring wings for mutual admiration. Bastards (often literally). Posted by: Michael at January 12, 2004 05:16 PMIf you Europeans don't want your hard-working, peaceful, civilized and highly educated Jews, send 'em over here. We Yanks can always use a few more Nobel Prizes. Posted by: Susan at January 12, 2004 05:36 PMI was wondering why it is that Robert Fisk and John Pilger can make equally sweeping and biased statements about Israel and the United States without so much as a murmur from the Guardian reading classes, and why the CRE haven't taken any action against them? In 2001, the BBC ignored called from MPs, Muslim moderates and Jewish organisations, when they insisted Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed appear on Kilroy's show. They stated at the time that he "had already featured on three BBC programmes - the One O'Clock and Six O'Clock News bulletins and Radio 4's Today programme." http://media.guardian.co.uk/attack/story/0,1301,589348,00.html
It's become more than apparent that the BBC are capitulating to the Islamists in our midst. It's also come to a stage where, if you're white, born in this country and have grandparents and great grandparents who fought for this country, that you're not entitled to free speech, but will be penalised for it. Free speech in the UK is now only limited to the Muslim immigrants calling "racism" at every opportunity! It could well be time for every honest, hardworking, taxpayer to leave the country to those who have taken over and let the remaining, pro-censorship taxpayers foot the dole bill which houses and feeds so many of these people who want the UK to become as oppressed as their country of origin! Unfortunately, in the UK, it's a crime to speak the truth about Arab regimes! I am reminded of a quote which the BBC should have in their charter: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire Kilroy-Silk's article slandered arabs qua arabs whereas the other articles people mension do no such thing. Paulin (not to condone his outburst) refers to illegal settlers and not Jews and Fisk is always careful to only refer to the Israeli or US establishment. Neither has explicitly condemned a particular race. Surely, whatever hidden agenda you want to attribute to any political commentator - there is a clear difference between predicating charecteristics to a race and merely condemning the actions of a particular government (however much you may doubt the sincerity of whoever makes the claim). I can't understand why Kilroy-Silk (supposedly an intelligent man)could make such a basic error. If he means to challenge the obscene backwardness of Arab REGIMES then good on him. I only wish our own government would be so vocal. But as it stands, this article is a rather uneducated and silly racist rant. Posted by: confused onlooker at January 12, 2004 11:53 PMActually confused onlooker, Paulin has stated that all American Israelis (Jews) living in the settlements should be killed - and you think that maybe he was referring to another religion? IF you knew the history of the middle east and KNEW of how the Arabs turned down the Palestinian state in 1947, thinking they'd rid the middle east of Israel on the day of it's birth, then you'd know how the current situation has come to be. Find out how many millions of refugees there were after 1948, not only in Europe, but in India, Pakistan, as well as the middle east! And, NOT all refugees were Palestinians! However, all other refugees have been absorbed into their countries of refuge and only the Palestinians have remained refugees, being used as political pawns by the Arab states. There were a far larger number (900,000) of Jews expelled from Arab lands, after years of persecution, all of whom are now absorbed into Europe, America or Israel! Now, back to the present! If the Arabs wouldn't have declared war on Israel in 1967 and 1973, the West Bank would still be a part of Jordan and Gaza would still be a part of Egypt (where the Palestinians were and are treated like dirt)! Kilroy isn't racist and has made some valid points called the Truth, but making excuses for the constant stream of anti-Americanism and anti-Israel, as well as anti-semitic attitudes doesn't make for any good debate! I'm not going to get into debates over the rights and wrongs of the ME conflict - they are best reserved for other posts. Paulin refered to *all* American Jews living in the disputed territories. Pretending that they are "illegal" settlers does not change any of that. And Kilroy-Silk did not defame Arabs as a race. As the original article made clear, he was talking about the oppressive Arab regimes. I don't see how you can say that condemning dictatorships is a worse offense than calling for the murder of a group of people because you doubt their right to live in a specific place. Posted by: Russ at January 13, 2004 04:44 AM'These regimes are not based on democracy and their legitimacy comes from military dicatorships or inherited systems.
"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?" How exactly does this refer to Arab regimes? Again, "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." If Kilroy-Silk **really** meant not to tarnish every Arab citizen with the same brush then it would not have been difficult to make the distinction more explicit. I don't doubt the "right" of people to "live" in a specific place. I do doubt the "right" of settlers to create a network of exclusive roads and army checkpoints which heavilly oppress the locals. Plus, they use up all the water. The only thing that is "disputed" is your grasp of International law. Posted by: confused onlooker at January 13, 2004 12:15 PM It disturbs me that there seems to be little understanding of the principles of freedom of expression here. If you suppress that which is odious, bigoted or ignorant (the frothings of anti-semites or the ravings of islamophobes for example) then there is no true freedom of speech, merely a narrow consensus that you gainsay at your peril. Robert Kilroy-Silk is patronising and so is the BBC. I was enjoying watching this farce until I remembered that I have to renew my TV license. feh. Posted by: Smit at January 13, 2004 04:41 PMWhat Kilroy Silk was criticising was not the Arab regimes or the Arab race (if there is such a thing) but the Arab culture, which has bred things such as suicide bombings, female oppression etc. ("Honour killings" are not carried out by any regime.) I think a culture is a perfectly legitimate target for criticism. Posted by: ilana at January 13, 2004 09:10 PMHowever, cultures are not homogenous. You're right in that attacking any culture that promotes suicide bombings, honour killings or public beheadings is ABSOLUTELY valid. I have no time whatsoever for the sort of airy-fairy moral relativism that many in the media subsribe to in order not to "offend" Muslims and Arabs. Yet, under every backward Arab regime there are many people who challenge that culture - womens activists, human-rights workers etc. What Kilroy-Silk does is condemn a whole people rather than explicitly relate his attacks to religious institutions, goverments etc. What he writes is pure superficial, tabloid trash. BTW - I would have thought that many Daily Mail readers would feel more at home in Saudi or any other such Medievalist state. They have a strong sense of moral authority and lots of public executions to keep the kids occupied. Tom Paulin called for the murder of Jewish settlers on the West Bank. He made no exceptions for children, elderly etc. The BBC, Commission for Racial Equality did not bat an eyelid. Double standards or what?! Kiroy made some sweeping generalisations about Arabs all of which were true of some Arabs but he did not call for the murder of all Arabs in a particular spot. Which is worse? To me no contest. The Race Relations industry doesn't back Jews, now they are no longer victims/losers. Posted by: Cat Lover at January 13, 2004 11:13 PMconfused onlooker You're criticising Kilroy for talking about Arab regimes but he said the truth - after all, how many non-Islamic suicide bombers have we seen? How many of those that committed the atricities of 9/11 were non-Islamic? Actually - Kilroy should have said Islamists instead of Arabs! Posted by: nannette at January 13, 2004 11:56 PM"You're criticising Kilroy for talking about Arab regimes" When did I say that? Give me a single sentence. Attack a Regime OK. Attack a Race NOT OK. BTW, Settlers in the West Bank are attacked **as settlers** - 1) because they are part of a deliberate government stratergy to grab more land and 2) because they create unbearable restrictions for the locals. This has nothing to do with the question. Posted by: confused onlooker at January 14, 2004 02:52 AMHi, My comment (in response to nannette on suicide bombing) is best summed up by the following post made there. ********************* David, First of all I don't condone suicide bombing, however to try and understand the motivation and history behind these activities, can I recommend an article in this weeks Economist magazine? It's quite informative and reasonably balanced. It points out that suicide killings have been practiced by various groups for centuries. Like the Zealots and Sicarii (2 Jewish sects) attacked Roman *occupiers* in Judaea in the 1st century. In the 18th century groups in India, Indonesia and the Philippines launched attacks against their colonial rulers. More recently the Tamil Tigers. Again I'm not justifying the act, just pointing out that [some] Arabs don't have a monopoly on suicide killing. The article does go on to talk about specific Arab terrorist groups, and the religious dilema of suicide [unequivocally denounced in Islam] vs. martyrdom [death in jihad]. My personal opinion, since you are asking, is that if someone is pushed far enough they will lose sight of their cause. Both sides are to blame here, state sponsored murder and oppression vs. state sponsered terrorism. It will take a powerful mediator to resolve [if they have the will to].
I believe that people are basically good. It is the differences in power that corrupt. Suicide bombing is wrong. Settlements are also wrong, as confirmed by the UN. Fundamentalism without tolarance seems to be the root of these problems. [Note that I see that there is a differnce between fundamentalism and an orthodox/traditional viewpoint on religion]. Just an opinion..... Posted by: Balance at January 14, 2004 11:39 AMBalance. The UN is totally dominated by the Arab States and their oil reserves, so they cannot be trusted to produce just verdicts about Israel. They spend most of the time dreaming up anti-Israel resolutions while ignoring all sorts of other issues worldwide, and excluding Israel from full participation in the organisation itself. Peter, The fact is that the UN is generally accepted as being the forum to manage this sort of international issue. It seems to me that when it suits people, they subscribe to it's decisions, and when it doesn't, they don't. I've heard countless counter statements saying that the UN is run between the US and Israel [how many Arab states are on the security council etc?]. Who is correct? I suspect neither. What you are saying doesn't make sense, in that the UN cannot be trusted to make decisions about Israel, but can be trusted to make decisions on Afghanistan, Iraq etc?... hmmmm.... As to holding 'previously bare land', again this is no justification. I live in England, there are many areas in Scotland and Wales that are bare. I don't think the English could occupy them and redefine the borders because no one else is there. Of course the Middle East isn't as clear as this, but your argument doesn't stack up. Frankly, I don't agree with you. I recognise what you are saying, but wonder what you would think if you were Palestinian in descent? Not a millitant, but a regular civilian. I believe that you would think that there was an inbalance in the course of historical events and the current distribution of power. If you believe otherwise, I would suggest you have lost objectivity on this issue. Obviously things have moved on in the last 50 plus years, and so I stand by my last post and hoped to bring some objectivity to the debate on suicide bombing. It is not a new 'Islamist only' strategy, and has been practiced by many groups over many centuries [including certain Jewish groups]. Particularly when there has been a real or perceived inbalance. The solution cannot be helped by demonising groups of people. Sun Tzu said the only way to win a battle, is by removing your enemies will to fight. Crushing them [without effective genocide] will only strengthen the suvivors resolve. The latter seems particularly true of the middle east at the moment. I interpret the former to be through diplomacy, tolerance and compromise. Hi "...This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn't it? ..." I think its clear that Kilroy Silk was not referring to THE Arab people, as words like "Arab states" and "Arab countries", were used throughout the article. But the anti-US, BBC (regime) obviously back the Palestinians against the pro-US Israelis, and so had to defend the indefensible reputation of Arab regimes. This followed on from the BBC's tactic of getting specially chosen guests to voice the opinions of its editors, and then dressing up those opinions expressed, as news reporting. As was the case on Thursday, November 20, 2003, when at 1.25pm on BBC1, Anna Ford presented a guest acting as apologist for the terrorist attack in Turkey, who claimed it was an act of self defence. This was undisputed by anyone in the broadcast, and by implication given the BBC's stamp of legitimacy. Its a questionable (but effective) tactic by their own admission: "...All along the BBC has highlighted a distinction - that between its own view and the view expressed by a source. This is a point Lord Hutton has appeared to challenge. Several times he has asked whether it's a distinction audiences would recognise..." Jonathan, Are you seriously suggesting that the BBC editorial position is one of support for the attacks in Turkey? This is just bizare paranoia. Getting in guests with rather unpalatable opinions is a good way to gain genuine understanding of the issues. Not some sort of delivery of the BBC agenda by proxy. Isn't the real reason the right are so suspicious of the BBC that it has proper editorial independence and no foreign tycoons pulling the strings? BTW - If the BBC is genuinely some anti-Israeli propaganda machine then its obviously not doing a very good job. |
