Robert Kilroy-Silk [Archive]

wollery

8th January 2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Ed

I think the question was not what they had produced in the Middle Ages and antiquity but, rather, what they currently produce.

Problems comes to mind. Anything else?
Actually it's the western world that created those problems by continually mucking about with the Middle East and North Africa. It goes a bit like this - [simplistic explanation]
When country A gets a bit uppity and decides it wants more independence we arm its enemy, country B. Country B does the job of bashing country A for us and then decides that it wants some independence of its own, so we either re-arm country A or offer country C huge trade and cash incentives to keep countries A and B occupied for a couple of years until we can figure out what mischief to get up next. Occasionally it all gets out of hand and we send in our own troops (who of course are far better armed, because we've been selling countries A, B and C our old stock!) to sort it out for a bit. After that we pull out and leave them to it for a while before starting the whole merry-go-round again. [/simplistic explanation]

Jon_in_london

8th January 2004, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by wollery

Actually it's the western world that created those problems by continually mucking about with the Middle East and North Africa. It goes a bit like this - [simplistic explanation]
When country A gets a bit uppity and decides it wants more independence we arm its enemy, country B. Country B does the job of bashing country A for us and then decides that it wants some independence of its own, so we either re-arm country A or offer country C huge trade and cash incentives to keep countries A and B occupied for a couple of years until we can figure out what mischief to get up next. Occasionally it all gets out of hand and we send in our own troops (who of course are far better armed, because we've been selling countries A, B and C our old stock!) to sort it out for a bit. After that we pull out and leave them to it for a while before starting the whole merry-go-round again. [/simplistic explanation]

Wollery, the West has only had a hand in the middle east since 1918 (excluding north africa). So what about all that time between say, the third crusade and WWI?

wollery

8th January 2004, 06:40 AM

8th January 2004, 06:55 AM

Matabiri

8th January 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Wollery, the West has only had a hand in the middle east since 1918 (excluding north africa). So what about all that time between say, the third crusade and WWI?

It's been argued that the crusades taught the arabs the value of fighting for no good reason.

There's a summary of post-colonial crusades and jihads here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/sept_11/west_01.shtml

I've also seen it said that soap was invented (quite probably separately) on the Greek island Lesbos, home of Sappho, whence the word "soap".

(http://www.vermontsoap.com/opera.html )

8th January 2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Oh, and, Hi Ed. Couldn't resist another bout of Arab-bashing, huh? Why don't you see a shrink and see if you can work through your xenophobia issues. It might make a man out of you.

Is it bashing to ask what they contributed? You simply don't like the answer and your PCness forces you to attack the asker in an attempt to divert attention from the original question.

Are we at the PC stage now where mistrust of arabs is a mental health issue? How quaintly Soviet.

Jon_in_london

8th January 2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri

I've also seen it said that soap was invented (quite probably separately) on the Greek island Lesbos, home of Sappho, whence the word "soap".

The island of Lesbos? mmmmmm....drool.

Jon_in_london

8th January 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by wollery

True, and what trouble did the west have with arabia between the crusades and 1918?

Thats not the question though is it? The question is about what the Arabs have contributed since medival times not about how many European women have been stoned to death by Arab chauvenists for heinous crimes like going to school in the same time period.

Matabiri

8th January 2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

The island of Lesbos? mmmmmm....drool.

Yes, that is where the word "lesbian" comes from. And "Sapphic".

Lovely beaches, I hear.

karl

8th January 2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Ed
I think the question was not what they had produced in the Middle Ages and antiquity but, rather, what they currently produce.

To be fair, Kilroy-Silk's question is a bit like asking a typical American, "Indeed, apart from English -- which you borrowed from the Brits -- what languages are you fluent in?"

Oil is kind of important these days. Saying "apart from" it doesn't make much sense. The way the global economy works, some countries don't need to do anything else for their survival than keep the pumps running, so why would they?

8th January 2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by karl

To be fair, Kilroy-Silk's question is a bit like asking a typical American, "Indeed, apart from English -- which you borrowed from the Brits -- what languages are you fluent in?"

Oil is kind of important these days. Saying "apart from" it doesn't make much sense. The way the global economy works, some countries don't need to do anything else for their survival than keep the pumps running, so why would they?

"Saudi Arabia's oil revenues will fall to $67 billion next year, down from an expected 20-year high of $85 billion in 2003 but still well above recent averages, the Saudi American Bank (SAMBA) said."

(http://www.arabia.com/business/news/article/english/0,14688,1440,00.html)

Because it is foolhardy to put all of your eggs in one basket.

But really, you are sort of begging the question. Because they have oil there should be no advancements elsewhere? Medicine? Computers? Technology? Automobiles? The last is interesting. If I had a resourse that I knew would eventually dry up (HAhahaha) or be replaced to a greater or lesser degree, I'd be all over development of the replacement. Sorta like what IBM and Smith-Corona (remember them?) didn't do. Fat and happy leads to heart attacks.

Jon_in_london

8th January 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Ed
But really, you are sort of begging the question. Because they have oil there should be no advancements elsewhere? Medicine? Computers? Technology? Automobiles?

Not to mention literacy.

Wollery- further to your earlier post- Would you not say that ultimate responsibility for descending into a quagmire of corruption and warfare, squandering your nations wealth on arms to beat up your neighbour, resides with the people of those nations?

You cant blame the US for WWI because it sold arms to one side anymore than you can blame the west for the sorry state of Arab affairs because it sold arms to them.

Unless of course your contention is that Arabs are little irresponsible children who cant be trusted with anything dangerous?

Lothian

8th January 2004, 07:46 AM

So scratch Gunpower
Scratch Soap

Time for zero, The site may be right in that it was a Muslim ‘invention’ however it was in India not the Arab word that it was ‘invented’ .

8th January 2004, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Unless of course your contention is that Arabs are little irresponsible children who cant be trusted with anything dangerous?

I have seen such thinking regarding groups that have some embaressing traits. This gave rise to my ill fated "Blacks are the Pets of Liberals" thread. Making excuses and blaming others for an 80% illegitamacy rate among blacks does not do anything constructive. Nor does blaming the West for the sorry state of affairs in the mid-east. Ultimately people are responsible.

Imagine if Allah came down and chatted with a bunch of arabs

Allah: Well, my children. Last I looked in you had been doing quite well. I was particularly proud of your invention of "zero". So, it has been 2000 years and I, in my generosity, have givewn you and your brothers wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. Tell me, what have you accomplished?

Abdul: Well, I have a Mercedes!!

Allah: Excellent! What else? Tell me about the people.

Shiek Yerbotie: Well, we are working on reading and stuff.

Allah: Yes my son ...... So everyone can read?

All: ummmmm

Allah: Certainly you have developed great medical cures as you did of old! The life expectancy of my childrem must be the highest in the world by now and unbelievers must throng to this land I have given you for the foremost in medical treatments. Is this not so?

Said: Well... it's like this ... ummmmm no

Allah: So what have you spent this money on?

Abdul (very, very small voice) errrr... guns and stuff.

Allah: WTF!!!!!

Matabiri

8th January 2004, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Ed

constructive. Nor does blaming the West for the sorry state of affairs in the mid-east. Ultimately people are responsible.

From which I can only conclude that people are crap everywhere.

Which is true enough.

richardm

8th January 2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri
Lovely beaches, I hear.

It's not nice to call them that, you should call them "Ladies".

karl

8th January 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Because it is foolhardy to put all of your eggs in one basket.

But really, you are sort of begging the question. Because they have oil there should be no advancements elsewhere? Medicine? Computers? Technology? Automobiles? The last is interesting. If I had a resourse that I knew would eventually dry up (HAhahaha) or be replaced to a greater or lesser degree, I'd be all over development of the replacement. Sorta like what IBM and Smith-Corona (remember them?) didn't do. Fat and happy leads to heart attacks.

Glass houses. Your economy is almost as dependent on oil as theirs. Why are there so few electric cars on your roads? Why are most US cities organized so that you need a car to get anywhere? Because there is very little incentive not to. That's just human nature. And do you give a crap that other countries think your lifestyle is pathetic? I doubt it.

Jon_in_london

8th January 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by karl

Glass houses. Your economy is almost as dependent on oil as theirs. Why are there so few electric cars on your roads? Why are most US cities organized so that you need a car to get anywhere? Because there is very little incentive not to. That's just human nature. And do you give a crap that other countries think your lifestyle is pathetic? I doubt it.

False comparison. The US economy is not powered by any single natural resource or manufactured product.

karl

8th January 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

False comparison. The US economy is not powered by any single natural resource or manufactured product.

Hence the words "almost" and "dependent" rather than "fully" and "powered". Both would collapse without oil, which was the point of the comparison, in response to the particular suggestion that the oil producers ought to be "all over development and replacement." Clear?

Jon_in_london

8th January 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by karl

Hence the words "almost" and "dependent" rather than "fully" and "powered". Both would collapse without oil, which was the point of the comparison, in response to the particular suggestion that the oil producers ought to be "all over development and replacement." Clear?

The particular sugestion was not mine so Ill leave that alone. Nonetheless, while the US economy could be converted to oil free, without oil the Arab nations would have little buts sand and antiquated Soviet-bloc military hardware.

Matabiri

8th January 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

free, without oil the Arab nations would have little buts sand and antiquated Soviet-bloc military hardware.

And an awful lot of left-over Rolls-Royces.

Jon_in_london

8th January 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Matabiri

And an awful lot of left-over Rolls-Royces.

Pfff! damn German cars!

8th January 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by karl

Glass houses. Your economy is almost as dependent on oil as theirs. Why are there so few electric cars on your roads? Why are most US cities organized so that you need a car to get anywhere? Because there is very little incentive not to. That's just human nature. And do you give a crap that other countries think your lifestyle is pathetic? I doubt it.

Misdirection. We were talking about the attainments of the Arab States last I looked.

8th January 2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Matabiri

And an awful lot of left-over Rolls-Royces.

...pulled by camels.

aerocontrols

8th January 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Ed

...pulled by camels.

Saudi princes take better care of their camels.

More likely it'll be Ethiopians doing the pulling.

American

8th January 2004, 07:47 PM

I can't believe you're all ignoring that a man may be charged for speaking freely. You seriously think the main issue is what he said, not that he is in trouble for saying it.

"Our lawyers have considered the column and, in the light of widespread concern, we are referring the article to the police to consider whether it might constitute an offence under the Public Order Act."

Unbelievable. Great Britain SUCKS.

Matabiri

9th January 2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by American
I can't believe you're all ignoring that a man may be charged for speaking freely. You seriously think the main issue is what he said, not that he is in trouble for saying it.

Unbelievable. Great Britain SUCKS.

Wrong. In Great Britain stupidity and ignorance are CAPITAL CRIMES!

Not really. But wouldn't it be great if they were?

I think the fine distinction is that you can speak freely so long as you don't circulate in multiplicate or somesuch. i. e. so long as you don't publish your rantings.

Giz

9th January 2004, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri

I think the fine distinction is that you can speak freely so long as you don't circulate in multiplicate or somesuch. i. e. so long as you don't publish your rantings.

Thats not exactly freedom of speech or freedom of the press then is it?

I mean you can say/write anything you want to, as long as:
(a) you agree with the establishment
or
(b) nobody can hear you

Whatever happenned to the "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it".

It seems to me that when you censor the airing of views on the basis that people will be unable to distinguish between reason and hate then the censors have implicitly judged the populace to be unable (or to irresponsible) to fulfill the kind of analysis that democracies require from their electorates.

The Don

9th January 2004, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by American
I can't believe you're all ignoring that a man may be charged for speaking freely. You seriously think the main issue is what he said, not that he is in trouble for saying it.

Unbelievable. Great Britain SUCKS.

I believe that the charge would be something like inciting racial hatred. In the UK my rights of free speech are curtailed to the extent that I can say:

"I think {insert name of group here} are lazy and feckless and probably have cooties"

but I can't say

"To prevent the spread of cooties, all {insert name of group here} should be rounded up and shot"

Particularly if I was a prominent person/celebrity

Kilory-Silk's choice of words appears inflamatory and so could fall under the terms of the law

Jon_in_london

9th January 2004, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by The Don

Kilory-Silk's choice of words appears inflamatory and so could fall under the terms of the law

What Kilroy did not do however, was to say that "Arabs contribute nothing and we owe them nothing so go out and heave a brick through the window of your nearest mosque and beat the crap out a paki." or something like.

If he had said that, then I would be quite happy to see him up in the dock. But he didnt so it will be interesting to see what will happen.

Worringly, the law is a bit fuzzy about this and it would appear that you dont have to make specific threats or specifically encourage or incite violence against someone to get a few years in the clink.

Peter Jenkins

9th January 2004, 03:30 AM

I think the fine distinction is that you can speak freely so long as you don't circulate in multiplicate or somesuch. i. e. so long as you don't publish your rantings.

The problem is where one intends to incite racial hatred.
Actually, this is only a problem if the person is caucasian & of English descent. If you are (for example) an arab Muslim cleric, living off of British social security benefits, you are free to incite racial hatred against the British, Americans, Jews, Christians & Atheists. You may even get police protection and, if anyone challenges your right to do this, you can always contact the Prime minister's wife, cherie, who does a nice little business defending human rights issues for perverts and bigots.

[oh dear, I fell faint. I must have had a 'sun editorial' attack]

Peter

Jon_in_london

9th January 2004, 03:42 AM

From the act; http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940033_en_8.htm

Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. to be arrestable

Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. to be arrestable.

155. —In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (h) inserted by section 166(4) of this Act, there shall be inserted the following paragraph— " (i) an offence under section 19 of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (publishing, etc. material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred);"

My bolding. So in fact you dont even have to have intended
to stir up racial hatred. All that is required is that someone judges that what you said is likely to have done so.

Personally I find that quite alarming (being white, male and middle-class and all....)

Giz

9th January 2004, 03:49 AM

Darat

9th January 2004, 05:17 AM

Jon_in_london

9th January 2004, 06:02 AM

Closest I could find is this:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds01/text/11101w04.htm

which appears to be a bit fuzzy:

......and so it is not possible to state with any certainty how many prosecutions resulted in convictions in any given year...

In addition, figures published in the Crown Prosecution Service Racist Incident Monitoring Annual Report 1999-2000 shows that the number of racist incidents sent for prosecution rose from 1,603 in 1998-99 to 2,417 in 1999-2000. Prosecutions were brought against 1,832 defendants (76 per cent) on 2,651 charges. Guilty pleas were tendered on 66 per cent of the charges and there were convictions after trial on another 12 per cent of the charges. In total 2,078 (79 per cent) of the 2,651 charges prosecuted resulted in convictions.

But this doesnt really tell us very much at all as the section under which these prosecutions were made is not refered to.

mummymonkey

9th January 2004, 07:19 AM

Looks like his bosses weren't amused.

The Kilroy programme will be taken off air immediately following comments made by Robert Kilroy-Silk in a newspaper article, the BBC has announced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3383589.stm

BillyTK

9th January 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by mummymonkey
Looks like his bosses weren't amused.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3383589.stm
Result!

Not really bothered about his ignorant ranting, just glad he's off the air. Can we have Trisha instead?

Matabiri

9th January 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
From the act; http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940033_en_8.htm

My bolding. So in fact you dont even have to have intended
to stir up racial hatred. All that is required is that someone judges that what you said is likely to have done so.

Personally I find that quite alarming (being white, male and middle-class and all....)

Yes... this government has (according to lawyers I know) been passing a lot of very carelessly worded legislation.

Presumably, though, proving that something is likely to stir up racial hatred is tricky. Either it does, or it doesn't. How do you demonstrate likelihood?

On the other hand, this article has encouraged me to find and physically assault RKS, the weird orange-skinned freak. Does that make him guilty of inciting orange-ist* hatred?

(*I don't want any angry responses from Irish Protestants here...)

Jaggy Bunnet

9th January 2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri

Yes... this government has (according to lawyers I know) been passing a lot of very carelessly worded legislation.

Presumably, though, proving that something is likely to stir up racial hatred is tricky. Either it does, or it doesn't. How do you demonstrate likelihood?

I would have thought it easier to prove something likely (man on the Clapham omnibus test) rather than requiring to prove intention.

Jon_in_london

9th January 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri

Yes... this government has (according to lawyers I know) been passing a lot of very carelessly worded legislation.

Presumably, though, proving that something is likely to stir up racial hatred is tricky. Either it does, or it doesn't. How do you demonstrate likelihood?

Actually thats Tory legislation. Damned freedom hating rightys! :P

Certainly proving likelihood should be tricky but I still dont like the idea of my freedom depending on it.

mjh36

9th January 2004, 11:40 AM

Mr. Silk is guilty of crass remarks to be sure, but what makes his crass remarks criminal is that he is Anglo and he made crass remarks about a non-Anglo group. The world can tolerate a lot, just so long as it isn't done by anyone who has the following qualities:

1) Speaks English as a first language
2) Is Caucasian or of Anglo descent
3) Is male
4) Lives in a First World nation
5) Is educated
6) Earns money

If you don't meet every one of those conditions, then you can say or do anything and find sympathy for your actions. If, however, you do meet all those qualifications, then you need to shut your demonic mouth and stop oppressing the little people. Pretty simple.

Silk forgot that basic rule of the New World, so now he must be scolded.

Jon_in_london

9th January 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by mjh36
Mr. Silk is guilty of crass remarks to be sure, but what makes his crass remarks criminal is that he is Anglo and he made crass remarks about a non-Anglo group. The world can tolerate a lot, just so long as it isn't done by anyone who has the following qualities:

1) Speaks English as a first language
2) Is Caucasian or of Anglo descent
3) Is male
4) Lives in a First World nation
5) Is educated
6) Earns money

If you don't meet every one of those conditions, then you can say or do anything and find sympathy for your actions. If, however, you do meet all those qualifications, then you need to shut your demonic mouth and stop oppressing the little people. Pretty simple.

Silk forgot that basic rule of the New World, so now he must be scolded.

You forgot

7) Middle Class (ie. not a dodgy plumber or an inbred toff).

mjh36

9th January 2004, 01:04 PM

Good call Jon, I did leave out middle class. My bad.

Skeptic

9th January 2004, 02:04 PM

I've also seen it said that soap was invented (quite probably separately) on the Greek island Lesbos, home of Sappho, whence the word "soap".

Somehow, though, "Lesbians and their use of Soap" doesn't sound QUITE like the title of an historical dissertation...

By the way, the zero is from India, and gunpowder invented by the Chinese a long time ago and re-discovered by Roger Bacon in the 13th century (he was looking for the "philosophers's stone", a chemical that would turn lead and iron into gold. Arguably, gunpowder was a greater discovery).

That said, in the ancient world, there was no communications; it is more than likely that the Arab who invented soap did invent it, in the sense of having thought of it independentally and not by reading ancient Greek texts. But, frankly, I'm a bit suspicious of the web site where these discoveries are on, noting that they don't even mention co-creators. It seems like a "we invented everything!" propaganda page.

Seriously, two questions:

1). Fine, let's say the Arabs never invented anything, ever (which of course is not the case). So? Are they less human for that? Is that a reason for hate? Might as well hate someone because they aren't good at math.

2). Given that his comments were disgusting and racist--and they were--but why is he investigated by the police? For what crime? Being a jerk? That it MIGHT cause somebody, somewhere, to think of hurting an Arab is hardly cause, or just about anything anybody would say about anybody, apart from bland compliments, I suppose, would qualify as "hate speech".

Craig

9th January 2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Somehow, though, "Lesbians and their use of Soap" doesn't sound QUITE like the title of an historical dissertation...

Though interesting nonetheless.

demon

10th January 2004, 01:21 AM

Hmmm, ok, carry on Kilroy apologists...only thing is the guy himself has aplogized for his comments. Seems he has seen the light so you`ll need a new racist bandwagon to jump on now. Kilroy has recanted.:p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3384573.stm

Darat

10th January 2004, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Closest I could find is this:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds01/text/11101w04.htm

which appears to be a bit fuzzy:

But this doesnt really tell us very much at all as the section under which these prosecutions were made is not refered to.

I agree, spent sometime last night and haven't been able to find anything online, accessible and "authoritative" that has the figures.

Interestingly this morning I heard a view that I hadn't considered that has made be pause in my "BBC=knee-jerk inappropriate action" view. And that was the fact that the BBC is a state funded organisation and in effect when on the programme KS is a "civil servant".

Perhaps there is something in the BBC saying "OK of course you have free speech and can say what you want however we as a state organisation will not allow anyone to promote (or be seen to support someone who promotes) 'racial tension' who is a BBC presenter".

Not given it much thought yet - just thought I'd throw it out for mulling over. (Or mauling over.)

Nikk

10th January 2004, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Interestingly this morning I heard a view that I hadn't considered that has made be pause in my "BBC=knee-jerk inappropriate action" view. And that was the fact that the BBC is a state funded organisation and in effect when on the programme KS is a "civil servant".

Not given it much thought yet - just thought I'd throw it out for mulling over. (Or mauling over.)

The civil servant idea has no merit. The BBC is a corporation established under royal charter and an accompanying agreement sets out its editorial independence. The charter is renewed from time to time; the current one runs from 1996 to 2006.

The wording of the charter is delightfully old fashioned. Here is an example:-

__________________________________________________ __

" NOW KNOW YE that We by Our Prerogative Royal and of Our especial grace, certain
knowledge and mere motion do by this Our Charter for Us, Our Heirs and Successors will,
ordain and declare as follows:-
INCORPORATION
1. The Corporation shall continue to be a body corporate by the name of The British
Broadcasting Corporation with perpetual succession and a common seal with power to break,
alter and renew the same at discretion; willing and ordaining that the Corporation shall and
may sue and be sued in all Courts and be capable in law to take and hold real and personal
property and do all matters and things incidental or pertaining to a body corporate, but so that
the Corporation shall apply the whole of its income solely in promoting its objects. The
Governors of the Corporation shall be the members thereof."

__________________________________________________ ____

The corporation is very keen to assert its editorial independence and would be horrified at the idea that it is some sort of government mouthpiece.

That said, rightly or wrongly, there is a corporate "party line" regarding racial tolerance and these sort of comments cross it.

Jon_in_london

10th January 2004, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Somehow, though, "Lesbians and their use of Soap" doesn't sound QUITE like the title of an historical dissertation...

Wears the soap?

Peter Jenkins

10th January 2004, 06:22 AM

Interesting point, which I only picked up on this morning.
RKS's comments were first printed in April 2003.
At the time, there was barely a murmur from anyone........we were fighting in Iraq at the time.

I suppose it's typical of the BBC to go overboard for a repeat.
P

Craig

10th January 2004, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Wears the soap?

Yes, it does rather.

Doesn't really work when it's typed up...

11th January 2004, 07:27 AM

Anyhoo....what actually have the arabs contributed?

Skeptic

11th January 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Anyhoo....what actually have the arabs contributed?

Well, we can start chemisty, mathematics, and medicine.

The superiority of Arab medicine to Christian "pray to destroy the evil spirit" or "it's a just punishment for your sins" is so well documented it needs no further notice here.

As for chemistry and mathematics, the modern names of "Alchemy", "Algebra", and "Algorithm" both incorporate the arabic "Al" ("the"), and are really arabic names meaning, very rougly, "the chemistry" "the calculation", and "the process".

Arab mathematicians and chemists (or alchemists, as there was no difference at the time) made many contributions to mathematics and to chemistry, discovering many new compounds and substances and proving many mathematical theorems.

To give a concrete example--by no means the most important one--of their mathematical ability, consider the applied mathematical science of cryptology. For thousands of years, the only cryptology known to man was monoalphabetic substitution: replace one letter by another consistently throughout the code. It was an Arab who discovered, first, that checking the relative frequency of letters in the coded message enables one to break the code, and--a greater accomplishment--that a solution to this is to substitute one symbol or number for TWO OR MORE letters in the original, in order to defeat the counting method. This is the first case of polyalphabetic codes, and the first true advance in cryptology since the times of the ancient Sumerians, who invented the alphabeth and the monoalphabetic substitution.

Of course, it is always possible to claim that all these are not "real" achievements since they had depended on the earlier work of the Greeks. That's somewhat true, but it is meaningless on at least three counts:

1). If that's the criterion for "real" achievement, then nobody except the Greek had ever "contributed anything" to humanity, so the west wins by default;

2). Most of the Arab achievments were truly original (such as the polyalphabtic code, above, which the Greeks never imagined);

3). Even if the Arabs did nothing but conserve Greek science until the Reneissance, that alone would have deserved the greatest praise--although surprisingly, this, the one "achievement of Arab culture" that everybody knows about, is probably NOT accurate; it is true that the Arabs preserved those sources, but new research shows that the origins of the Reneissance is in the rediscovery of ancient European and Byzanthian manuscripts, not Arab translations.

Just as well, I suppose; this "preserving the western tradition" Arab achievement that "enabled the Reneissance" has always struck me as patronizing. It implies that the Arabs had no reason of their own for preserving those texts, or added nothing significant to it, but that the silly brutes were merely holding them in reserve until the "rightful owners"--the Europeans of the Reneissance--got them back, and showed the Arabs what can be REALLY done with all those Greek treasures.

RCNelson

11th January 2004, 05:55 PM

I found an interresting commentary from an Arab advocate for freedom of speech:
Ibrahim Nawar:
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.

. . . .

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 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.
The full article is HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/11/nsilk112.xml).

JamesM

12th January 2004, 02:10 AM

Anyone actually read the article, or, even better, got a link to it (which admittedly, given the poorness of the Express website, would involve copyright naughtiness)?

I notice that the rhetoric has changed: whereas he was accused of criticising Arabs, Kilroy-Silk is now claiming he was only commenting about Arab states.

Jon_in_london

12th January 2004, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
Anyone actually read the article, or, even better, got a link to it (which admittedly, given the poorness of the Express website, would involve copyright naughtiness)?

I notice that the rhetoric has changed: whereas he was accused of criticising Arabs, Kilroy-Silk is now claiming he was only commenting about Arab states.

I havent been able to find the article- mind you it did come out in april 03!

He now says he was only commenting on certain Arab states, but that doesnt seem to be what he said does it.

richardm

12th January 2004, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
Anyone actually read the article

That could involve actually reading The Express, but despite these terrible risks I did look around to see if I could find it online.

For your reading pleasure,
here it is. (http://www.mcb.org.uk/letter60.html) It is preceded by the letter the Muslim Council of Britain wrote to the BBC - scroll down for the article itself.

(I did notice while reading the Express through gritted eyes (ouch) that their website appears to have stolen the Breaking News logo from the BBC, which is interesting.)

Edited: Originally I said it was the CRE who wrote the letter - oops!

richardm

12th January 2004, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
He now says he was only commenting on certain Arab states, but that doesnt seem to be what he said does it.

Actually, now that I've had a chance to read the article it does seem evident that he's criticising Arab "states" and "regimes".

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?

Although in fairness the whole tone is a bit, erm, well. You know. [/eloquence]

JamesM

12th January 2004, 03:24 AM

Thanks richardm - your googling skills are better than mine. Slippery fellow, that Kilroy-Silk. What is one to make of the following paragraph:

We're told that the Arabs loathe us. [stuff about what the West has done for Arabs snipped].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?
Emphasis mine. First of all, while he begins the article by talking about Arab states, this paragraph starts referring to 'the Arabs'. Then, there's that 'them'. Who does it refer to? Arab states? Arabs in general? Just the Arabian terrorists of 9/11? Just the Arabs that danced in the street? Bit of a bait-and-switch going on there.

On this evidence, I'm not buying the "I was talking about the Arab States! It's political correctness GONE MAD!" defence.

The Don

12th January 2004, 04:10 AM

I'm with JamesM on this one,

The initial part of the article does discuss the regimes in the Middle East but the rest of it relates specifically to Arabs.

BTW, is it unfair to expect a country or countries which were in the middle ages until less than 100 years ago, which are devoid of other raw materials and basically incapable of agriculture and which have an abundance of raw materials not to have a well founded manufacturing industry.

BillyTK

12th January 2004, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
Thanks richardm - your googling skills are better than mine. Slippery fellow, that Kilroy-Silk. What is one to make of the following paragraph:

Emphasis mine. First of all, while he begins the article by talking about Arab states, this paragraph starts referring to 'the Arabs'. Then, there's that 'them'. Who does it refer to? Arab states? Arabs in general? Just the Arabian terrorists of 9/11? Just the Arabs that danced in the street? Bit of a bait-and-switch going on there.

On this evidence, I'm not buying the "I was talking about the Arab States! It's political correctness GONE MAD!" defence.
I have to admit I never saw any footage of Saddam Hussein, al-Assador of Syria or Iran's Guardian Council dancing in the street after September 11th, but I do remember seeing what turned out to be an isolated group of Palestinians cheering and dancing.

On the other hand, surely Kilroy-Silk is entitled to show of his stupidity in public as much as the next person?

On the other hand (I'm tripedal), Kilroy-Silk's claims about his impartiality on his show (here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3387937.stm), scroll down a bit) illustrate what a conceited and self-important squackhead he is, and on that basis alone I'm happy to see his show get pulled.

Jon_in_london

12th January 2004, 04:49 AM

Strange, I seem to have found someone who agrees with RKS:

http://www.voice-online.net/content.php?type=7

On saddam Hussein's capture:

Saddam actually had two AK47s, a pistol and $750,000 in cash – that’s when you know that Arabs are rich for no reason.

....snip....

He probably never called her back and she said, “Achhkk lleagh jabbackk,” which means: “You never called me back, you must think you’re criss”. {making fun of the way other people talk are we?}

What do you think might happen if I report this to the CRE?

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I am disgusted at Mr. Kilroys-Silks bigotted rantings about the Arabs.

I thought you may like to know that there are other journalists who seem to have the same rascist attitude, for example in todays (12/01/2004) edition of "The Voice" I found a column by a person who chooses to remain nameless.
{website http://www.voice-online.net/content.php?type=7}

In this blatantly rascist article he states that "Saddam actually had two AK47s, a pistol and $750,000 in cash – that’s when you know that Arabs are rich for no reason"

I do not know why this person feels that all Arabs are rich for no reason when many are very decent and hard-working people!

This vicious bigot then goes on to insult the way Arabs speak!

"He probably never called her back and she said, “Achhkk lleagh jabbackk,” which means: “You never called me back, you must think you’re criss”. "

Which is surely as bad as someone going to a Chinese Resaurant and making 'chee-chow-chow' noises at the waiter!

I feel that this is likely to, if not intended to stir up racial hatred! I do belive this kind of thing is actionable according to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and I quote "Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. to be arrestable.
155. —In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (h) inserted by section 166(4) of this Act, there shall be inserted the following paragraph— " (i) an offence under section 19 of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (publishing, etc. material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred);"

I trust you will have words with the police about this one on behalf of all of us who wish to live in a peacefull multicultural Britain.

Thank you.

Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx.

Do you think action will be taken or not?

richardm

12th January 2004, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Do you think action will be taken or not?

I suspect the answer to that depends on whether they think they can get any publicity for it or not.

BillyTK

12th January 2004, 07:02 AM

Would anyone care to wager that when whomever does a Hutton on this fiasco, it will be revealed that the BBC were planning on axing Kilroy-Silk's show anyway.

12th January 2004, 07:06 AM

It seems that this guy is suffering for anti-PC sentiments. Very chilling.

Skeptic

12th January 2004, 01:31 PM

The initial part of the article does discuss the regimes in the Middle East but the rest of it relates specifically to Arabs.

...which, according to him, include the Sudanese and the Iranians as "honorary Arabs", I suppose. Which is just one of many blatant factual errors in his rant. I'll bet you anything that he couldn't find Saudi Arabia on the map, or ask for a cup of coffee in Arabic.

In other words, he is totally ignorant of his subject matter, but that doesn't stop him from shooting off at his mouth and to tell us "the truth". He should be fired for being a lousy, ignorant writer and reporter, which he obviously is.

Unfortunately, now that some idiots want to prosecute him for the "hate crime" of being an idiot, firing him for obvious incompetence would be opposed as "politically-correct witch-hunting".

I guess they're stuck with him...

Mr Manifesto

12th January 2004, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
The initial part of the article does discuss the regimes in the Middle East but the rest of it relates specifically to Arabs.

...which, according to him, include the Sudanese and the Iranians as "honorary Arabs", I suppose. Which is just one of many blatant factual errors in his rant. I'll bet you anything that he couldn't find Saudi Arabia on the map, or ask for a cup of coffee in Arabic.

In other words, he is totally ignorant of his subject matter, but that doesn't stop him from shooting off at his mouth and to tell us "the truth". He should be fired for being a lousy, ignorant writer and reporter, which he obviously is.

Unfortunately, now that some idiots want to prosecute him for the "hate crime" of being an idiot, firing him for obvious incompetence would be opposed as "politically-correct witch-hunting".

I guess they're stuck with him...

GOOD LORD, SOMEONE'S HACKED SKEPTIC'S ACCOUNT!

Don't get me wrong. I like this Skeptic a lot better than the usual Skeptic.

Nikk

12th January 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by JamesM

Emphasis mine. First of all, while he begins the article by talking about Arab states, this paragraph starts referring to 'the Arabs'. Then, there's that 'them'. Who does it refer to? Arab states? Arabs in general? Just the Arabian terrorists of 9/11? Just the Arabs that danced in the street? Bit of a bait-and-switch going on there.

On this evidence, I'm not buying the "I was talking about the Arab States! It's political correctness GONE MAD!" defence.

I can't help feeling that it's inappropiate to attempt to apply textual analysis to an article written with readers of the Daily Express in mind. My impression was that when dealing with this demographic one knocked back three or four gin and tonics ranted on for 500 or so words on whichever subject came to mind, removed any inadvertant polysyllables and gave it to the secretary to send off.

It seems a little unfair to treat the whole thing seriously.

Kimpatsu

12th January 2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Well, there's the number zero, which we use to describe your IQ, there's soap, which you can use to clean the ***** out of your mouth, and there's gunpowder, which you can use to blow your brains out. How's that for starters?
Great riposte; the only problem is that the mayans contemplated the number nought first (albeit independently of the Arabs), and gunpowder was invented by the Chinese... :p

Jon_in_london

13th January 2004, 06:51 AM

Still no response from the CRE about my email.

I have resent it, just in case they didnt get it the first time.

I wonder if the reason they arent replying may be because the gentleman from The Voice be black while Kilroy be white?

BillyTK

13th January 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Still no response from the CRE about my email.

I have resent it, just in case they didnt get it the first time.

I wonder if the reason they arent replying may be because the gentleman from The Voice be black while Kilroy be white?
Perhaps signing your e-mail as "Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx" tipped 'em off that it's a hoax?

Jon_in_london

13th January 2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Perhaps signing your e-mail as "Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx" tipped 'em off that it's a hoax?

Juts means 'lots of kisses' :D :p

Besides, its not a hoax.

Cleopatra

13th January 2004, 08:32 AM

It feels so good to hear how BBC reacted to the case of Kilroy-Silk.

I wish BBC had the same sensitivities when its reporters are calling the Jews Nazis. But nope. It's ok everytime this happens.

In April 2002, Paulin stated in an interview to the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram [http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/580/cu2.htm] that "Brooklyn-born" settlers in the occupied territories "should be shot dead." "I think they are Nazis, racists. I feel nothing but hatred for them," Paulin said, adding: "I never believed that Israel had the right to exist at all." Despite complaint from the Jewish community about these statements and Paulin's other comparisons [http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/poetry/story/0,6000,439279,00.html]of Israelis to Nazis, the BBC continued to allow Paulin to be a regular contributor to the BBC Newsnight Review arts program.

Source: "Honest Reporting"

Jon if you are interested in sending to BBC a letter complaining about its double standards let me know, I can provide you with more info.

richardm

13th January 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Jon if you are interested in sending to BBC a letter complaining about its double standards let me know, I can provide you with more info.

If you really want to enliven proceedings, it might be worth sending a copy of the letter to Keith Vaz first. Or Glenda Jackson, perhaps. They are both MPs being quite vocal in their encouragement of the BBC to sack Kilroy-Silk. Perhaps they should be encouraged to be even-handed and not hypocritical. And cc the Express while you're about it :D

Cleopatra

13th January 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by richardm

If you really want to enliven proceedings, it might be worth sending a copy of the letter to Keith Vaz first. Or Glenda Jackson, perhaps. They are both MPs being quite vocal in their encouragement of the BBC to sack Kilroy-Silk. Perhaps they should be encouraged to be even-handed and not hypocritical. And cc the Express while you're about it :D

Hmmmm according to "Honest Reporting" it's already an issue among MPs.

A British parliament member, quoted in the Telegraph,[http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/11/nsilk111.xml] questions the BBC's double standard:

Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP, said he found it hard to understand why the BBC had moved against Mr Kilroy-Silk but had not taken any action against Mr Paulin. "I am not defending anything Mr Kilroy-Silk has said, but I was greatly upset by what Mr Paulin said, and I think the rules should apply to people equally," said Mr Dismore. "Mr Paulin said awful things about Israel and Jewish people. He should have been kept off BBC screens while his own comments were investigated. I was surprised that that did not happen. It smacks of double standards on the part of the BBC."

BillyTK

13th January 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
It feels so good to hear how BBC reacted to the case of Kilroy-Silk.

I wish BBC had the same sensitivities when its reporters are calling the Jews Nazis. But nope. It's ok everytime this happens.

Tom Paulin is a poet, not a BBC reporter. Newsnight Review is an arts review programme which features a panel of writers, artists and performers from all areas of the arts, and that's the basis that Paulin contributes to the show.

Cleopatra

13th January 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Tom Paulin is a poet, not a BBC reporter. Newsnight Review is an arts review programme which features a panel of writers, artists and performers from all areas of the arts, and that's the basis that Paulin contributes to the show.

I am not familiar with his show but I don't understand why in an Arts review programme stupidity ( aka antisemitism) should be allowed. Can you explain it to me please?

Is he in the BBC payroll or not ? Do British people pay to listen to him through BBC or they don't?

richardm

13th January 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Tom Paulin is a poet, not a BBC reporter.

In fairness, RKS isn't a BBC reporter either, he's just a presenter. Small distinction, I know, but while I agree reporters shouldn't show bias, is it okay for presenters?

13th January 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I am not familiar with his show but I don't understand why in an Arts review programme stupidity ( aka antisemitism) should be allowed. Can you explain it to me please?

Is he in the BBC payroll or not ? Do British people pay to listen to him through BBC or they don't?

Cleo,

It is the typical pass that artsy fartsy types enjoy. I guess that seriousness is neither expected nor wished for.

Cleopatra

13th January 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by richardm

In fairness, RKS isn't a BBC reporter either, he's just a presenter. Small distinction, I know, but while I agree reporters shouldn't show bias, is it okay for presenters?

I think that the case of RKS is not just a case of bias. He offended the Arab community in the worse possible way. I don't understand how people who have access to a public medium can demonstrate such behaviour. This is beyond expressing an opinion even biased.

Graham

13th January 2004, 08:59 AM

As I understand it, part of the reason Kilroy has been suspended by the BBC is not the article itself or the content, anti-arab or otherwise.

Rather, it is that, because of various embarrasing incidents in the past, employees of the BBC who write for outside orgainisations are required to submit their work to the BBC for approval before going to press.

Kilroy apparently neglected / evaded this requirement which, in itself, is grounds for suspension pending an enquiry.

Purely speculation on my part, but that might be why he is in trouble with the BBC and this Tom Paulin person is not.

Graham

Darat

13th January 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I am not familiar with his show but I don't understand why in an Arts review programme stupidity ( aka antisemitism) should be allowed. Can you explain it to me please?

Is he in the BBC payroll or not ? Do British people pay to listen to him through BBC or they don't?

It is not technically correct to say in the UK we pay the BBC.

As a generalisation, if in the UK you have a receiver/tuner you have to have what is known as a "TV Licence", the money raised by the TV licence are what funds the BBC. (But that is splitting hairs as far as most of us think of it in the UK we pay the licence fee to get the BBC.)

The BBC is meant to be 100% independent from government control; if it wants to put on a presenter who is has any view it is totally entitled to. If the presenter breaks a law or the BBC breaks a law then like all broadcasters it can be fined etc.

The crap poet in question is probably paid an appearance fee by the BBC.

JamesM

13th January 2004, 09:10 AM

I'm with BillyTK on this one. The BBC has not suspended RKS for his odious views. According to here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3393095.stm):
The corporation said it was considering the implications of Mr Kilroy-Silk's original article and whether he could still be seen as a "suitable presenter" for a programme dealing with a "range of current and controversial issues".
This doesn't apply to Tom Paulin. While I think calling for the deaths of a group of people is lamentable, you could argue that the two cases are different enough that the BBC is not being inconsistent in this case.

Cleopatra

13th January 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
I'm with BillyTK on this one. The BBC has not suspended RKS for his odious views. According to here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3393095.stm):

This doesn't apply to Tom Paulin. While I think calling for the deaths of a group of people is lamentable, you could argue that the two cases are different enough that the BBC is not being inconsistent in this case.

I am sorry but can you and Billy explain me why Paulin is suitable presenter and RKS maybe is not one? If this is the case Ed is right that Art programmes shouldn't be taken that seriously...

richardm

13th January 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Hmmmm according to "Honest Reporting" it's already an issue among MPs.

The difference is that Vaz and Jackson are saying he should not appear on TV because his views are offensive to Arabs and Muslims. They could be entertainingly shown up as hypocrites if they didn't also appeal against Paulin for views offensive to Jews.

Mind you, they're MPs so hypocrisy isn't anything new there.

richardm

13th January 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Graham
employees of the BBC who write for outside orgainisations are required to submit their work to the BBC for approval before going to press.

Kilroy apparently neglected / evaded this requirement which, in itself, is grounds for suspension pending an enquiry.

Ah. You might be onto something there, Graham.

Cleopatra

13th January 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by richardm

The difference is that Vaz and Jackson are saying he should not appear on TV because his views are offensive to Arabs and Muslims. They could be entertainingly shown up as hypocrites if they didn't also appeal against Paulin for views offensive to Jews.

Mind you, they're MPs so hypocrisy isn't anything new there.

Yes, you should see the Greek MPs... they make me nautius.Most of them --in Greece I mean-- are lawyers of course.

Graham's version is more acceptable. Darat, thanks for the correction.

JamesM

13th January 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry but can you and Billy explain me why Paulin is suitable presenter and RKS maybe is not one?
Paulin is not a presenter, but only a contributor to a round-table discussion in an arts programme.

Personally, I don't think Paulin should continue to appear on TV.

However, it appears the BBC disagrees with me.

Kimpatsu

13th January 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
It feels so good to hear how BBC reacted to the case of Kilroy-Silk.

I wish BBC had the same sensitivities when its reporters are calling the Jews Nazis. But nope. It's ok everytime this happens.

Source: "Honest Reporting"

Jon if you are interested in sending to BBC a letter complaining about its double standards let me know, I can provide you with more info.
The differnce between Kilroy and Paulin is that Paulin is hired as a pundit, so he is expected to be controversial. Kilroy is hired to front a chat show, so he's expected to be impartial.

NoZed Avenger

13th January 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

The differnce between Kilroy and Paulin is that Paulin is hired as a pundit, so he is expected to be controversial. Kilroy is hired to front a chat show, so he's expected to be impartial.

That may or may not explain the BBCs disparate treatment -- it is at least a plausible difference -- but what about the -law-? The statements from Paulin seem much more direct and seem more likely to violate the law than Kilroy's.

Caveats:

(1) the law is a horrible, horrible travesty that should be done away with and I hope it is somehow struck down or repealed;

(2) the BBC has every right to sack Kilroy as a (quasi) business, but the prosecution or threat thereof seems to have a real chilling effect -on public discourse -- witness Mr. Kilroy's backpedaling now. Maybe he is backing off because of the loss of his position and public sentiment, or maybe it is fear of the State's power. Is that a good possibility for a free nation?

Sure, Kilroy is a jerk. But will the next person silenced by the law also be guaranteed to be a jerk, or might this chilling effect spread?

Even if an opinion be indubitably true and undoubtingly believed, it will be a dead dogma, and not a living truth, if it be not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed.

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

N/A

Kimpatsu

13th January 2004, 03:19 PM

NoZed, you might like to read this op/ed piece (http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1121997,00.html) from yesterday's Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk) on the subject of the difference between Kilroy and Paulin.
Best,

NoZed Avenger

13th January 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
NoZed, you might like to read . . . [link] . . . on the subject of the difference between Kilroy and Paulin.

That deals with the BBC issue -- which I still think sounds plausible -- but my question is really about the threat of prosecution.

The BBC sacked him for being a jerk -- and they have an easy case to make -- but what about prosecuting someone under the law for espousing a viewpoint (whether good, bad or indifferent)? And if that is the law, then how can Paulin's comments be differentiated under that same law?

N/A

Cleopatra

14th January 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
NoZed, you might like to read this op/ed piece (http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1121997,00.html) from yesterday's Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk) on the subject of the difference between Kilroy and Paulin.
Best,

I am willing to accept Graham's opinion that RKS violated BBC's policy regarding the approval of work that its associates publish elsewhere but I do not accept the rationalization of the absurd behavior an Art critic ( especially because he is an Art critic) demonstrates.

Advocating death doesn't constitute an opinion.

But I didn't expect anything better from "The Guardian".As long as Jews get killed it's ok for this paper.

Maybe JAR must be hired by BBC.

Jon_in_london

14th January 2004, 12:51 AM

Thw whole question about the BBC is a relatively minor issue here. They are a corporation and they can hire and fire as they see fit. If Kilroy feels he was unjustly treated he can take the appropriate legal action against the BBC for unfair dismissal.
(they wont have him back though as BBC morning ratings have made a huge jump now that hes off air.)

The real question here, as American so astutely pointed out, is that section of British law refered to above, and also the actions of the Commision for Racial Equality or lack thereof in regards to Kilroy's statements and the statements of other delightfull fellows such as Tom "shoot the Jews' Paulin.

If I havent recieved a reply from the CRE today, I will re-send the email and CC The Sun and The Express to see if they take any notice.

BTW, there was a prosecution and conviction a while back of an Imam who was taped saying IIRC "Muslims should go to school but in the holidays, learn to use an AK47 and kill Jews". Which certainly does count as hate speach IMO.

more anon.

Kimpatsu

14th January 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
But I didn't expect anything better from "The Guardian".As long as Jews get killed it's ok for this paper.
what a load of rubbish! The Guardian consistently calls for a Palestinian homeland.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Telegraph?

Cleopatra

14th January 2004, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

what a load of rubbish! The Guardian consistently calls for a Palestinian homeland.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Telegraph?

First of all change the way you address me unless you are the editor of "The Guardian" and you took personal offense about what I have said for the newspaper.

Second. What does this have to do with what I have said regarding the bias "The Guardian" continuously demonstrates towards the Israeli side?

BillyTK

14th January 2004, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I am not familiar with his show but I don't understand why in an Arts review programme stupidity ( aka antisemitism) should be allowed. Can you explain it to me please?
As JamesM has pointed out, it's not Tom Paulin's show. He's a guest reviewer, and is invited on to give his views on the subjects for discussion—typically it'll be a tv programme, a film, a piece of literature and something music-related—not to discuss his views on Israel.

The show has a panel format, with someone from the media, someone from literature (that's where Paulin comes in) and someone who's a bit political. I enjoy watching Newsnight Review, and I have to say that some of the stupid things some of the presenters come out with (and subsequent rows with other presenters) adds to the entertainment. If guests were forbidden from saying anything that any viewer might find stupid, it would be a dull show.
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Is he in the BBC payroll or not ?
No. He's a guest and probably gets an appearance fee, but he's not on the payroll.
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do British people pay to listen to him through BBC or they don't?
No.
Originally posted by Cleopatra
But I didn't expect anything better from "The Guardian".As long as Jews get killed it's ok for this paper.

Can you support this? Can you provide any evidence that shows that The Guardian advocates such a position?
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Maybe JAR must be hired by BBC.
As your claim that the BBC hires racist reporters has been shown to be factually incorrect, I can only assume it would be because of his interest in, and knowledge of the English language.

BillyTK

14th January 2004, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

That deals with the BBC issue -- which I still think sounds plausible -- but my question is really about the threat of prosecution.

The BBC sacked him for being a jerk -- and they have an easy case to make -- but what about prosecuting someone under the law for espousing a viewpoint (whether good, bad or indifferent)? And if that is the law, then how can Paulin's comments be differentiated under that same law?

N/A
Probably something to do with the fact that Paulin doesn't have a regular column in the Sunday Express. ;)

Jon_in_london

14th January 2004, 03:01 AM

NoZed;
And if that is the law, then how can Paulin's comments be differentiated under that same law?

Originally posted by BillyTK

Probably something to do with the fact that Paulin doesn't have a regular column in the Sunday Express. ;)

Billy, are you suggesting that the law will differentiate hate speach into whether or not the speaker has a column in the express?

BillyTK

14th January 2004, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Billy, are you suggesting that the law will differentiate hate speach into whether or not the speaker has a column in the express?
No, I was thinking more on the lines that a column in The Sunday Express would be more likely to read than Paulin's work. But now you come to mention it, reasonable grounds and all that... ;) :D

BillyTK

14th January 2004, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
BTW, there was a prosecution and conviction a while back of an Imam who was taped saying IIRC "Muslims should go to school but in the holidays, learn to use an AK47 and kill Jews". Which certainly does count as hate speach IMO.
Wasn't that under the "Incitement to religious hatred" clause in the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was created to balance the pro-PC sentiments of the Incitement to Racial Hatred Act by being authored in such a way that it can only apply to muslims? :)

Giz

14th January 2004, 04:11 AM

It seems that the law is a bit too encompasing. Making exhorting people to go and murder others is understandable but would anyone be in any greater peril after Kiljoy-Silk's screed?

We live in a democracy. That implies that the people are able to make decisions (using the uncensored information available to them).

If we adopt the position that the people cannot be trusted to differentiate between ignorance and facts, do we not implicitly say that we, the people, aren't capable of determining our course responsibly? That we should have an elite over us, who will rule over us with the greater good in mind.

(Billy, bear in mind that this doesn't just describe your ideological fellow travellers the Labour MP's and the EU commission but also Fascism, aristocratic oligarchy etc - they're on the other end of the spectrum but they share the same contempt for "mobocracy")

Kimpatsu

14th January 2004, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
First of all change the way you address me unless you are the editor of "The Guardian" and you took personal offense about what I have said for the newspaper.
OK; what a load of rubbish, you idiot! :D
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Second. What does this have to do with what I have said regarding the bias "The Guardian" continuously demonstrates towards the Israeli side?
Because the Guardian does not show bias towards the Israelis. Care to show me an example of said bias? Their contributors always argue for a fair settlement, a Palestinian homeland, an end to Sharon's wall, etc., etc. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Telegraph, which is owned by Conrad Black (Lord Black of Crossharbour), and his wife, Barbara "Israel Uber Alles" Amiel?

BillyTK

14th January 2004, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Giz
(Billy, bear in mind that this doesn't just describe your ideological fellow travellers the Labour MP's and the EU commission but also Fascism, aristocratic oligarchy etc - they're on the other end of the spectrum but they share the same contempt for "mobocracy")
I have no idea what you think this is in reference to, but thanks for the lecture anyway. Just to clarify for you, Labour MPs and the EU commission are not my "fellow travellers".

By the way, re: "mobocracy"; you do understand the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy, don't you?

Giz

14th January 2004, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

I have no idea what you think this is in reference to, but thanks for the lecture anyway. Just to clarify for you, Labour MPs and the EU commission are not my "fellow travellers".

By the way, re: "mobocracy"; you do understand the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy, don't you?

Just that it's common for people to give "their side of the fence" a free pass whereas if say a Thatcher govt had restricted individual liberties you would have been all over them!

Incidentally, that throwaway comment at the end was the least important part of my post. Can I conclude that we are in agreement on the rest? (Incidentally, apologies over linking you with the EU, somethings just aren't funny. I would be one of them.)

How much direct participation in a democracy do you think is a good thing? (suppose we had the technology to vote over the Net on bills - and the tech worked - would this be something you'd lik to see?)

Flo

14th January 2004, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

OK; what a load of rubbish, you idiot! :D

Because the Guardian does not show bias towards the Israelis. Care to show me an example of said bias? Their contributors always argue for a fair settlement, a Palestinian homeland, an end to Sharon's wall, etc., etc. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Telegraph, which is owned by Conrad Black (Lord Black of Crossharbour), and his wife, Barbara "Israel Uber Alles" Amiel?

I suspect she meant the Guardian is biased [i]against[i] Israel.

Kimpatsu

14th January 2004, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Flo
I suspect she meant the Guardian is biased [i]against[i] Israel.
Does Cleopatra recognise the fact that the Israeli presence in the occupied territories is against international law?

Flo

14th January 2004, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Does Cleopatra recognise the fact that the Israeli presence in the occupied territories is against international law?

Do you want this thread hijacked and turned into another sterile debate about antisemitism à la Cléo ?

Kimpatsu

14th January 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Flo
Do you want this thread hijacked and turned into another sterile debate about antisemitism à la Cléo ?
I didn't know that was Cleo's pet hobby horse.
So... Do you like French toast with Canadian bacon and maple syrup? :p

BillyTK

14th January 2004, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Giz

Just that it's common for people to give "their side of the fence" a free pass whereas if say a Thatcher govt had restricted individual liberties you would have been all over them!
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sure I'm ready to give Our Lady of Grantham a good kicking when the opportunity arises, because she still casts a long shadow over the country today, but that doesn't mean the current incumbents of No. 10 get a free ride. For instance, the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Regulation of Information Protection Act comprise (possibly) the biggest threat to individual liberties in the UK today (well RIP would if it wasn't so unworkable), and makes the Incitement to Racial Hatred Act look like small potatoes. And which party authored it?

FYI, I give "my side of the fence" a "free pass", because as far as I can see, I sit alone. To do otherwise would be kind of psychotic, although I do often argue with myself. Just not in public.

Incidentally, that throwaway comment at the end was the least important part of my post. Can I conclude that we are in agreement on the rest?
Well, apart from the fact that you're a running dog lackey of the statist oligarchy, and a Tory apologist to boot, so I could never agree with you on principle, yes! :p ;)
(Incidentally, apologies over linking you with the EU, somethings just aren't funny. I would be one of them.)
Class traitor and oligarchical lackey Tony Benn (actually I quite like the bloke, I'm just feeling polemical) made a wise comment about the EU. He said to ask yourself how easy it is to replace the leadership; if it's not easy (or not possible) then it's undemocratic and inherently untrustworthy. Blair's pushing for the French beaurocratic model, which is a parliament of prime ministers who'd select the EU prime minister and president and therefore it's unrepresentative and pants, but Tony would appear to have his eye on the EU leadership once he finishes his tenure as prime minister.
How much direct participation in a democracy do you think is a good thing? (suppose we had the technology to vote over the Net on bills - and the tech worked - would this be something you'd lik to see?)
Under the present system, none. We have a representative democracy, which in theory means that that the government is chosen to run the country on behalf of everyone, although this often in reality means on behalf of their cronies, but at least we could vote them out every four or five years. Introducing elements of direct democracy would be a disaster; inevitably issues would get fudged, and we'd be left with rule of the majority (or mobocracy, if you want to get feudalist) and the passing of unwieldy, unrepealable and probably illegitimate legislation. Imagine the UK ruled by Daily Mail-reading Middle England; you might want to live there, but I don't. But it's all academic because the tech would never, ever work.

Edited to fix quote marks and spell "principle" proper-like

BillyTK

14th January 2004, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Flo

Do you want this thread hijacked and turned into another sterile debate about antisemitism à la Cléo ?
To be fair, considering the starting topic, I think it's reasonable to diverge a little and address whether the BBC is being hypocritical in its stance towards Kilroy-Silk. But if this is simply an attempt to this is an attempt to turn the thread into another anti-Semitism debate, then I suggest we should be good posters and concentrate on the relevant issues here, such as: which is best, St. Emillion wine or Corbiere? Or, why do people but maple syrup on their bacon?

:D

Flo

14th January 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

To be fair, considering the starting topic, I think it's reasonable to diverge a little and address whether the BBC is being hypocritical in its stance towards Kilroy-Silk.

You're not telling me the BBC, of all the media agencies, might be hypocritical on occasion ? Or that newspapers (left and right) might be biased ? Well I'll never ... :D

OTOH, I tend to be careful not to ascribe to biases what can be due to mere stupidity and panic reactions.

But if this is simply an attempt to this is an attempt to turn the thread into another anti-Semitism debate, then I suggest we should be good posters and concentrate on the relevant issues here, such as: which is best, St. Emillion wine or Corbiere?
:D

Corbières "Chateau Bernadots" 2000 is showing promise. The price St.Emilion wines fetch these times is indecent.

BillyTK

14th January 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Flo

You're not telling me the BBC, of all the media agencies, might be hypocritical on occasion ? Or that newspapers (left and right) might be biased ? Well I'll never ... :D

OTOH, I tend to be careful not to ascribe to biases what can be due to mere stupidity and panic reactions.
Surely not the BBC, that last bastion of objectivity and impartiality in broadcasting?!! :D

Corbières "Chateau Bernadots" 2000 is showing promise. The price St.Emilion wines fetch these times is indecent.

Thanks for the information, I'll keep an eye out for it. I'm kind of showing off because we holidayed in Bergerac last year. Our first trip to a French supermarket was a revelation; decent bottles of Corbières (notes spelling for future reference :) ), St. Emillion, Bordeaux and Fronsac at half UK prices (well, duh Billy). Even the 3-ltr bottles of table wine were value for money!

Skeptic

14th January 2004, 01:04 PM

But I didn't expect anything better from "The Guardian".As long as Jews get killed it's ok for this paper.

Wasn't it the Guardian's Sunday magazine cover that showed a golden star of david stabbing a prone union jack to death a couple of years ago?

Skeptic

14th January 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Does Cleopatra recognise the fact that the Israeli presence in the occupied territories is against international law?

No, because it isn't.

Nikk

14th January 2004, 05:05 PM

Kimpatsu

14th January 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, because it isn't.
Yes it is; it's in contravention of UN resolution 155-8, and has been condemned by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.

Nikk

14th January 2004, 05:30 PM

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
BTW, there was a prosecution and conviction a while back of an Imam who was taped saying IIRC "Muslims should go to school but in the holidays, learn to use an AK47 and kill Jews". Which certainly does count as hate speach IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by BillyTK

Wasn't that under the "Incitement to religious hatred" clause in the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was created to balance the pro-PC sentiments of the Incitement to Racial Hatred Act by being authored in such a way that it can only apply to muslims? :)

I'm not sure which clauses in which acts you are referring to here Billy.

The guy Jon is referring to is Abdullah al Faisal and he was prosecuted on five counts of soliciting murder and four of inciting racial hatred.

I find the idea that statements likely to lead to racial or religous hatred should be criminal is absurd and a real threat to free debate. It leads to absurdities likethis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3244484.stm) news item from last november...........
"A teenager has been arrested in Lancashire on suspicion of trying to incite racial hatred.

The 15-year-old from the Brierfield area was detained by police on Tuesday.

It is alleged he put up posters, carrying the letters BNP, on the back window of a school bus that was carrying pupils home.

Officers from Lancashire Police boarded the bus and arrested the boy. He has been released on police bail.

The school is understood to be investigating the incident.

The teenager faces possible exclusion." (Note to non Brits; BNP stands for British National Party a small anti immigrant party).

Jon_in_london

15th January 2004, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Nikk
this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3244484.stm) news item from last november...........
Officers from Lancashire Police boarded the bus and arrested the boy. He has been released on police bail.

Thats odd. Since they havent arrested the entire BNP, I wonder how this can be justified?

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
But I didn't expect anything better from "The Guardian".As long as Jews get killed it's ok for this paper.

Wasn't it the Guardian's Sunday magazine cover that showed a golden star of david stabbing a prone union jack to death a couple of years ago?
No, it was The New Statesman, which is a periodical, not a daily. But The Guardian have a report on it (http://media.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11027,641962,00.html).

Edited to add
The New Statesman cover illustrated a couple of articles which ran under the title of "A Kosher Conspiracy" and sought to identify a cabal of Zionists with undue influence on Tony Blair's policy towards Israel and Palestine. The article's available at The New Statesman, but requires registration (and payment! Bloody pseudo-consciousness proto-plutocratic traitors!). Here's a bit of commentary (http://www.obv.org.uk/reports/2002/rpt20020323c.html) on the article, which also takes Tom Paulin to task as well (how's that for relevance?).

Cleopatra

15th January 2004, 01:41 AM

Ok . We have some separate issues here.

First of all.

Has BBC demonstrated double standards in the case of RKS?

I have searched to find if what Graham said stands and according to BBC RKS was suspended for :

The Kilroy programme will be taken off air immediately following comments made by Robert Kilroy-Silk in a newspaper article, the BBC has announced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3383589.stm

So, BBC finds upsetting to broadcast through its frequency what a jerk like RKS has to say while if finds acceptable to broadcast through its frequency what a jerk like Paulin has to say.

Both opinions were expressed out of BBC but yet the one got suspended for what he said while the other who advocated murder didn't suffer the same treatment.

Hypocricy abides.

As for the issue of " The Guardian"."The Guadian"embraces BBC's terminology about the issue of suicide bombers. The good paper never talks about terrorists but it talks about Hamas Militants. Do I need to start over and explain you the difference between a terrorist and a Militant?

Now let's get to the most important issue in my opinion that deserves to be discusses separetly ( in another thread).

Do " hatred laws" infringe Free Speech?Do jerks like RKS and Paulin have the right to spread their bigotry in public? Should we abolish the "hatred Laws" as Nozed and Nikk suggested?

I'd better start a new thread about that.

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Nikk

I'm not sure which clauses in which acts you are referring to here Billy.
It's Part 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, details here (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/10024--f.htm#37).

The guy Jon is referring to is Abdullah al Faisal and he was prosecuted on five counts of soliciting murder and four of inciting racial hatred.

I find the idea that statements likely to lead to racial or religous hatred should be criminal is absurd and a real threat to free debate. It leads to absurdities likethis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3244484.stm) news item from last november...........
"A teenager has been arrested in Lancashire on suspicion of trying to incite racial hatred.

The 15-year-old from the Brierfield area was detained by police on Tuesday.

It is alleged he put up posters, carrying the letters BNP, on the back window of a school bus that was carrying pupils home.

Officers from Lancashire Police boarded the bus and arrested the boy. He has been released on police bail.

The school is understood to be investigating the incident.

The teenager faces possible exclusion." (Note to non Brits; BNP stands for British National Party a small anti immigrant party).
I agree. I'm not exactly the world's biggest fan of the BNP (this is an understatement) but I'd sooner have them out in the open. The kid in question may or may not have been intending to incite racial hatred but the only things I can see him being guilty of is being stupid (fortunately not yet a crime) and possibly illegal posting or vandalism of the bus.

Frankie

15th January 2004, 01:59 AM

Those comments were made months prior to be accidentally re-printed. There was no kerfuffle at the first airing.

Though the comments are a little to harsh and in bad taste, for my liking. The Arabs did(still do??) cut off limbs in certain crimes. Some still do treat their women an unequal, and that is not just the Arabs other cultures do this as well. Other cultures do far worse things as well to be fair to the Arab nations.

Kilroy-Silk did speak the truth. It may have been the truth nobody wanted but it still was in essence true. Why the uproar now after all this time is puzzling and the BBC's reaction was most peculiar?

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ok . We have some separate issues here.

First of all.

Has BBC demonstrated double standards in the case of RKS?

I have searched to find if what Graham said stands and according to BBC RKS was suspended for :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3383589.stm

So, BBC finds upsetting to broadcast through its frequency what a jerk like RKS has to say while if finds acceptable to broadcast through its frequency what a jerk like Paulin has to say.

Both opinions were expressed out of BBC but yet the one got suspended for what he said while the other who advocated murder didn't suffer the same treatment.

Hypocricy abides.
Kilroy-Silk is a presenter for the BBC; as such he has a particular set of responsibilities for what he says both in and outside of this role which is different to those that Tom Paulin does as an occasional guest of the BBC.

Whether Tom Paulin should be a guest of the BBC is therefore a wholly different issue to that of whether Kilroy-Silk should have been suspended. No hypocrisy involved.

As for the issue of " The Guardian"."The Guadian"embraces BBC's terminology about the issue of suicide bombers. The good paper never talks about terrorists but it talks about Hamas Militants. Do I need to start over and explain you the difference between a terrorist and a Militant?
In the definition of a militant the violence aspect is implied, whereas in the definition of a terrorist it's explicit? :confused: I'd be interested in your explanation of the difference, but particularly how this relates to your claim that "As long as Jews get killed it's ok for [The Guardian]."

Now let's get to the most important issue in my opinion that deserves to be discusses separetly ( in another thread).

Do " hatred laws" infringe Free Speech?Do jerks like RKS and Paulin have the right to spread their bigotry in public? Should we abolish the "hatred Laws" as Nozed and Nikk suggested?

I'd better start a new thread about that.
Good idea!

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Frankie
Those comments were made months prior to be accidentally re-printed. There was no kerfuffle at the first airing.

Though the comments are a little to harsh and in bad taste, for my liking. The Arabs did(still do??) cut off limbs in certain crimes. Some still do treat their women an unequal, and that is not just the Arabs other cultures do this as well. Other cultures do far worse things as well to be fair to the Arab nations.

Kilroy-Silk did speak the truth. It may have been the truth nobody wanted but it still was in essence true. Why the uproar now after all this time is puzzling and the BBC's reaction was most peculiar?
It's Kilroy-Silk's wriggling that I object to. In the article he starts off talking about Arab regimes, which is fair enough, but the specific comments about "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors" he attributes to arabs in general. Then later he claims he meant only arab regimes and that was a mistake. Well, duh! So I'm glad the BBC have pulled his show, not because of what he said—although the BBC is saying it's not a freedom of speech issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3393095.stm)—but because the guy is demonstrably a conceited prat:
(From the link)
"If they understand that I was actually telling the truth, that there are Arab regimes that are evil and tyrannical and dictatorial and that is the truth, are we not allowed to say that?"
What? Does he think no-one else has noticed this?

Frankie

15th January 2004, 02:21 AM

I agree wriggling is a bad move. Then again it could be said we all say things that we later think better of. So, on that note this could be one of those things?

I just don't see how an article posted last year and re-printed now can be acted on in such a current manner as it is?
Is this also now open for any re-printed article by accident or otherwise to have said person taken to task? I can imagine a few very red faces and calls of resignation if certain peoples article ever did get re-published.

Smells more of a setup and hypocrisy than anything else imho.
Then I have always said their is no such thing as freedom of speech. It is always subjective and this just hi-lights it further.

Just how many people complained, agreed to the article both the original and the re-print, I would be interested to know. How many find the BBC's actions appropriate or inappropriate?

Cleopatra

15th January 2004, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Kilroy-Silk is a presenter for the BBC; as such he has a particular set of responsibilities for what he says both in and outside of this role which is different to those that Tom Paulin does as an occasional guest of the BBC.

So, it's the position in the channel that got him suspended.From the article I quoted it's obvious that BBC doesn't want to host jerks regardless their relation to the channel. But yet, it accepts to broadcast the image of the one jerk and it rejects the other who has said something much worse.

Whether Tom Paulin should be a guest of the BBC is therefore a wholly different issue to that of whether Kilroy-Silk should have been suspended. No hypocrisy involved.

It's exactly the same issue,since BBC doesn't want to voice jerks unless you believe that Paulin is not a jerk. What do you believe about him BTW ?

n the definition of a militant the violence aspect is implied, whereas in the definition of a terrorist it's explicit? :confused: I'd be interested in your explanation of the difference, but particularly how this relates to your claim that "As long as Jews get killed it's ok for [The Guardian]."

The difference is existing and striking and I am surprized that you haven't noticed it. Why BBC calls IRAs terrorists and not militants for example?

A militant, is a person who is determined to defend its cause and it can resort to violence. A Terrorist is a totally negative way to characterize somebody who uses terror as a political weapon to exercise pressure.
I accept to report PLO's members as militants but I do not accept to report Hamas terrorists as such.

By calling somebody a militant you recognize that it has a legitimate cause to fight. Do you think that Hamas and IRA have a legitimate cause to fight for? Why BBC and The Guardian ( I am refering to those two because I follow those two mostly) apply those double standards.

If Hamas' terrorists are militants why IRA's militants are terrorists?

So, if according to The Guardian, Hamas' terrorists have a legitimate cause ( this is what the way they use their terminology shows) and since we all know which Hamas's cause is, they feel that it's ok to kill Jews to defend their cause.This is the subliminal message.

I will start the thread during the day.

richardm

15th January 2004, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
So I'm glad the BBC have pulled his show, not because of what he said—although the BBC is saying it's not a freedom of speech issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3393095.stm)—but because the guy is demonstrably a conceited prat:

Come on, Billy, if the BBC sacked people just for being conceited prats there'd be an awful lot of dead airtime.

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Come on, Billy, if the BBC sacked people just for being conceited prats there'd be an awful lot of dead airtime.
And that would be a bad thing?

richardm

15th January 2004, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

And that would be a bad thing?

:D It would certainly make the negotiations for the next licence fee interesting!

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by richardm

Come on, Billy, if the BBC sacked people just for being conceited prats there'd be an awful lot of dead airtime.
Yeah, but there's Kilroy-Silk, and then there's Jeremy "Asks Michael Howard the same question fourteen times and still doesn't get an answer" Paxman. It's the low-rent conceited prats we want to get rid of. :D

Dammit Kimpatsu, you beat me to it!

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Yeah, but there's Kilroy-Silk, and then there's Jeremy "Asks Michael Howard the same question fourteen times and still doesn't get an answer" Paxman. It's the low-rent conceited prats we want to get rid of. :D
I love Jeremy Paxman; that scene on Newsnight with Howard the Vampire was priceless. He asked the same question fourteen times! The man's the journalistic equivalent of a rottweiler! Superb! As Angus Deayton said on Have I Got News for You when reviewing that clip, "The answer to the question is 'yes'..."
Originally posted by BillyTK
Dammit Kimpatsu, you beat me to it!
Too, slow, Billy, too slow. I see you've appropriated my initials, too. ;) :p :D

Jon_in_london

15th January 2004, 03:00 AM

Paxman for Pres!

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Paxman for Pres!
Hey, Presto, instant Paxo? :p

Giz

15th January 2004, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Well, apart from the fact that you're a running dog lackey of the statist oligarchy, and a Tory apologist to boot, so I could never agree with you on principle, yes! :p ;)

Introducing elements of direct democracy would be a disaster; inevitably issues would get fudged, and we'd be left with rule of the majority (or mobocracy, if you want to get feudalist) and the passing of unwieldy, unrepealable and probably illegitimate legislation. Imagine the UK ruled by Daily Mail-reading Middle England; you might want to live there, but I don't.

That sounds a bit elitist Billy! Do you think that:
a) Only those who work full time as MPs have the leisure to understand proposed legislation?
b) The uneducated hoi-polloi would simply vote for whatever piece of legislation was endorsed by the winner of Pop Idol?
c) Only the elite can dispassionately see what is best for the masses who are too irresponsible to be trusted with any real power (such as referendums on the Euro etc)
d) Any excuse to disenfranchise Daily Mail readers!

If you think b) or c) sound reasonable, would you prefer a USSR ish system to a democracy? As society/science/technology becomes more complex do you think the trend will be torwards or away from empowering the plebs?

If you answered yes to d) I will buy you a drink!
(Oh and "Tory apologist"? A True Tory never apologises!

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 04:14 AM

Only Guardian readers should be allowed to vote; we're the only ones with the intellectual ability to understand the issues, and the compassion to make the right choice! :D
---
The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run.
The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who still think it is their country.
And the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country providing she has big tits.

Darat

15th January 2004, 04:33 AM

Thought I'd have a go at your "even shorter world's shortest political quiz".

Originally posted by Giz

That sounds a bit elitist Billy! Do you think that:
a) Only those who work full time as MPs have the leisure to understand proposed legislation?

no - really just me and one or two others I'd trust - but in the end me

b) The uneducated hoi-polloi would simply vote for whatever piece of legislation was endorsed by the winner of Pop Idol?

yes

c) Only the elite can dispassionately see what is best for the masses who are too irresponsible to be trusted with any real power (such as referendums on the Euro etc)

yes

d) Any excuse to disenfranchise Daily Mail readers!

yes

If you think b) or c) sound reasonable, would you prefer a USSR ish system to a democracy? As society/science/technology becomes more complex do you think the trend will be torwards or away from empowering the plebs?

away

If you answered yes to d) I will buy you a drink!
(Oh and "Tory apologist"? A True Tory never apologises! [/B]

And to think I was thrown out of the (old) Labour party for belonging to a socialist organisation!

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Giz

That sounds a bit elitist Billy!
Not at all! It's anti-elitist; the dark side of representative democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which would manifest in the voting system you describe (well actually, considering the low turn-out in recent elections, it's more likely to be the tyranny of the apathetic). The checks and balances in representative democracy in the UK version is the best way to counter that. Until we scrap the current system, adopt proportional representation and totally paralyse Parliament, that is!
Do you think that:
a) Only those who work full time as MPs have the leisure to understand proposed legislation?
b) The uneducated hoi-polloi would simply vote for whatever piece of legislation was endorsed by the winner of Pop Idol?
c) Only the elite can dispassionately see what is best for the masses who are too irresponsible to be trusted with any real power (such as referendums on the Euro etc)
d) Any excuse to disenfranchise Daily Mail readers!

If you think b) or c) sound reasonable, would you prefer a USSR ish system to a democracy?
Interesting you mention this. The original system of soviets was a perfect example of how to give representation to people at a grassroots level and build a democracy upwards, so that power truly belonged to the people. Of course, judging by subsequent events, this system was either too perfect to work, or not resistant enough to the manipulation of tyrants.

As society/science/technology becomes more complex do you think the trend will be torwards or away from empowering the plebs?
In theory it should be empowering, but in practice it's become alienating in a way that Marx could never have conceived. Everyone wants their DVD (to paraphrase Dire Straits in a deservedly appalling way).

If you answered yes to d) I will buy you a drink!
(Oh and "Tory apologist"? A True Tory never apologises!
I bet you're a fan of The Alan Clark Diaries. And drinks are on you then!

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Too, slow, Billy, too slow. I see you've appropriated my initials, too. ;) :p :D
Your name is The Kat as well?! Now there's a co-incidence! :p ;)

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Your name is The Kat as well?! Now there's a co-incidence! :p ;)
I said my initials, not my name.
But what can you expect of a man who spells "cat" with a K?

Tony

15th January 2004, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Yes it is; it's in contravention of UN resolution 155-8, and has been condemned by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.

The moron Kofi said it, therefore, it's law. :rolleyes: FYI retard, that resolution is NON-BINDING, hence, NOT LAW.

But on the subject of Kilroy-Silk, its a violation of free speech and blatant censorship. If the Bush admin. was doing the same thing it would be rightly condemned, but since its a while guy who dares to tell the truth about the middle east, he must be silenced.

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Tony
The moron Kofi said it, therefore, it's law. FYI retard, that resolution is NON-BINDING, hence, NOT LAW.
Calling Kofi Annan a moron is merely ad hominem. And UN resolutions are binding, so it IS law.

NoZed Avenger

15th January 2004, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

---
The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run.
The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who still think it is their country.
And the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country providing she has big tits.

Thank you, Bernard. Is Sir Humphry available?

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Thank you, Bernard. Is Sir Humphry available?
Unfortunately, Nigel Hawthorne, died two years ago.

Tony

15th January 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Calling Kofi Annan a moron is merely ad hominem.

Its a fact, without the UN that guy would be a nobody.

And UN resolutions are binding, so it IS law.

Wrong. Judging by your past woo-wooisms Im not surprised at your ignorance. I bet you think the UN is a world government too.

http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules.

The distinctiveness of Chapter Seven resolutions, and the fact that none has been passed in relation to Israel, is acknowledged by Palestinian diplomats. It is, indeed, one of their main complaints. A Palestine Liberation Organisation report, entitled “Double Standards” and published at the end of September, pointed out that, over the years, the UN has upheld the Palestinians' right to statehood, condemned Israel's settlements and called for Israel to withdraw. But “no enforcement action or any other action to implement UN resolutions and international law has been ordered by the Security Council.”

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

I said my initials, not my name.
But what can you expect of a man who spells "cat" with a K?
I'm a bit of an anarkist in that respect :)

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Tony
Its a fact, without the UN that guy would be a nobody.
Which just goes to show that being head of the UN makes you somebody. Ergo, the UN is important.
Originally posted by Tony
Wrong. Judging by your past woo-wooisms Im not surprised at your ignorance. I bet you think the UN is a world government too.
Wrong again; membership of the UN is predicated upon members abiding by UN resolutions. That some rogue states choose not to do so does not reflect upon the legitimacy of the UN lawmaking process.
And could you cut out the ad hominem, ya moron? :D

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

I'm a bit of an anarkist in that respect :)
Then ciss my arse, ya krazy kunt. :D

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Tony
But on the subject of Kilroy-Silk, its a violation of free speech and blatant censorship.
No it's not. Kilroy-Silk's right to free speech became limited when he signed up with the BBC. No-one forced him to sign the contract.
If the Bush admin. was doing the same thing it would be rightly condemned,
As Kilroy-Silk is not being censored by the UK government, your comparison here is wrong.
but since its a while guy who dares to tell the truth about the middle east, he must be silenced.
His skin colour (or species; do you mean "white" or "whale"?) is not an issue, and his comments were just plain wrong; he's pretty much acknowledged that already.

Tony

15th January 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Which just goes to show that being head of the UN makes you somebody. Ergo, the UN is important.

Being somebody doesn’t equal being important. As a thinking person, you should know that. Michael Jackson is more popular and more of a "somebody" than Kofi, is he more important? I would say yes, at least he has contributed something to humanity.

Wrong again; membership of the UN is predicated upon members abiding by UN resolutions. That some rogue states choose not to do so does not reflect upon the legitimacy of the UN lawmaking process.

No evidence? I thought not bigot (look it up). Read up on the difference between chapter 6 and chapter 7 resolutions.

Tony

15th January 2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

No it's not. Kilroy-Silk's right to free speech became limited when he signed up with the BBC. No-one forced him to sign the contract.

Perhaps.

As Kilroy-Silk is not being censored by the UK government, your comparison here is wrong.

His skin colour (or species; do you mean "white" or "whale"?) is not an issue,

If sista soujah said something similar you would be defending her. His skin color is an issue, white people have less rights. If an arab had said this, no one would be bitching.

and his comments were just plain wrong; he's pretty much acknowledged that already.

He was dead on, he has just conceded to the bigotry and tyranny of political correctness.

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Tony
Perhaps.
No perhaps. This is a matter of record. Please consult the links that Graham and I have already posted.
If sista soujah said something similar you would be defending her.
I'd defend her right to say it; but if the censorship she received was as a result of breaking a contract that she freely entered into, I'd call her on that.
His skin color is an issue, white people have less rights.
Can you support this claim?
If an arab had said this, no one would be bitching.
Particularly if they weren't under contract to the BBC. Your point is?
He was dead on, he has just conceded to the bigotry and tyranny of political correctness.
For your benefit, I'll repeat what has already been noted in this thread. In his article, Kilroy-Silk claims that arabs are "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors", which is patently untrue. He later claims he meant only arab regimes, not arabs in general, which pretty much is an acknowledgement that his initial claim was in error. So you're defending here something that even the Kilroy-Silk has admitted was wrong.

Tony

15th January 2004, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

No perhaps. This is a matter of record. Please consult the links that Graham and I have already posted.

Ok

I'd defend her right to say it; but if the censorship she received was as a result of breaking a contract that she freely entered into, I'd call her on that.

Fair enough, but I dont see how breach of contract is any of your bussiness.

Can you support this claim?

Of course, all I would need to do would be to reference our conversation where you essentially said Sistah Soujah had the right to get away with making racist remarks but a not white person making equally racist remarks. You buy into the double standard which is the mainstream (atleast in the media) view.

Particularly if they weren't under contract to the BBC. Your point is?

You're using that as an excuse for censorship. If the breach of contract didnt exist, another excuse would be found.

For your benefit, I'll repeat what has already been noted in this thread. In his article, Kilroy-Silk claims that arabs are "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors", which is patently untrue. He later claims he meant only arab regimes, not arabs in general, which pretty much is an acknowledgement that his initial claim was in error. So you're defending here something that even the Kilroy-Silk has admitted was wrong.

Wasn’t the original article about Arab regimes? It seems that Kilroy-Silk was just correcting a mischaracterization.

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 08:37 AM

Hi Cleopatra, I must've missed your post in the lunchtime rush-sorry! Anyway, better late than never!
Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, it's the position in the channel that got him suspended.From the article I quoted it's obvious that BBC doesn't want to host jerks regardless their relation to the channel. But yet, it accepts to broadcast the image of the one jerk and it rejects the other who has said something much worse.

It's exactly the same issue,since BBC doesn't want to voice jerks unless you believe that Paulin is not a jerk. What do you believe about him BTW ?
Kilroy-Silk, as an employee of the BBC, signed a contract in which he agreed to submit any freelance work to the BBC for their approval and to ensure it doesn't conflict with his responsibilities or obligations to the BBC. Kilroy-Silk hasn't been doing that, which is why the BBC have suspended him. The actual content of his article is irrelevant. Paulin, being an occasional guest on certain BBC shows, is under no such contractual obligation. That's why the issue of Kilroy-Silk's suspension as a result of breach of contract is different to the issue of whether the BBC should accept Paulin as a guest because of his views on Israel. One is a legal issue, the other is an ethical issue; do you see the difference?
What do you believe about him BTW
Paulin? With regard to Newsnight Review, he's got a really annoying and condescending manner and tone of voice, but his rants are entertaining, if elitist. But David Aaronovitch (http://www.obv.org.uk/reports/2002/rpt20020323c.html) says Paulin is no anti-Semite, and I trust his opinion, although I'm always willing to alter my opinions in the light of new evidence.

The difference is existing and striking and I am surprized that you haven't noticed it.
I've indicated no position either way on this. What leads you to make such a comment?
Why BBC calls IRAs terrorists and not militants for example?

A militant, is a person who is determined to defend its cause and it can resort to violence. A Terrorist is a totally negative way to characterize somebody who uses terror as a political weapon to exercise pressure.
I accept to report PLO's members as militants but I do not accept to report Hamas terrorists as such.

By calling somebody a militant you recognize that it has a legitimate cause to fight.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I've found no definition or usage that would indicate such; in fact, in the UK, militant is often used synonymously with "malicious trouble-maker".
Do you think that Hamas and IRA have a legitimate cause to fight for?
I have a view, but I believe it's up to you to establish which is which, as this is your argument, and it's up to you to establish your premises.
Why BBC and The Guardian ( I am refering to those two because I follow those two mostly) apply those double standards.

If Hamas' terrorists are militants why IRA's militants are terrorists?
As the difference between terrorist and militant is central to your argument, I believe that you're expected to answer this, unless your question is rhetorical?

So, if according to The Guardian, Hamas' terrorists have a legitimate cause ( this is what the way they use their terminology shows)
As yet, you haven't established what Hamas's cause is, nevermind its legitimacy.
and since we all know which Hamas's cause is,
You haven't actually established this yet.
they feel that it's ok to kill Jews to defend their cause.
Sorry, but this conclusion is as yet unsupported.
This is the subliminal message.
And it has to be a little less textual to be subliminal!
I will start the thread during the day.
I'll look forward to it!

BillyTK

15th January 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Tony
Fair enough, but I dont see how breach of contract is any of your bussiness.
Well, it's kind of significant to the subject of this thread, y'know?

Of course, all I would need to do would be to reference our conversation where you essentially said Sistah Soujah had the right to get away with making racist remarks but a not white person making equally racist remarks. You buy into the double standard which is the mainstream (atleast in the media) view.
IIRC you were trying fabricate an argument out of unsupportable claims made by FoxNews (FoxNews for fizarckley's sake!), but also IIRC, you agreed that she had a right to say those things as well. Of course, all I would need to do is reference our conversation from the thread where you defended a judge who dressed up in black face, an afro and a prisoner's uniform to go to a fancy dress party. I'll give you credit, at least your consistent in your standards in that regard.

You're using that as an excuse for censorship. If the breach of contract didnt exist, another excuse would be found.
Umm, no; I guess as a late-comer to this thread, you've missed the bit where I defend Kilroy-Silk's right to say stupid things. The BBC might be using the contractual obligation thing as an excuse for censorship (but hold on, hasn't his article already been published? Twice?) or it may be that the row over the reprint of the article is the straw that broke the camel's back, breach of contract-wise. Or they just might have wanted to get rid of him anyway. Who knows? It's all a matter of conjecture, so until further evidence is available, we have to stick with the claims as they stand.

Wasn’t the original article about Arab regimes? It seems that Kilroy-Silk was just correcting a mischaracterization.
Only after a number of people had called him for it; the article was originally printed months ago, and he wasn't exactly coming forward to make that correction then.

richardm

15th January 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Kilroy-Silk, as an employee of the BBC, signed a contract in which he agreed to submit any freelance work to the BBC for their approval and to ensure it doesn't conflict with his responsibilities or obligations to the BBC. Kilroy-Silk hasn't been doing that, which is why the BBC have suspended him.

Interestingly enough, Kilroy-Silk claims that the article was sent to the newspaper in error. It was one that was first printed last year, so it's possibly true, unless he's terminally lazy and hoped nobody would notice.

But if that is the case, it is also possible that the article which was supposed to be printed was checked and approved by the BBC, and this whole thing is just a ghastly mistake.

Skeptic

15th January 2004, 09:16 AM

Frankly, I don't know why everybody is getting worked up over him getting fired. It seems to me that he was not fired for his remarks--that was just the excuse!

Looking at his history, he is such a pompous, ignorant ass (even by BBC standards) that they would have fired him long ago... if they could have found an excuse for it that would not embarras them when the public would say, "but why did you hire him in the first place?" or "well, why do you fire him for ignorant rant X when you didn't fire him for rants Y, Z, and W"?

The BBC, in essence, painted themselves into a corner: once he started to rant on their dime, and they didn't fire him immediatelly, they could no longer do so later--because that would be admitting that hiring him (or not firing him immediatelly) was a MISTAKE, and, as we all know from Kafka's "The Trial", (BBC) directors don't make mistakes.

So here comes this anti-Arab rant--which, frankly, doesn't seem to be much below his usual level of stupidity--and, like manna from heaven, gives the BBC brass the perfect excuse to get rid of him: "Why, no, we're not firing him for being a lousy reporter we were stupid enough to keep on our payroll! We're firing him because he's a RACIST!" (perform "moral high ground" victory dance here).

If the BBC is to blame here--and it is--it is not for firing him, but for lacking the courage, strangely enough, to fire him long ago, and instead waiting for the "PC moment" of him crossing the line to do so.

Tony

15th January 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

IIRC you were trying fabricate an argument out of unsupportable claims made by FoxNews (FoxNews for fizarckley's sake!), but also IIRC, you agreed that she had a right to say those things as well.

Foxnews was right about what she said, it had just taken her quotes out of context, kinda.

My beef wasn’t with what she said; it was with the fact that people (of which includes you) excuse some racist comments while condemning others. Of course she has the right to say those things, just like David Duke and the KKK has the right to say the things they do. It’s the hypocrisy and the anti-free speech attitude to which I object.

Of course, all I would need to do is reference our conversation from the thread where you defended a judge who dressed up in black face, an afro and a prisoner's uniform to go to a fancy dress party.

Either you are lying or you don’t remember correctly, since it's been a while I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The judge went to a Halloween party dressed like that, it wasn’t a fancy dinner or dress party.

Umm, no; I guess as a late-comer to this thread, you've missed the bit where I defend Kilroy-Silk's right to say stupid things. The BBC might be using the contractual obligation thing as an excuse for censorship (but hold on, hasn't his article already been published? Twice?) or it may be that the row over the reprint of the article is the straw that broke the camel's back, breach of contract-wise. Or they just might have wanted to get rid of him anyway. Who knows? It's all a matter of conjecture, so until further evidence is available, we have to stick with the claims as they stand.

Ok.

Only after a number of people had called him for it; the article was originally printed months ago, and he wasn't exactly coming forward to make that correction then.

Why should he? The mischaracterization happened a few weeks ago, the original article was written months ago. Do you expect him to look into the future?

richardm

15th January 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Tony

The judge went to a Halloween party dressed like that, it wasn’t a fancy dinner or dress party.

Psssst.. A "Fancy Dress" party is one where you go dressed in an unusual or amusing costume... Probably what you'd call a Costume Party, in fact.

Tony

15th January 2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by richardm

Psssst.. A "Fancy Dress" party is one where you go dressed in an unusual or amusing costume... Probably what you'd call a Costume Party, in fact.

I guess it's a cultural difference. "Fancy dress" party to me is a bunch of people in dinner gowns and tuxedos drinking champagne and eating caviar. That doesn’t change the fact that it was a Halloween costume party, a setting completely appropriate for such a get-up.

Cleopatra

15th January 2004, 09:35 AM

Richard, since the discussion turned to dresses.... :D

When Americans say " fancy" dress or " fancy restaurant" the mean formal :)

JamesM

15th January 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Frankly, I don't know why everybody is getting worked up over him getting fired.
He hasn't been fired, only suspended, although you have to wonder whether he's doing his chances of a return any good with his intemperate attacks on his bosses on a rival channel.

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Tony
Being somebody doesn’t equal being important. As a thinking person, you should know that. Michael Jackson is more popular and more of a "somebody" than Kofi, is he more important? I would say yes, at least he has contributed something to humanity.
Kofi Annan IS importnat; he's head of the UN. And is Michael Jackson human?
Originally posted by Tony
No evidence? I thought not bigot (look it up). Read up on the difference between chapter 6 and chapter 7 resolutions.
Why does respect for UN resolutions make me a bigot?
Any UN resolution is binding, anyway.

Skeptic

15th January 2004, 04:28 PM

Why does respect for UN resolutions make me a bigot?

For the same reason that respect for the results of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s of the nazi show trials of the 1940s would make you a bigot.

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why does respect for UN resolutions make me a bigot?

For the same reason that respect for the results of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s of the nazi show trials of the 1940s would make you a bigot. Godwin's Law: First person to compare the other side to the Nazis loses.
BTW, comparing respect for the UN to Nazi show trials is just ludicrous.

Nikk

15th January 2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK

It's Part 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, details here (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/10024--f.htm#37).

I agree. I'm not exactly the world's biggest fan of the BNP (this is an understatement) but I'd sooner have them out in the open. The kid in question may or may not have been intending to incite racial hatred but the only things I can see him being guilty of is being stupid (fortunately not yet a crime) and possibly illegal posting or vandalism of the bus.

Well there is no Incitement to Racial Hatred Act unless you're thinking of an Australian act. This incitement to racial and religious hatred provision is based on the 1936 Public Order act, modified by the 1976 Race Relations Act as modified by the 2001 Anti-Terrorism act (I hate these layers of amendments).

The absurd thing about it is that racial/religious hatred is itself not a crime; nor indeed should it be, it is a state of mind after all. Thus we have the situation that it is illegal to attempt to persuade or influence someone whom you have never met to hold a point of view which is itself entirely legal.

It's rather like the old obscenity laws which asked whether material was likely to deprave and corrupt - needless to say one never found anyone including jury members who would agree that they were depraved and corrupted by the material. Juries could however sometimes be persuaded that there were some unidentified citizens out there who were likely to be corrupted.

Tony

15th January 2004, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Kofi Annan IS importnat; he's head of the UN. And is Michael Jackson human?

It's impotent.

Why does respect for UN resolutions make me a bigot?

I never said it did. But look below for an example of your bigoted attitude.

Any UN resolution is binding, anyway.

This is bigotry; you are obstinately devoted to this (false) opinion regardless of fact, that is the definition of bigotry. Since it doesn’t look like you are going to leave the path of bigotry (much like the gay animals thread) and refuse to be educated on the differences between chapter 6 and 7 resolutions, I'll leave you to revel in your ignorance, good-bye bigot.

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Tony
It's impotent.
Only because people like you refuse to respect it.
Originally posted by Tony
I never said it did. But look below for an example of your bigoted attitude.
This is bigotry; you are obstinately devoted to this (false) opinion regardless of fact, that is the definition of bigotry. Since it doesn’t look like you are going to leave the path of bigotry (much like the gay animals thread) and refuse to be educated on the differences between chapter 6 and 7 resolutions, I'll leave you to revel in your ignorance, good-bye bigot. What a load of rubbish! Just because you beleive in Zion uber alles does not make me a bigot for opposing you. The occupation is illegal; give the Palestinians back their land. You don't need it. Bigot? I'm not the one espousing a doctrine of ethnic clensing. :rolleyes:

Tony

15th January 2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Only because people like you refuse to respect it.

Yeah, us freethinkers and suck!!

As for the rest of your ignorant and sophomoric drooling, I'll remind you of this.

Since it doesn’t look like you are going to leave the path of bigotry (much like the gay animals thread) and refuse to be educated on the differences between chapter 6 and 7 resolutions, I'll leave you to revel in your ignorance, good-bye bigot.

When you can be a man and admit you are wrong in face of facts, I'll consider continuing this discussion with you, until then.....

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Tony
Yeah, us freethinkers and suck!!
You're not a freethinker; you're a jingoist.
Originally posted by Tony
As for the rest of your ignorant and sophomoric drooling, I'll remind you of this...
When you can be a man and admit you are wrong in face of facts, I'll consider continuing this discussion with you, until then.....
Yes, please don't come back until you can present a coherent argument, rather than merely engaging in ad hominem.

Tony

15th January 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

You're not a freethinker; you're a jingoist.

Blah blah blah... It must suck to have a crayon jammed in your brain.

Yes, please don't come back until you can present a coherent argument, rather than merely engaging in ad hominem.

This is just your attempt to sink back into your comfortable and bigoted worldview and bait me to respond. If my argument was so incoherent, it's doubtful you would have engaged me in the first place. It's more likely that you lack the ability or refuse (which would make you, by definition, a bigot) to understand the rather simple and irrefutable evidence regarding the difference between chapter 6 and 7 resolutions.

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Tony
Blah blah blah... It must suck to have a crayon jammed in your brain.
Still no argument, just ad hominem. Where did you go to school?
Originally posted by Tony
This is just your attempt to sink back into your comfortable and bigoted worldview and bait me to respond. If my argument was so incoherent, it's doubtful you would have engaged me in the first place. It's more likely that you lack the ability or refuse (which would make you, by definition, a bigot) to understand the rather simple and irrefutable evidence regarding the difference between chapter 6 and 7 resolutions.
I want freedom, justice, and equality for all people. How does this make me bigoted? :rolleyes:

Skeptic

15th January 2004, 08:05 PM

I want freedom, justice, and equality for all people.

...except for the jews, since if israel had obeyed half of the UN resolutions passed against it, it would have been destroyed by now.

Which was the whole point, of course, of passing most of those resolutions in the first place: a full 1/3 of all UN resolutions condemn israel at the instigation of the Arab/Communist world, with its automatic majority, in its continuing struggle to destroy israel.

To give a flavor of the evil hypocracy of those "respectful" UN resolutions, there was one suggested by Algeria in the 1970s (Although I don't know if it in particular was passed) "condemning" israel for "aerial terrorism"... for the evil crime of actually having armed guards on its plane, thus making them harder for Algerian terrorists to hijack.

Of course, one cannot say that the UN only passes resolutions against israel. Sometimes, it defeats "pro-israeli" resolutions, as well: after an Arab resolution declaring the right of all palestinian children to "live free of terror" was passed in the UN recently, israel (which did not object to the palestinian suggestion) submitted the EXACT SAME RESOLUTION itself, only with "israeli children". The israeli suggestion, needless to say, was defeated by a huge margin by the UN, which is sooooooooooo concerned with the rights of children and innocents, unless they're jews.

But, hey, they are UN resolutions, so they "must be respected"... israelies should just realize that their children have no right to live, or that preventing terrorists from hijacking their planes is an evil act of terrorism. Surely, the ONLY reason israel refuses to respect such august advice is because of its bigoted, evil attitude...

Kimpatsu

15th January 2004, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I want freedom, justice, and equality for all people.
...except for the jews, since if israel had obeyed half of the UN resolutions passed against it, it would have been destroyed by now.
What a load of rubbish. This is not a bifurcation fallacy; both the Palestinians and the Jews can share a the land, and the UN has never passed a resolution calling for the extermination of Israel.
Originally posted by Skeptic
Which was the whole point, of course, of passing most of those resolutions in the first place: a full 1/3 of all UN resolutions condemn israel at the instigation of the Arab/Communist world, with its automatic majority, in its continuing struggle to destroy israel.
This is an absolute lie. The UN as a body has never been anti-Israel; this is a canard of the Zionists who want to legitimise their oppression of the Palestinians.
Originally posted by Skeptic
To give a flavor of the evil hypocracy of those "respectful" UN resolutions, there was one suggested by Algeria in the 1970s (Although I don't know if it in particular was passed) "condemning" israel for "aerial terrorism"... for the evil crime of actually having armed guards on its plane, thus making them harder for Algerian terrorists to hijack.
No, it wasn't passed. Of course it wasn't; that's why despite the bluster and rhetoric of certain Arab states, Israel is still supported by the UN.
Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, one cannot say that the UN only passes resolutions against israel. Sometimes, it defeats "pro-israeli" resolutions, as well: after an Arab resolution declaring the right of all palestinian children to "live free of terror" was passed in the UN recently, israel (which did not object to the palestinian suggestion) submitted the EXACT SAME RESOLUTION itself, only with "israeli children". The israeli suggestion, needless to say, was defeated by a huge margin by the UN, which is sooooooooooo concerned with the rights of children and innocents, unless they're jews.
This is more nonsense. All people--not just children--are entitled to live free from terror, a fact explicitly stated in the UN charter, so additional resolutions are not necessary. But now I see where you're coming from; you don't like the UN condemning Israel for anything. Would you happen to be one of these fundies who thinks that Zionist occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is Biblically mandated?
Originally posted by Skeptic
But, hey, they are UN resolutions, so they "must be respected"... israelies should just realize that their children have no right to live, or that preventing terrorists from hijacking their planes is an evil act of terrorism. Surely, the ONLY reason israel refuses to respect such august advice is because of its bigoted, evil attitude...
UN resolutions should indeed be respected. Note that the failure of a resolution calling for children to live free from terror is not the same as passing a resolution stating that children should be terrorised.
Or is that too subtle for you?

BillyTK

16th January 2004, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Nikk

Well there is no Incitement to Racial Hatred Act unless you're thinking of an Australian act.[...]
Yeah, I was sexing it up for the sake of a good one-liner ;)

BillyTK

16th January 2004, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Foxnews was right about what she said, it had just taken her quotes out of context, kinda.

My beef wasn’t with what she said; it was with the fact that people (of which includes you) excuse some racist comments while condemning others.
See your opening paragraph about "context".
Of course she has the right to say those things, just like David Duke and the KKK has the right to say the things they do. It’s the hypocrisy and the anti-free speech attitude to which I object.
COnsidering your recent threads, the irony of this is noted.

Either you are lying or you don’t remember correctly, since it's been a while I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The judge went to a Halloween party dressed like that, it wasn’t a fancy dinner or dress party.
Fancy dress party; in which people wear fanciful costumes. Nothing to do with dinner parties, in which people wear formal evening attire. Is the fancy dress aspect implied by "Halloween party" in your neck of the woods?

Why should he? The mischaracterization happened a few weeks ago, the original article was written months ago. Do you expect him to look into the future?
The mischaracterisation was in the original article written months ago.

BillyTK

16th January 2004, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Tony

I guess it's a cultural difference. "Fancy dress" party to me is a bunch of people in dinner gowns and tuxedos drinking champagne and eating caviar. That doesn’t change the fact that it was a Halloween costume party, a setting completely appropriate for such a get-up.
Black-prisoner-in-shackles is such a traditional Halloween costume, isn't it?

Giz

16th January 2004, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Note that the failure of a resolution calling for children to live free from terror is not the same as passing a resolution stating that children should be terrorised.
Or is that too subtle for you?

You don't think that "children X are entitled to live free of terror" being passed whilst "children Y are entitled to live free of terror" is defeated is a bit inconsistent?

Why would one be passed and not the other? I cannot think of a single good reason.

Kimpatsu

16th January 2004, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Giz
You don't think that "children X are entitled to live free of terror" being passed whilst "children Y are entitled to live free of terror" is defeated is a bit inconsistent?

Why would one be passed and not the other? I cannot think of a single good reason.
I do find it inconsistent; I never said otherwise. I pointed out that not passing the resolution is notthe same as passing a resolution in support of terrorism.

Darat

16th January 2004, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Black-prisoner-in-shackles is such a traditional Halloween costume, isn't it?

http://www.charliecrow.com/usa/results.asp?Section=Halloween

Perhaps the judge had asked for a black cat outfit and they thought he'd asked for a black cat burglar outfit? >>Insert smilie for "Its only an innocent question - why do you think I'm stiring it?"<<

Tony

16th January 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Black-prisoner-in-shackles is such a traditional Halloween costume, isn't it?

Irrelevant. A person’s free speech isn’t relegated to “tradition” or the status quo.

Tony

16th January 2004, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

See your opening paragraph about "context".

Hmm..

COnsidering your recent threads, the irony of this is noted.

No argument? What are you talking about?

Fancy dress party; in which people wear fanciful costumes. Nothing to do with dinner parties, in which people wear formal evening attire. Is the fancy dress aspect implied by "Halloween party" in your neck of the woods?

No.

The mischaracterisation was in the original article written months ago.

You seem to have lost track of the discussion, we were talking about the recent mischaracterization of Kilroy-Silk's article. Not the alleged mischaracterization contained therein.

BillyTK

16th January 2004, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Irrelevant. A person’s free speech isn’t relegated to “tradition” or the status quo.
Red herring; I never suggested it was.

BillyTK

16th January 2004, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Tony
No argument? What are you talking about?
Your comment:
It’s the hypocrisy and the anti-free speech attitude to which I object.
Considering your willingness to condemn a black women based on rather scurrilous evidence provided by FoxNews, and your recent thread about Glenda Jackson MP, which contains a number of inaccuracies and some stunningly absurd claims, the contrast between what you say here and what you say elsewhere is noted.
You seem to have lost track of the discussion, we were talking about the recent mischaracterization of Kilroy-Silk's article. Not the alleged mischaracterization contained therein.
More unintentional irony; this comment would indicate (along with the fact that just about all your comments about Kilroy-Silk have been demonstrated to be erroneous) that you are completely unfamiliar with the issue being discussed. Now, I've got no intention of obstructing you from knee-jerking on your favourite topic of how "white people have less rights", but I've equally no intention of continuing to recount for your benefit facts and details which have already been raised in this thread. I'll be more than willing to carry on this discussion once you've familiarised yourself with the facts and actually know what you're talking about, but not before. Otherwise, be my guest to continue flailing.

Edited for spellung and granma

Tony

16th January 2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Considering your willingness to condemn a black women based on rather scurrilous evidence provided by FoxNews,

And how does this show an anti-free speech attitude? I condemn all blatant racism. And I never condemed her based on the evidence of Fox News, you're just showing your bigotry. I condemed her on the basis of her own words which you yourself posted a link too.

and your recent thread about Glenda Jackson MP, which contains a number of inaccuracies and some stunningly absurd claims, the contrast between what you say here and what you say elsewhere is noted.

You're grasping for straws. This is just a diversionary tactic on your behalf. This is no way shows hypocrisy or an anti-free speech attitude.

More unintentional irony; this comment would indicate (along with the fact that just about all your comments about Kilroy-Silk have been demonstrated to be erroneous) that you are completely unfamiliar with the issue being discussed. Now, I've got no intention of obstructing you from knee-jerking on your favourite topic of how "white people have less rights", but I've equally no intention of continuing to recount for your benefit facts and details which have already been raised in this thread. I'll be more than willing to carry on this discussion once you've familiarised yourself with the facts and actually know what you're talking about, but not before. Otherwise, be my guest to continue flailing.

I'm trying to familiarize myself But your hateful baggage has invariably turned this into a pissing contest. Was Kilroy-Silk's original article about Arab regimes or not? You didn’t answer before, so I took that as a yes. Would you please answer this time?

Tony

16th January 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Red herring; I never suggested it was.

Then why did you ask such an irrelvant question? Do you just like seeing your words on the screen?

As an aside, its interesting to note that "people" say that the judge wearing that costume is an indication that he thinks all black people are criminals and is therefore "racist". If he came to the party without the wig and the face paint would he be insulating that all whites are criminals? By your logic, he would. But I guess ok.

Darat

16th January 2004, 12:04 PM

All over now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3404715.stm

Kilroy quits as BBC presenter

Mr Kilroy-Silk has hosted the BBC show for 17 years
Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit his role as a BBC talk show host in the wake of the row over a newspaper article in which he criticised Arabs.

...snip...

Well for one I'm glad - everytime I caught him on TV I went to alter the colour controls on my TV only to find out he really is orange.

Seriously this is the worse outcome, if he broke his BBC contract the BBC should have got rid of him. This however smacks of a "Just go - we'll make it worth your while..." style of managment.

demon

17th January 2004, 05:01 AM

The BBC have stopped his show.
Do they deserve kudos for this?
My answer to that question is no, clearly not (and I suspect some mightl already have gone through the following reasoning process).
Kilroy-Silk made broad-brush comments about an entire racial grouping; millions of people whom he has never met, and tarred them with the worst characteristics of a vanishingly small percentage of them (terrorists etc). He compounded this by then blaming them for all for the actions of theocratic extremists and the worst excesses of their (corrupt, western-backed) governments. This makes about as much sense as blaming all Americans for Timothy McVeigh or all British people for the actions of the Home Office or the anti-sodomy campaign of Ian Paisley.

In the case of Paulin, he confined his comments to a very particular group of people -ilegal jewish settlers. He did not say all jews should be shot, he did not say all Israelis should be shot. He made reference only to a small group of illegal invaders.

Furthermore, the people within Paulin's group gain entrance according to only one criterion -they have to illegally dispossess another group of its land and heritage. They do not even have to be jewish or Israeli.
To be showered with Kilroy-Silk's bile, however, all one has to do is be an Arab (or an Iranian -which demonstrates the man's ignorance even further).

By this reasoning, I hope the distinction between Kilroy-Silk and Paulin's comments is clear and the lack of equivilance obvious. Paulin's attack was against a non-racially, non-ethnically determined, relatively small group; who gain admittance to it only through their own criminality. Kilroy-Silk's attack was a scatter-gun assemblage of various racial groups based on lazy reasoning and historical ignorance. To gain entry to Kilroy-Silk's group, all one has to do is be the wrong colour and live somewhere around the Middle East.

Simple as that, really.

Skeptic

19th January 2004, 06:34 AM

Oh, I see! So it is just "illegal" (meaning "the Arabs don't want them there") jewish settlers" who should be shot dead, not ALL jews!

Only the lives of SOME jews is "illegal"! How could I have missed THAT? Well, that's OK, then. After all, if somebody only claims a PART of a ethnic group should be exterminated, not ALL of it, he has nothing against that group and couldn't possibly be a racist.

You know, just like I merely advocate killing the disobedient bitches who won't do what their man tells them, not ALL women, or killing just the uppity ******* who don't know their place, not ALL blacks.

Kimpatsu

19th January 2004, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, I see! So it is just "illegal" (meaning "the Arabs don't want them there") jewish settlers" who should be shot dead, not ALL jews!

Only the lives of SOME jews is "illegal"! How could I have missed THAT? Well, that's OK, then. After all, if somebody only claims a PART of a ethnic group should be exterminated, not ALL of it, he has nothing against that group and couldn't possibly be a racist.

You know, just like I merely advocate killing the disobedient bitches who won't do what their man tells them, not ALL women, or killing just the uppity ******* who don't know their place, not ALL blacks.
Maybe it's because of the poor grammar, but I don't understand this post.
All killing is wrong; what does that have to do--concretely--with the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

BillyTK

19th January 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Tony
Then why did you ask such an irrelvant question? Do you just like seeing your words on the screen?
I guess rhetoric is not your strong point. The point of the question is entirely pertinent to the motivations of someone who would incorporate black face and an afro for their fancy dress, as we can rule out the possibility that Black-prisoner-in-shackles is a traditional Halloween costume.

As an aside, now you understand what the term "fancy dress party" means, would you care to retract your suggestion that
Either you are lying or you don’t remember correctly, since it's been a while I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The judge went to a Halloween party dressed like that, it wasn’t a fancy dinner or dress party.

As an aside, its interesting to note that "people" say that the judge wearing that costume is an indication that he thinks all black people are criminals and is therefore "racist".
Which "people" would that be? :rolleyes:
If he came to the party without the wig and the face paint would he be insulating that all whites are criminals? By your logic, he would. But I guess ok.
Wrong; he'd simply be a judge in a prisoner's outfit, which, considering the contrast, would be highly amusing.

BillyTK

19th January 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Tony

And how does this show an anti-free speech attitude? I condemn all blatant racism. And I never condemed her based on the evidence of Fox News, you're just showing your bigotry. I condemed her on the basis of her own words which you yourself posted a link too.
Your claim and the evidence do not match. As a reminder, here's your opening post from that thread:
Originally posted by Tony
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105095,00.html ...full article (scroll down)
The first of a series of Diversity Lectures held at the University of Louisville in Kentucky brought the notoriously racist Sister Souljah to campus at a cost of more than $10,000, reports the Louisville Courier-Journal.

The speech, in which Ms. Souljah was reported to have berated white people for more than two hours, was paid for with a $50,000 contribution by Bank One. The bank donated the money as penance after some of its employees were caught handing out racist T-shirts on campus.

Her speech was part of an effort to bring to campus "thought-provoking speakers that would really give us some opportunity to engage in a dialogue on some difficult issues related to race and race relations," said Mordean Taylor-Archer, the school’s vice provost for diversity and equal opportunity.
Sister Souljah is famous for advocating, after the Los Angeles race riots several years ago, "war" against white people, including a special week set aside each year to kill white people. She says unapologetically that she wants what’s best for "her" people, and that "if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it."

And so the double standard prevails.

So there you go; a couple of quotes from FoxNews and you're away. Quotes which turned out to be out-of-context and woefully inaccurate after I'd dug around for the original material. Here's the thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31932) if anyone can be bothered.

You're grasping for straws. This is just a diversionary tactic on your behalf. This is no way shows hypocrisy or an anti-free speech attitude.
You don't see the hypocrisy and anti-free speech aspect of condemning someone on the flimsiest of evidence? Or the hypocrisy, anti-free speech and patent racism of describing Palestinian children as "future suicide bombers"? Okay...
I'm trying to familiarize myself But your hateful baggage has invariably turned this into a pissing contest.
Spare me the self-pity. You might wish to consider that using a less confrontational form of discourse (for instance, dropping the ad-homs and rash claims) would be more constructive in this respect.
Was Kilroy-Silk's original article about Arab regimes or not? You didn’t answer before, so I took that as a yes. Would you please answer this time?
:rolleyes: Like I said, it's all in this thread; go and do your own research as I'm no longer doing it for you.

Tony

19th January 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Your claim and the evidence do not match. As a reminder, here's your opening post from that thread:

And so the double standard prevails.

So there you go; a couple of quotes from FoxNews and you're away. Quotes which turned out to be out-of-context and woefully inaccurate after I'd dug around for the original material. Here's the thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31932) if anyone can bothered.

Actually, the quotes werent that out of context, which was apparent upon reading the full poem. My original condemnation was accurate. When I asserted that, you basically pulled the double standard BS claiming:

and that's where the double-standard comes in. Do you genuinely believe that the history and experience of black people and white people are exactly the same? What are you, some kind of slavery and segregation denier? Or do you think all that was a matter of historical circumstance that black people should really get over? Or maybe that the only way to achieve Martin Luther King's dream of a colour-blind society is for black people to stop being black. Something else? I'm all ears.

I refrained from answering this because it was basically irrelevant to the question of her racism, you are just trying to justify hate and racism.

You don't see the hypocrisy and anti-free speech aspect of condemning someone on the flimsiest of evidence?

You are more guilty of this than me. You're the one who condemned the judge for wearing a Halloween consume, something that you interpreted as racism. Sista Soujah's quotes and poems, if altered to disparage black people, would be indistinguishable from something written by a member of the KKK.

Or the hypocrisy, anti-free speech and patent racism of describing Palestinian children as "future suicide bombers"? Okay...

Palestinians are not a race; therefore any comment said about them cannot be racism. You still have yet to show how this is hypocritical or anti-free speech. It's actually said in the spirit of free speech, seeing as how it's a dangerous and controversial statement.

BillyTK

20th January 2004, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Actually, the quotes werent that out of context, which was apparent upon reading the full poem.
The first claim by FoxNews was clearly out of context: "Sister Souljah is famous for advocating, after the Los Angeles race riots several years ago, "war" against white people, including a special week set aside each year to kill white people." Um, no she didn't. As for the second claim, "She says unapologetically that she wants what’s best for "her" people, and that "if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it." Yup, in a poem for fiarkley's sake. I mean really.
My original condemnation was accurate.
Yup, you "condemed her on the basis of her own words" which, um, weren't.
When I asserted that, you basically pulled the double standard BS claiming:
and that's where the double-standard comes in. Do you genuinely believe that the history and experience of black people and white people are exactly the same? What are you, some kind of slavery and segregation denier? Or do you think all that was a matter of historical circumstance that black people should really get over? Or maybe that the only way to achieve Martin Luther King's dream of a colour-blind society is for black people to stop being black. Something else? I'm all ears.
Actually, this was a subsequent response to your question:
Now, if I or someone else said:

"I am white first, I want what's good for me and my people first. And if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it"

What would you think?
I refrained from answering this because it was basically irrelevant to the question of her racism, you are just trying to justify hate and racism.
Misrepresentation; it was actually most relevant to the question you posed.

You are more guilty of this than me.
What's your latest thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34145) about?
You're the one who condemned the judge for wearing a Halloween consume, something that you interpreted as racism.
Black-prisoner-in-shackles is such a traditional Halloween costume, isn't it?

Sista Soujah's quotes and poems, if altered to disparage black people, would be indistinguishable from something written by a member of the KKK.
More nonsense, as I responded the last time you fielded this type of question (hint, I've included it near the start of this post). Her first comment was about the LA riots, so if someone said, "if white people kill white people every day, why not have a week and kill black people?" it would be utter gibberish.

Now let's alter her poem accordingly:

No Disrespect

Souljah was not born to make Black people feel comfortable

I am European[?] first, I am White first

I want what's good for me and my people first

And if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it

You built this wicked system

They say two wrongs don't make a right

But it damn sure makes things even

The Hate That Hate Produced

More screaming nonsense, and nothing like the kind of stuff the KKK and their ilk produce; where's the references to white supremacism and inferior races, exactly?

Palestinians are not a race;
I never saw that one coming. No, Palestinians aren't a race, neither are Blacks, whites, orientals, Hussidic Jews or Kerrymen. Race is a cultural product, not a biological fact, and was invented by some bright spark a few centuries back who thought it would be fun to type humanity according to skin colour.
therefore any comment said about them cannot be racism.
But race is real in its effects, which is mostly through racism. Let's see what we've got here; one stereotype (all Palestinians are terrorists), applied to a group of people (Palestinians) in a homogenous way. Yup; that's racism (and a logical fallacy to boot), but if you want to split hairs (because Palestinians ain't Black, are they?), such stereotyping is a fundamental aspect of all bigotry, whther racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever.
You still have yet to show how this is hypocritical
It's hypocritical because you're engaging in exactly the same kind of bigotry as you (allege) to condemn others for.
or anti-free speech.
It's anti-free speech because it's propogating bigotted stereotypes. It's anti-free speech because it's a simple way of closing down discussion: "What do you want to talk to him for? He's a Palestinian so he must be a terrorist. What do you want to talk about Palestinians for? They're all terrorists." It's anti-free speech because you choose irrational claims and insult over any kind of analytical discussion.
It's actually said in the spirit of free speech, seeing as how it's a dangerous and controversial statement.
Claiming that Palestinians are terrorists is a provable untruth which arises out of bigotry, not understanding. It's not dangerous or controversial, but it does give us an idea of the thought-processes of the person who makes such comments.

Free speech is a great and wonderful thing, for it gives people the opportunity to be a Goddam F****** Moron, and I'm cool with that. But just as you have the right to go to work with dog poo smeared across your shirt doesn't mean that anyone is forced to stand anywhere near you, so the right to free speech doesn't mean that the rest of us have got to sit there and eat it; we can respond and point out how and why poeople are being Goddam F****** Morons, which is more in the spirit of free speech than being a Goddam F****** Moron in the first place.

Edited to fix tags'n'words

Tony

20th January 2004, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

The first claim by FoxNews was clearly out of context: "Sister Souljah is famous for advocating, after the Los Angeles race riots several years ago, "war" against white people, including a special week set aside each year to kill white people." Um, no she didn't. As for the second claim, "She says unapologetically that she wants what’s best for "her" people, and that "if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it." Yup, in a poem for fiarkley's sake. I mean really.

I admit (have already admtted) that the Foxnews quotes were taken out of context. But, and I'll say again, upon reading her peom, it's apparent that her quotes were still racist. Ragardless of what Foxnews did.

So is a racist poem is ok with you?

Misrepresentation; it was actually most relevant to the question you posed.

No it wasnt, you are simply trying to excuse racism by finding reasons for it.

Black-prisoner-in-shackles is such a traditional Halloween costume, isn't it?

Irrelevant.

No Disrespect

Souljah was not born to make Black people feel comfortable

I am European[?] first, I am White first

I want what's good for me and my people first

And if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it

You built this wicked system

They say two wrongs don't make a right

But it damn sure makes things even

The Hate That Hate Produced

Ok, and be honest. If you saw this poem, as it is, from a white person, what would you think?

More screaming nonsense, and nothing like the kind of stuff the KKK and their ilk produce; where's the references to white supremacism and inferior races, exactly?

All you have to do is look and think:

And if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it

That is predicated on the idea that her race is superior to the other. Why else would she be ok with genocide?

I never saw that one coming.

Of course not, you already have your mind made up about me.

No, Palestinians aren't a race, neither are Blacks, whites, orientals, Hussidic Jews or Kerrymen. Race is a cultural product, not a biological fact, and was invented by some bright spark a few centuries back who thought it would be fun to type humanity according to skin colour.

I agree, my hope is that one day humanity will be united and recognize each other as the same race, as I do to my fellow man. Too bad we have something called narcissism of the minor difference to contend with.

But race is real in its effects, which is mostly through racism. Let's see what we've got here; one stereotype (all Palestinians are terrorists), applied to a group of people (Palestinians) in a homogenous way. Yup; that's racism (and a logical fallacy to boot), but if you want to split hairs (because Palestinians ain't Black, are they?).

A big straw man, I never said ALL pals are terrorists. That's your bigoted interpretation. And I say again, Palestinians are not a race any more than people from Florida are a race. The palestinians, if anything other than a political construct, are a culture.

It's hypocritical because you're engaging in exactly the same kind of bigotry as you (allege) to condemn others for.

I do? Tell me how I am obstinately devoted to my own prejudices. That’s what a bigot is.

And please tell me where and when I've expressed that I would be ok with the destruction of an entire race (like the Arabs, which would be analogous to Sista Soujah's poem).

It's anti-free speech because it's propogating bigotted stereotypes. It's anti-free speech because it's a simple way of closing down discussion: "What do you want to talk to him for? He's a Palestinian so he must be a terrorist. What do you want to talk about Palestinians for? They're all terrorists." It's anti-free speech because you choose irrational claims and insult over any kind of analytical discussion.

Another big straw man. It's becoming apparent that you are just reading your own biases and bigotry into me. If you'd actually take the time to read what I write, and not put words in my mouth, this would be more productive.

Claiming that Palestinians are terrorists is a provable untruth which arises out of bigotry, not understanding. It's not dangerous or controversial, but it does give us an idea of the thought-processes of the person who makes such comments.

And where did I claim palestinians are terrorists? You are putting words in my mouth to confirm your own bigotry.

BillyTK

20th January 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Tony

I admit (have already admtted) that the Foxnews quotes were taken out of context.
So out of context, they mangled what she'd actually said, for their own agenda. And you reproduced it in an unedited fashion.

But, and I'll say again, upon reading her peom, it's apparent that her quotes were still racist. Ragardless of what Foxnews did.
You've yet to establish that in any kind of reasoned manner.

So is a racist poem is ok with you?
Racist by your measure or mine?

No it wasnt, you are simply trying to excuse racism by finding reasons for it.
I've quoted the line of questioning, from you, that it was in response to. It's odd that you should say this. Can you support this without resorting to insults?

Irrelevant.
Very relevant; you claimed; "You're the one who condemned the judge for wearing a Halloween consume". So since when is "Black-prisoner-in-shackles" a traditional Halloween costume?

Ok, and be honest. If you saw this poem, as it is, from a white person, what would you think?
As I've said indicated, I'd wet myself laughing. It'd be hysterical in its absurdity. I mean, what White European people would such a person be talking about? In what way would their survival be contingent on killing Blacks and how would that "make things even", when Blacks are a minority? When and how did Blacks build "this wicked system"? What could be the first wrong referred to by "hey say two wrongs don't make a right"? What could be the Black on white hatred that produced the hatred talked about in the final line, and how exactly does that work? The poem in its original format doesn't stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny anyway, but y'know, artistic licence and all that. But the altered version is way out there.

All you have to do is look and think:
nd if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it
That is predicated on the idea that her race is superior to the other. Why else would she be ok with genocide?
Could you demonstrate how you've arrived at that conclusion? Particularly the bit where she expresses the idea that her race is superior? Here's a closer reading:
"You built this wicked system" - whites created a system which is bad for Black people.
"The Hate That Hate Produced" - the hatred that she's expressing is in reaction to the hatred she gets from white people.
"And if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it " - note the conditional here; if only way she and her people can survive is to fight against the reader of the poem (by implication, white people) then she's willing to do that.
"They say two wrongs don't make a right " - but she realises that such a position is wrong.
"But it damn sure makes things even" - This one is complex, in that it certainly indicates her feeling that her people are not treated equally, but also suggests that as her wrong-in possibly having to fight against whites-would makes things equal, then "this wicked system" is causing the destruction of her people.

To summarise, the poet is saying that there is a system which is prejudicial, even violent, towards Blacks, and was built by whites out of their hatred for Blacks, and if the only way to sort things out is to fight against whites, then she's willing to do that.

Of course not, you already have your mind made up about me.
I was using sarcasm.

I agree, my hope is that one day humanity will be united and recognize each other as the same race, as I do to my fellow man.
Unintentional irony *gasps*
Too bad we have something called narcissism of the minor difference to contend with.
narcissism of minor difference? *rotflmao*. Please explain?

A big straw man, I never said ALL pals are terrorists. That's your bigoted interpretation.
Your exact words were: "This idiot gets shot while sheltering future suicide bombers in a war zone". So you have special knowledge about these specific children? Otherwise you're making a generalisation, and my point stands. Btw, it would be good if you used some kind of evidence or analysis in your response, rather than resorting to ad-homs.

And I say again, Palestinians are not a race any more than people from Florida are a race. The palestinians, if anything other than a political construct, are a culture.
And as I said, no, Palestinians aren't a race, neither are Blacks, whites, orientals, Hussidic Jews or Kerrymen. None of which refutes my point about racism.

I do? Tell me how I am obstinately devoted to my own prejudices. That’s what a bigot is.
Red herring noted. I never called you a bigot.

And please tell me where and when I've expressed that I would be ok with the destruction of an entire race (like the Arabs, which would be analogous to Sista Soujah's poem).
Second red herring noted.

Another big straw man.
It's my argument. Therefore it's not a strawman.
It's becoming apparent that you are just reading your own biases and bigotry into me. If you'd actually take the time to read what I write, and not put words in my mouth, this would be more productive.
Can you support this rather bizarre accusation (and without resorting to ad homs and the rest)?

And where did I claim palestinians are terrorists? You are putting words in my mouth to confirm your own bigotry.
That bit about "sheltering future suicide bombers in a war zone". Your words, your mouth :)

Tony

20th January 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

I guess rhetoric is not your strong point. The point of the question is entirely pertinent to the motivations of someone who would incorporate black face and an afro for their fancy dress, as we can rule out the possibility that Black-prisoner-in-shackles is a traditional Halloween costume.

There are no "traditional" Halloween costumes, for anyone over 10 years old at least. In fact, a lot of people pride themselves on wearing a different and unique costume.

Wrong; he'd simply be a judge in a prisoner's outfit, which, considering the contrast, would be highly amusing.

More double standard hypocrisy I see. It's as simple as that, you're a hypocrite. Now that we have that established, its safe to say that any more discourse with you would be a waste of time. Goodbye hypocrite.

Tony

20th January 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

You've yet to establish that in any kind of reasoned manner.

Yes I have, it's not my fault if you are unreasonable.

Racist by your measure or mine?

Well since your measure seems to be:

Said by white person=racist.

Said by black person=not racist, I have to judge on mine. Of which I would say that the evidence for sista soujah's racism, although not conclusive, is much more solid than the evidence for the judge's.

As I've said indicated, I'd wet myself laughing. It'd be hysterical in its absurdity. I mean, what White European people would such a person be talking about? In what way would their survival be contingent on killing Blacks and how would that "make things even", when Blacks are a minority? When and how did Blacks build "this wicked system"? What could be the first wrong referred to by "hey say two wrongs don't make a right"? What could be the Black on white hatred that produced the hatred talked about in the final line, and how exactly does that work? The poem in its original format doesn't stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny anyway, but y'know, artistic licence and all that. But the altered version is way out there.

Liar, you'd condemn it as racist, and rightfully so.

"You built this wicked system" - whites created a system which is bad for Black people.
"The Hate That Hate Produced" - the hatred that she's expressing is in reaction to the hatred she gets from white people.
"And if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it " - note the conditional here; if only way she and her people can survive is to fight against the reader of the poem (by implication, white people) then she's willing to do that.
"They say two wrongs don't make a right " - but she realises that such a position is wrong.
"But it damn sure makes things even" - This one is complex, in that it certainly indicates her feeling that her people are not treated equally, but also suggests that as her wrong-in possibly having to fight against whites-would makes things equal, then "this wicked system" is causing the destruction of her people.

Nice way to rationalize racism. Perhaps someone should remind this b!tch that not all white people are responsible for the "wicked" system.

To summarise, the poet is saying that there is a system which is prejudicial, even violent, towards Blacks, and was built by whites out of their hatred for Blacks, and if the only way to sort things out is to fight against whites, then she's willing to do that.

Read that again, you just essentially admitted that this poem is racist. Not to mention irrational. Why would she be willing to fight against whites that have nothing to do with this "system" she so hates? Could it be because she hates and holds all whites responsible? Could she be generalizing? No, of course not, she's black, she can't be racist.

narcissism of minor difference? *rotflmao*. Please explain?

Look it up, Im actually surprised you dont know what it is.

Your exact words were: "This idiot gets shot while sheltering future suicide bombers in a war zone". So you have special knowledge about these specific children? Otherwise you're making a generalisation, and my point stands.

A rational generalization. The fact is, is that pal children are taught to hate and glorify suicide bombers.

And as I said, no, Palestinians aren't a race, neither are Blacks, whites, orientals, Hussidic Jews or Kerrymen. None of which refutes my point about racism.

But palestinians are arabs, something I would have thought would have been apparent to you.

Red herring noted. I never called you a bigot.

Liar:

It's hypocritical because you're engaging in exactly the same kind of bigotry as you (allege) to condemn others for.

Main Entry: big·ot·ry
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&-trE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Date: circa 1674
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

It's my argument. Therefore it's not a strawman.

When do you get out of the 3rd grade?

Can you support this rather bizarre accusation (and without resorting to ad homs and the rest)?

No need to, it's apparent by your blatant and pervasive mischaracterizations. See below.

That bit about "sheltering future suicide bombers in a war zone". Your words, your mouth :)

But YOUR interpretation. Which is what you've been doing this whole time. But if I was black, I could rely on you to formulate some pseudo-intellectual rationalization.

BillyTK

22nd January 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Tony

There are no "traditional" Halloween costumes, for anyone over 10 years old at least. In fact, a lot of people pride themselves on wearing a different and unique costume.
Witch, vampire, ghost, jack o' lantern, devil, zobie and those are just off the top of my head.

More double standard hypocrisy I see. It's as simple as that, you're a hypocrite. Now that we have that established, its safe to say that any more discourse with you would be a waste of time. Goodbye hypocrite.
Sorry, but you've got to prove the hypocrisy; simply stating a claim doesn't establish a claim. By this logic, if simply donning a prisoner's uniform amounts to insinuating that all whites are criminals, then simply donning his judges' attire for court must insinuate that all whites are judges.

By the way, you haven't addressed my question from that post. Here, I'll repeat it for you; now you understand what the term "fancy dress party" means, would you care to retract your suggestion that:
Either you are lying or you don’t remember correctly, since it's been a while I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The judge went to a Halloween party dressed like that, it wasn’t a fancy dinner or dress party.

BillyTK

22nd January 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Tony
Yes I have, it's not my fault if you are unreasonable.
No, you haven't established that Sistah Souljah's comments are racist. All you've done is continue repeating the charge that they are racist. Remember, constantly repeating a claim doesn't establish a claim.
Well since your measure seems to be:

Said by white person=racist.

Said by black person=not racist, I have to judge on mine. Of which I would say that the evidence for sista soujah's racism, although not conclusive, is much more solid than the evidence for the judge's.
I'm glad you acknowledge that this is your subjective preception.
Liar, you'd condemn it as racist, and rightfully so.
You're a mind-reader or clairvoyant now? And please retract your accusation that I'm a liar.

Nice way to rationalize racism.
No I'm not; I'm simply making a more reasonable interpretation of her poem based on what's actually written, as opposed to, for instance, the line where she writes:
nd if my survival means your total destruction, then so be it
"is predicated on the idea that her race is superior to the other. Why else would she be ok with genocide?" By the way, are you going to back up this claim, as I requested last post? I'm beginning to notice a tendency towards evasion on your part, but y'know, I always live in hope.
Perhaps someone should remind this b!tch that not all white people are responsible for the "wicked" system.
Sexual insults. Wow. That's both big, clever, and really makes your case.

Read that again, you just essentially admitted that this poem is racist.
No I didn't; I suggest you read it again.
Not to mention irrational.[/b]
I thought you'd read her poem, you know, the one we've been discussing?

Why would she be willing to fight against whites that have nothing to do with this "system" she so hates? Could it be because she hates and holds all whites responsible?
If you think that's the case, then it's up to you to establish it.
Could she be generalizing? No, of course not, she's black, she can't be racist.
I'd guess that this is an attempt at irony. Do I get a cookie? :)

Look it up, Im actually surprised you dont know what it is.
Skeptic rules. You introduce it, you explain what it means. Or is it that you don't know what it means?

A rational generalization. The fact is, is that pal children are taught to hate and glorify suicide bombers.
You support one generalisation with another generalisation? Great critical abilities you got there, Sherlock. Now you've got to show that Palestinian children, all Palestinian children, "are taught to hate and glorify suicide bombers" (which is an oxymoron, by the way; how would you hate and glorify something at the same time?).

But palestinians are arabs, something I would have thought would have been apparent to you.
Erm, okay, not too sure where you think you're going with that one, but thanks for making my case.

Liar:
I kinda of get weary when people substitute epithets for argument. So here's how it goes; quote where I called you a bigot, or retract your accusation.

Main Entry: big·ot·ry
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&-trE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Date: circa 1674
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Great, you've shown you can use a dictionary. This in no way refutes my charge that you're engaging in exactly the same kind of bigotry as you (allege) to condemn others for. And for the purpose of your previous claim, please note the structure of the sentence here.
When do you get out of the 3rd grade?
Have you got out yet (hey, this kind of mud-slinging is actually fun!). And have you learnt what a straw-man is yet?

No need to, it's apparent by your blatant and pervasive mischaracterizations. See below.
Evasion noted.

But YOUR interpretation.
You're contradicting yourself within the same post! This is so sweet. Remember, you said: "The fact is, is that pal children are taught to hate and glorify suicide bombers." . But if you could demonstrate in which instances Palestinian suicide bombers would not be terrorists, I'd be kind of impressed.
Which is what you've been doing this whole time. But if I was black, I could rely on you to formulate some pseudo-intellectual rationalization.
Support this. Or retract it. Or stick to what you said about; "its safe to say that any more discourse with you would be a waste of time. Goodbye hypocrite." Whichever.