Robert Kilroy-Silk
Jan 13th 2004, 1:58 am
#16
C.G.D.S
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Ireland--->London--->Spain--->Rockport, MA
Posts: 3,353
Re: Robert Kilroy-Silk
I can't find an actual transcript but the key terms that caused offence were
Suicide bombers
Limb amputators
Women oppressors.
All true of course! It was in the Express on the 4th Jan if you want to try and google it.
Suicide bombers
Limb amputators
Women oppressors.
All true of course! It was in the Express on the 4th Jan if you want to try and google it.
Jan 13th 2004, 2:00 am
#17
C.G.D.S
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Ireland--->London--->Spain--->Rockport, MA
Posts: 3,353
Re: Robert Kilroy-Silk
Here ya go.
http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aj0021.html
We owe Arabs nothing.
By Robert Kilroy-Silk
WE ARE told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should w e 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 w elfare 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? A nything 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 w ith 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 w ay 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, Y emen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, womenrepressors? 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. GEORGE GALLOWAY, the member of parliament for Baghdad Central, as his tormentors describe him, called the British and American troops "wolves" and called for the Arab countries to rise up and fight them and to cut off oil from the combatants. Later he called upon British troops to refuse to obey "illegal orders".He has, predictably, been vilified. His comments have been termed a disgrace, disgusting, outrageous and so on.
He has been called a loony, naive, gullible and a traitor. There have been demands that George's constituency party should deselect him, that his constituents should not vote for him at the next general election, and that he should be deported to Iraq. No one, as yet, has demanded that he be put in the stocks or burnt at the stake, though no doubt this will come.
But why all the fuss? Why is everyone getting into such an excitable lather over the predictable remarks of a no-mark?
Who with any sense cares an Iraqi dinar for what dear George thinks? Like Clare Short, George is a licensed court jester. He acts the buffoon while she's the straight part of the act, though she exaggerates her sanctimonious seriousness.
Neither are taken seriously. Both are totally discredited laughing stocks that add to the variety of political life. At least George is open, honest and sincere.
(c) Copyright Express Newspapers 2004 The Express on Sunday
By Robert Kilroy-Silk
WE ARE told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should w e 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 w elfare 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? A nything 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 w ith 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 w ay 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, Y emen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, womenrepressors? 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. GEORGE GALLOWAY, the member of parliament for Baghdad Central, as his tormentors describe him, called the British and American troops "wolves" and called for the Arab countries to rise up and fight them and to cut off oil from the combatants. Later he called upon British troops to refuse to obey "illegal orders".He has, predictably, been vilified. His comments have been termed a disgrace, disgusting, outrageous and so on.
He has been called a loony, naive, gullible and a traitor. There have been demands that George's constituency party should deselect him, that his constituents should not vote for him at the next general election, and that he should be deported to Iraq. No one, as yet, has demanded that he be put in the stocks or burnt at the stake, though no doubt this will come.
But why all the fuss? Why is everyone getting into such an excitable lather over the predictable remarks of a no-mark?
Who with any sense cares an Iraqi dinar for what dear George thinks? Like Clare Short, George is a licensed court jester. He acts the buffoon while she's the straight part of the act, though she exaggerates her sanctimonious seriousness.
Neither are taken seriously. Both are totally discredited laughing stocks that add to the variety of political life. At least George is open, honest and sincere.
(c) Copyright Express Newspapers 2004 The Express on Sunday
Jan 13th 2004, 2:52 am
#18
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
I am not surprised he is on the way out. Generalising all Arabs as suicide bombers is ignorant of the reality and could be regarded as inciting hatred. I am still unsure exactly what the piece was about. The article rambled all over the place and failed to acknowledge the difference between the regimes, terrorists and the people.
The article also failed to acknowledge that the West helps prop up the implied regimes. I will not be sad to see the back of him and it is not a surprise The Express (isn't that OKAY magasine in disguise) supports such bigoted views.
The article also failed to acknowledge that the West helps prop up the implied regimes. I will not be sad to see the back of him and it is not a surprise The Express (isn't that OKAY magasine in disguise) supports such bigoted views.
Jan 13th 2004, 3:36 am
#19
C.G.D.S
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Ireland--->London--->Spain--->Rockport, MA
Posts: 3,353
He's blaming his secretary saying the article was never meant for publication and that she sent it in error. I can't imagine the sort of hell she's going through right now. Well I can but I'd rather not.
Jan 13th 2004, 3:45 am
#20
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Originally posted by sibsie
He's blaming his secretary saying the article was never meant for publication and that she sent it in error. I can't imagine the sort of hell she's going through right now. Well I can but I'd rather not.
He's blaming his secretary saying the article was never meant for publication and that she sent it in error. I can't imagine the sort of hell she's going through right now. Well I can but I'd rather not.
Jan 13th 2004, 5:26 am
#21
Get em out by Friday
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,493
He was caught out and should accept his fate. He joins the likes of Morrisey and Danni Minogue who also suffered from head up arse syndrome. It's not as if his show wasn’t the biggest pile of s*** on daytime TV anyway. Unless you find the subject of pregnant 13 year olds living in Britains slums compulsive viewing 
Jan 13th 2004, 10:12 am
#22
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,894
I remember back in the early 80s when ITV showed 'Death of a Princess' about a Saudi princess who was executed for having an affair. The FO spent months grovelling to them in apology.
Don't see now anymore than then why we should apologise to a bunch of 3rd world misogynists for anything.
Don't see now anymore than then why we should apologise to a bunch of 3rd world misogynists for anything.
Jan 16th 2004, 6:45 pm
#23
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,894
LONDON (Reuters) - Veteran television presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit as host of his BBC morning chat show following a row over anti-Arab comments he made in a newspaper article.
"I believe this is the right moment to leave the programme and concentrate my energies in other directions," said Kilroy-Silk, a former Labour Party member of parliament.
The BBC had suspended his long-running "Kilroy" topical discussion show after the Sunday Express newspaper published an article by him headlined "We owe the Arabs nothing".
In the article he asked: "What do (Arabs) think we feel about them? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?".
The Muslim Council of Britain, which had condemned Kilroy-Silk over the article, welcomed his departure.
"We hope today's landmark decision by the BBC will send out a clear signal that anti-Arab racism is every bit as unacceptable, every bit as odious as any other form of racism," the council's secretary general Iqbal Sacranie said in a statement on Friday.
Kilroy-Silk had swiftly apologised for any offence the article might have caused, pointing out that it had been re-published in error and had prompted no reaction when it first appeared in April last year.
But he also defended his right to speak his mind, telling one newspaper: "If I am not allowed to say that there are Arab states that are evil, despotic and treat women abominably, if I am not allowed to say that, which I know to be a fact, then what can I say?"
The BBC denied they were gagging Kilroy but said his views made him unsuitable as the host of a discussion programme.
"Presenters of this kind of programme have a responsibility to uphold the BBC's impartiality," Jana Bennett, the BBC's director of television. said. "This does not mean that people who express highly controversial views are not welcome on the BBC but they cannot be presenters of a news, current affairs or topical discussion programme."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much say would we have in their 3rd world hovels ?
If these Arabs don't like the fact we have free speech in the west why don't they get back to their own lands and enjoy their own 'culture'.
"I believe this is the right moment to leave the programme and concentrate my energies in other directions," said Kilroy-Silk, a former Labour Party member of parliament.
The BBC had suspended his long-running "Kilroy" topical discussion show after the Sunday Express newspaper published an article by him headlined "We owe the Arabs nothing".
In the article he asked: "What do (Arabs) think we feel about them? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?".
The Muslim Council of Britain, which had condemned Kilroy-Silk over the article, welcomed his departure.
"We hope today's landmark decision by the BBC will send out a clear signal that anti-Arab racism is every bit as unacceptable, every bit as odious as any other form of racism," the council's secretary general Iqbal Sacranie said in a statement on Friday.
Kilroy-Silk had swiftly apologised for any offence the article might have caused, pointing out that it had been re-published in error and had prompted no reaction when it first appeared in April last year.
But he also defended his right to speak his mind, telling one newspaper: "If I am not allowed to say that there are Arab states that are evil, despotic and treat women abominably, if I am not allowed to say that, which I know to be a fact, then what can I say?"
The BBC denied they were gagging Kilroy but said his views made him unsuitable as the host of a discussion programme.
"Presenters of this kind of programme have a responsibility to uphold the BBC's impartiality," Jana Bennett, the BBC's director of television. said. "This does not mean that people who express highly controversial views are not welcome on the BBC but they cannot be presenters of a news, current affairs or topical discussion programme."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much say would we have in their 3rd world hovels ?
If these Arabs don't like the fact we have free speech in the west why don't they get back to their own lands and enjoy their own 'culture'.
Jan 16th 2004, 8:14 pm
#24
C.G.D.S
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Ireland--->London--->Spain--->Rockport, MA
Posts: 3,353
A friend of my father lives in Saudi. She was arrested at the airport for taking Christmas decorations in.
I'm sad to see the show only because lots of my friends who work on will now have to try and find new jobs in a slow industry.
I'm sad to see the show only because lots of my friends who work on will now have to try and find new jobs in a slow industry.
Jan 17th 2004, 9:31 pm
#25
Under Achiever
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 185
Originally posted by bondipom
I am not surprised he is on the way out. Generalising all Arabs as suicide bombers is ignorant of the reality and could be regarded as inciting hatred. I am still unsure exactly what the piece was about. The article rambled all over the place and failed to acknowledge the difference between the regimes, terrorists and the people.
The article also failed to acknowledge that the West helps prop up the implied regimes. I will not be sad to see the back of him and it is not a surprise The Express (isn't that OKAY magasine in disguise) supports such bigoted views.
I am not surprised he is on the way out. Generalising all Arabs as suicide bombers is ignorant of the reality and could be regarded as inciting hatred. I am still unsure exactly what the piece was about. The article rambled all over the place and failed to acknowledge the difference between the regimes, terrorists and the people.
The article also failed to acknowledge that the West helps prop up the implied regimes. I will not be sad to see the back of him and it is not a surprise The Express (isn't that OKAY magasine in disguise) supports such bigoted views.
Not wanting to sound s bit racist here because I personally don't march under that banner, but you say Kilroy was inciting hatred, so what about the extreme muslims that are allowed to set up meetings in London parks and rant about us western infidels? How come when a white person says something they are hounded like common criminals?
Jan 17th 2004, 10:27 pm
#26
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Originally posted by dudleydowg
Not wanting to sound s bit racist here because I personally don't march under that banner, but you say Kilroy was inciting hatred, so what about the extreme muslims that are allowed to set up meetings in London parks and rant about us western infidels? How come when a white person says something they are hounded like common criminals?
Not wanting to sound s bit racist here because I personally don't march under that banner, but you say Kilroy was inciting hatred, so what about the extreme muslims that are allowed to set up meetings in London parks and rant about us western infidels? How come when a white person says something they are hounded like common criminals?
Jan 17th 2004, 10:50 pm
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by bondipom
If they were found to be inciting racial hatred they would be charged. It is a matter of getting them. Not as easy as it sounds.
If they were found to be inciting racial hatred they would be charged. It is a matter of getting them. Not as easy as it sounds.
Jan 17th 2004, 10:57 pm
#28
C.G.D.S
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Ireland--->London--->Spain--->Rockport, MA
Posts: 3,353
Originally posted by bondipom
If they were found to be inciting racial hatred they would be charged. It is a matter of getting them. Not as easy as it sounds.
If they were found to be inciting racial hatred they would be charged. It is a matter of getting them. Not as easy as it sounds.
Last edited by sibsie; Jan 17th 2004 at 11:00 pm.
Jan 17th 2004, 11:00 pm
#29
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Originally posted by sibsie
It's not that hard. There are specific offences under the Public Order Act. I'm sure it's more a question of it not being politically correct to do so.
It's not that hard. There are specific offences under the Public Order Act. I'm sure it's more a question of it not being politically correct to do so.
Jan 18th 2004, 8:52 am
#30
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,894
Hook man spouted every chance he got, Robert said it once. To be white in a white country seems to be his crime.