Kilroy Silk - What do you think?

[Alan]

Same here, haven't read it but from what I've heard, critics report him as saying all Arabs are this that and the other when what he said was that some Arab regimes were this that and the other. If his comments (which were actually a reprint from last April) were about Arab regimes - and not Arabs as individuals - he's not wrong, is he? I realise that Iran is not an Arab country but they are often included 'cos they are in that part of the world and as far as I know, the three main "accusations" can be found in one or more Arab countries.

To top it all, the exact same article written last April raised no comment but this time there must have been a slow news day anda lot of touchy people about.

[fondie]

There are a few points I like to raise regarding your reply, but I'm only going to say one thing: Life is not a court of law. In a court of law, there's black and white, right and wrong. In life, there is black, white and an infinite number of shades of grey in between. In life, nothing is absolute (except, arguably, death and taxation). There is 'some truth' in Kilroy-Silk's statment because he's making a genaralized statement on a large number of entities. There bound to be inaccuracies. That's why I don't like sweeping generalization. However, in this case, while the generalization is not good, it is not possible to claim that it is completely inaccurate.

The English are football hooligans, Americans are member of the KKK, builders are women.....

I never claimed life was like a law court, i was just trying to demonstrate that anything can have 'some truth' but it doesn't mean it relates to the whole truth in any way whatsoever.

Calling the entire Arabic world "suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors", gives a completely distorted picture of the actual truth. So far removed is it, it's just a technicality as to whether it contains any truth at all.

[Rave]

Case in point: Until recently, Americans literally cannot criticize the US administration. For if they do so, they'd be considered 'unpatriotic' and that's not a done thing... Is that repression?

No, 'cos they're not going to get arrested for it.

Rich :¬)

[spikegifted]

No, 'cos they're not going to get arrested for it.

You've a way too simplistic view of repression. Official action is only one of the more obvious form of it. In fact, the most common, but least mentioned, form of repression is 'social exclusion'. In most cases, unofficial repression hurts most. If you haven't lived in place where you or your views are a minority, you'd probably have little or no idea what I'm talking about.

[floppybootstomp]

I came across this article on the Net.

I'm not saying I agree with it, and there are certainly parts I could argue with fiercely. I could also give a counter point of view, had I a mind to.

No, all I do is present this as food for thought, no more, no less:

BROWN: What Have The Arabs Ever Done For Us?
Jan 17, 2004
By Derek Brown

It is pretty universally acknowledged that an informed world view is not a prerequisite for success in daytime television. Even so, Robert Kilroy-Silk's anti-Arab diatribe is not only offensive and stupid; it also speaks of a startling degree of ignorance. "We owe Arabs nothing," he wrote. "Apart from oil, which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the west, what do they contribute?" Arabs, according to the sage of the sob story, are "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors".

It is slightly ironic that, at the time this balderdash was printed in the Sunday Express, Mr Kilroy-Silk was topping up his studio tan in a Spanish beach resort. Had he been in the mood for a slightly more demanding cultural shift, he could have gone to the south of that country, to Granada in the province of Andalucia, where he could have seen some of the most beautiful architecture in Europe. Arab architecture. Planned, built and exquisitely decorated by the ancestors of the people Mr Kilroy-Silk apparently thinks so inferior.

It is not only in Spain that Arab architecture has left a European mark. The pointed arch, so eagerly adopted by medieval builders and known today as gothic, was an idea copied from the east, and brought to the west by the early crusaders. And while those religiously crazed bigots were burning and slaughtering in the holy land, Arab poets, mathematicians, astronomers, philosophers and scientists were advancing human civilisation to unprecedented peaks of sophistication.

The Abbasid caliphate of Baghdad, which flourished for half a millennium from about AD750, was arguably the most dazzling of regimes the world had seen up to that date. Arab scholars picked up from where the Greek ancients had stopped centuries earlier, and extended human understanding in virtually every field. As every schoolboy knows, the mathematical concept of zero was discovered by Arabs, when northern Europeans were still wearing horns on their helmets. In fact, as a Guardian reader pointed out this week, every schoolboy is probably wrong: the zero idea almost certainly came from India, but, crucially, it was first written down by an Arab.

Writing is a key part of the Arab nation's bequest to the world. Paper was introduced from China before the end of the first Christian millennium, freeing Arab writers from the costly straitjacket of parchment and papyrus, some 300-400 years before paper reached western Europe. The result was a torrent of poetry and prose, philosophy and scholarship, learning and entertainment. This was the era of The Thousand and One Nights and of vast public libraries. There were astronomical observatories, pharmaceutical laboratories and medical schools. And most of these were flourishing before England's King Alfred was born.

Mr Kilroy-Silk might argue that these are spent glories, and that the modern Arab culture is debased. He would be compounding his ignorance to do so. More poetry than prose is published in Arabic today. The visual arts are vibrant. Music, both popular and traditional, is flourishing. Calligraphy, that most elegant of arts, continues to fascinate users of the flowing Arabic scripts. Arab cuisine - Lebanese mainly, but increasingly Egyptian and other north African - is being belatedly discovered in the west.

For sure, the Arab world has more than its share of despotic rulers and religious bigots. But to lump everyone together under Mr Kilroy-Silk's puerile labels is not only false, but plain daft. Cultures and their values are not only measured by historical achievement, but also in terms of day-to-day living.

I lived in the holy land for nearly four years as the Guardian correspondent. I was greeted and treated by virtually every Arab I met with the greatest courtesy and grace, even in the most trying and sometimes downright tragic circumstances. Sometimes I would poke a little fun at close friends by making up absurdly flowery compliments in the local style - my best invention was "May the womb of your favourite she-camel never wither!" - and invariably they would giggle helplessly. Indeed, the Arab propensity for laughter and friendship is one of my fondest memories of those times.

The Arab people have been traduced enough in the western world and - let's be honest - the western media. It is perhaps time we poured our collective bile over a more deserving target. Cheap, mindless, voyeuristic, shallow, nasty, lobotomised daytime telly, to take a random example.

____________________________________________________________

Article at this site Here which does not really make for comfortable reading.

Again, to re-state, I don't necessarily agree with any views of the above article and certainly not at the site I've linked to.

[DaBeeeenster]

Interestingly enough, that site (jihadunspun) is syndicated by google news. I was looking into the Richard Perle/Boeing story, and found this:

http://news.google.com/news?q=perle+...ff&sa=N&tab=wn

I wonder how long it is before google removes JUS from their syndication list...

(Somewhat off topic, but there you go).

[DaBeeeenster]

Fair enough.

If we are going to light the pitchforks and fires on Kilroy Silk for making such huge generalisations and sweeping comments on Arab people, shouldn't we be equally hard on those who do the same about America

- deal ?

If someone were to state that "Americans are fat. stupid morons" then I think your point would be valid. I dont think that this is the case though; people (myself included) have a problem with the American political administration , but not Americans themselves. I've lived in the US and like the country very much. That does not make me anti-American.

[DaBeeeenster]

In your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, Robert Kilroy Silk is entitled to his.....

Kilroy Silk is entitled to his opinion, but IMHO he is not entitled to it when his opinion is racist. I think that his article was, unquestionably, racist. Do you not agree that some of the statements are racist?

[Big RICHARD]

I don't believe that he was being racist. I think because of the way the article is written it appears that he is, but it was written in response to another article and it addresses the points made about certain groups of arabs, not all arabs. The only problem that I see is that there are far too many generalisations in it, but tbh the main points and arguments of the article are plain to see.

[DaBeeeenster]

So you agree that he was making generalisations? That's kind of my point. He is entitled to his opinion, but when he starts making sweeping statements about millions of people I think he absolves himself of that right.

[Big RICHARD]

So you agree that he was making generalisations? That's kind of my point. He is entitled to his opinion, but when he starts making sweeping statements about millions of people I think he absolves himself of that right.

But don't we live in a society where free speech is real? Surely if he says something we don't agree with (like the generalisations here) we should argue the points with him, not bay for his blood and his head on a spike? By sacking him the BBC have denied him the right to free speech!

I don't remember who it was, but it was someone very wise who said, 'I may not agree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it.'

[DaBeeeenster]

But don't we live in a society where free speech is real? Surely if he says something we don't agree with (like the generalisations here) we should argue the points with him, not bay for his blood and his head on a spike? By sacking him the BBC have denied him the right to free speech!

No, we dont. There are no rights to free speech in the UK. Try standing on a street corner shouting about how you want to overthrow the monarchy.

Nevertheless, as a TV presenter and newspaper commentator, Silk was honoured with a much louder voice than most.

I don't remember who it was, but it was someone very wise who said, 'I may not agree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it.'

I fundamentally disagree with this. Would you fight to the death for Hitlers' right to publish Mein Kampf?

[Ice Kay]

The BBC have not denied him the right to free speech, they simply dont want him to make such comments whilst being in employment with BBC.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say things without expecting consequences. If it did, we'd have no libel laws, and racism would be socially acceptable. I think the article was clumsily written, rather than outright racist, but that clumsiness has caused a lot of unnecessary offence.

This isn't a free speech issue, it's about being qualified for the job in question. To present such a show, one needs to be able to present oneself as an impartial mediator.

[Big RICHARD]

He wasn't doing his duty as an employee of the BBC when he made these comments and in no way said that the BBC endorsed his views. Of course it's a free speech issue! Does he not present himself as an impartial mediator when he presents his show? The consequences of his thoughts should be a discussion on how he actually meant what he said. Of course if he was actually attempting to incite racial hatred then he has gone too far.

[Ice Kay]

The point is BBC have not halted his free speech as he can still do so just not whilst being a BBC employee.

IN any case his comments were made on the paper anyway and they never did anything so he can continue to make such clumsy comments.

I dont see how BBC is at fault over this, they simply dont want to be associated with him.

In 1995 he made similar comments about muslims.

[Saracen]

I dont see how BBC is at fault over this, they simply dont want to be associated with him.

That's not the case, though. They have already said that they will continue to deal with his company and that he may present other shows in the future. They said, however, that they felt that this incident compromised his impartiality, or might be seen as doing so, and that this impacted in his role as a host of a show like Kilroy.

It's not that they are disassociating themselves from either Kilroy OR his views (though they certainly didn't endorse them either) - it's that they feel he may not be seen as an impartial arbitrator in a "sensitive" role like that he had on his show.