Kilroy apology 'not good enough'
Story from BBC NEWS: | 10.01.2004 18:46 | Analysis | World
I don't think in a country with a free media and a plural society and a commitment to a right of reply, you ever solve anything by banning, removing, censoring
Judith Vidal Hall, Index on Censorship
Judith Vidal Hall, Index on Censorship
Kilroy apology 'not good enough'
Campaigners have rejected an apology by Robert Kilroy-Silk over anti-Arab comments he made in a newspaper.
The TV presenter said he "regretted" the Sunday Express article in which he branded Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors".
But the Muslim Council of Britain's Iqbal Sacranie said: "He has basically regretted some of the statements... but he has not made a full apology."
The BBC has suspended his Kilroy chat show while it investigates the matter.
It has obviously caused great distress and offence and I can only reiterate that I very deeply regret that
Robert Kilroy-Silk
The corporation said it "strongly dissociated" itself from the comments, which did not reflect its views as a broadcaster.
In a statement, Mr Kilroy-Silk said the article was written in April but "republished last weekend in error".
The Daily Express has defended the article in its sister paper, accusing the BBC of "attempting to stifle open debate".
It said the decision to take Kilroy off air was "outrageous" and should be reversed immediately.
'Out of context'
Mr Kilroy-Silk's statement said: "It was originally written as a response to the views of opponents to the war in Iraq that Arab states 'loathe' the West and my piece referred to 'Arab states' rather than 'Arabs'.
It is only appropriate that there should be a full apology so the matter can then rest and hopefully not be repeated again
Iqbal Sacranie
"Out of that context, it has obviously caused great distress and offence and I can only reiterate that I very deeply regret that."
But Mr Kilroy-Silk's words were rejected by Mr Sacranie on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"The article itself I think is of racist nature and it is only appropriate that there should be a full apology so the matter can then rest and hopefully not be repeated again," he said.
He said the BBC was right to take Mr Kilroy-Silk off air, saying a public service broadcaster had to send out a "powerful message" about its principles.
Stifling debate?
And Judith Vidal Hall, the editor of Index on Censorship magazine, said taking people off air was not the way to tackle racism.
I don't think in a country with a free media and a plural society and a commitment to a right of reply, you ever solve anything by banning, removing, censoring
Judith Vidal Hall, Index on Censorship
She told Today: "I don't think in a country with a free media and a plural society and a commitment to a right of reply, you ever solve anything by banning, removing, censoring."
Censorship could lead to driving debate "underground, where it festers", she said.
"You're doing nothing to cancel out the very real hurt and damage to a community that this has caused. You're making a martyr to a rather nasty cause."
Instead, she said, Mr Kilroy-Silk should be challenged to an on-air debate with people like Mr Sacranie.
Police are investigating Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments after a complaint by the Commission for Racial Equality.
BBC Breakfast will continue for an extra half hour on BBC One, to 0930 GMT, while Kilroy is off air.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/3385143.stm
Campaigners have rejected an apology by Robert Kilroy-Silk over anti-Arab comments he made in a newspaper.
The TV presenter said he "regretted" the Sunday Express article in which he branded Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors".
But the Muslim Council of Britain's Iqbal Sacranie said: "He has basically regretted some of the statements... but he has not made a full apology."
The BBC has suspended his Kilroy chat show while it investigates the matter.
It has obviously caused great distress and offence and I can only reiterate that I very deeply regret that
Robert Kilroy-Silk
The corporation said it "strongly dissociated" itself from the comments, which did not reflect its views as a broadcaster.
In a statement, Mr Kilroy-Silk said the article was written in April but "republished last weekend in error".
The Daily Express has defended the article in its sister paper, accusing the BBC of "attempting to stifle open debate".
It said the decision to take Kilroy off air was "outrageous" and should be reversed immediately.
'Out of context'
Mr Kilroy-Silk's statement said: "It was originally written as a response to the views of opponents to the war in Iraq that Arab states 'loathe' the West and my piece referred to 'Arab states' rather than 'Arabs'.
It is only appropriate that there should be a full apology so the matter can then rest and hopefully not be repeated again
Iqbal Sacranie
"Out of that context, it has obviously caused great distress and offence and I can only reiterate that I very deeply regret that."
But Mr Kilroy-Silk's words were rejected by Mr Sacranie on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"The article itself I think is of racist nature and it is only appropriate that there should be a full apology so the matter can then rest and hopefully not be repeated again," he said.
He said the BBC was right to take Mr Kilroy-Silk off air, saying a public service broadcaster had to send out a "powerful message" about its principles.
Stifling debate?
And Judith Vidal Hall, the editor of Index on Censorship magazine, said taking people off air was not the way to tackle racism.
I don't think in a country with a free media and a plural society and a commitment to a right of reply, you ever solve anything by banning, removing, censoring
Judith Vidal Hall, Index on Censorship
She told Today: "I don't think in a country with a free media and a plural society and a commitment to a right of reply, you ever solve anything by banning, removing, censoring."
Censorship could lead to driving debate "underground, where it festers", she said.
"You're doing nothing to cancel out the very real hurt and damage to a community that this has caused. You're making a martyr to a rather nasty cause."
Instead, she said, Mr Kilroy-Silk should be challenged to an on-air debate with people like Mr Sacranie.
Police are investigating Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments after a complaint by the Commission for Racial Equality.
BBC Breakfast will continue for an extra half hour on BBC One, to 0930 GMT, while Kilroy is off air.
Story from BBC NEWS:
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Story from BBC NEWS:
Comments
Hide the following 12 comments
What if this was said about Jews
10.01.2004 18:53
Would that have been her words if the article would have refered to Jews as bombers.
David
No
10.01.2004 20:22
No, because then it would be a lie.
Colin
Exactly Colin!
10.01.2004 21:27
It would be as wrong as to refer to Americans as stupid just because their president is.
David
what if it was said about Jews ?
12.01.2004 00:24
nodboss
Kilroy views were taken out of context
12.01.2004 00:59
But saying it in his newspaper column didnt work as it needs a direct reply such as on his TV show.
Give kilroy back his show i say! and he can do a programme on how small minded and 'safe' the BBC is.
undercurrents
Kilroy vs Rushdie
12.01.2004 01:14
I couldn't really give a stuff if he gets his show back or not. It's shit. He's a shit. But I'd rather the Muslim community got a sense of perspective and accepted his apology along with the half page they got in the Sunday Express (I didn't read it, but the MCB apparently really ripped into Kilroy).
What if he doesn't apologise again? Are they going to ask him to set himself on fire in the middle of Birmingham? That would make a good show for Monday morning.
If the MCB don't get their way, maybe they could persuade the Iranians to issue a fatwa of death on Kilroy, then riot and burn effigies of him in the street, just like they did for Salman Rushdie.
Unfortunately for Kilroy, he's not quite as important in cultural terms as Rushdie, is he? Armed guards unlikely.
arnen
Paulin is sick, warped man
12.01.2004 02:27
He also said: 'I understand how suicide bombers feel... I think attacks on civilians in fact boost morale'.
By anyone's standards, trying to justify the murder of innocent, unarmed, non-combatants as 'a morale boost' is inhuman.
It's as sick as saying rape is a good way of releasing excess energy.
Kilroy is a joke. The man's completely self obsessed. We can all take his comments with a pinch of salt. His article was factually incorrect, over generalised and stupid.
Paulin's statement to al-Ahram was cold, calculating, depraved, sadistic and irredeemably evil.
Owen
Link to quote by Paulin above
12.01.2004 02:57
Owen
The Rpoblem is...
12.01.2004 11:20
Danger
Misrepresenting Paulin
12.01.2004 12:46
The bit in the interview where Tom Paulin talks about suicide bombing reads as follow (taken from
""I can understand how suicide bombers feel," he answers. "It is an expression of deep injustice and tragedy. I think -- though -- that it is better to resort to conventional guerrilla warfare. I think attacks on civilians in fact boost morale. Hitler bombed London into submission but in fact it created a sense of national solidarity.""
Its really hard to try and simplify what Paulin is saying in this section as it should be pretty clear, but obviously at least one person has found it difficult. For their benefit Paulin says 1) what he perceives the emotions of suicide bombers to be (namely deep injustice and tragedy) and then 2) that he rejects this in favour of a different approach (namely "conventional guerilla warfare"), and then, by way of analogy, says 3) that attacks on suicide bombings would boost ISRAELI morale (in the same way Hitler bombing London raised British morale).
For Owen this becomes:
"He also said: 'I understand how suicide bombers feel... I think attacks on civilians in fact boost morale'.
By anyone's standards, trying to justify the murder of innocent, unarmed, non-combatants as 'a morale boost' is inhuman.
It's as sick as saying rape is a good way of releasing excess energy...
Paulin's statement to al-Ahram was cold, calculating, depraved, sadistic and irredeemably evil."
In other words, for Owen, Paulin's rejection of suicide bombing becomes support for it, with Paulin's comment that suicide bombing is counterproductive in that it leads to increased morale among Israelis, becoming encouragement for suicide bombing as it increases morale among Palestinians.
You may well disagree with Paulin and find his views extreme (and find him sanctimonious) but it would make sense to attack him on the basis of what he actually said, not the complete opposite of it.
Leam
"Jews" (acutally mostly only the zionists) jumping on bandwagon
12.01.2004 13:46
The lying zionist scum from the BOD came on Channel 4 news and tried to make it sound as if all Jews had been insulted by that reporter's comments that these illegal "settlers" should be shot in the head - I agree - that is the least they deserve for their crimes. But whatever your feelings about illegal "settlers", the fact remains that not all Jews were called Nazis by the BBC reporter (UNLIKE KILROY'S ARTCILE WHICH REFERRED TO ALL ARABS, MISTAKE OR NOT - THAT IS HOW IT WAS PRINTED) - only the ones that are behaving like Nazis on a daily basis, these so called "settlers". He tried the old trick of trying to claim that all Jews are zionists (when the MAJORITY of Jews are NOT zionists - see
What is even more shocking is that most of the Islamophobia and Arab-hate that has become a required part of being a "patriotic" American has been created by the zionist controlled media. People like the raving zionist fraudster Conrad Black (Telegraph) and zionist slave and friend of Ariel Sharon, Rupert Murdoch (Sky, The Times, The Sun) have been trying the same in the UK, but thankfully (apart from the usual racist morons like the BNP, Combat 18 council house/benefit=beer scum, etc.) the British public are a lot brighter their our brainwashed American cousins.
Yes, highlight the problems in Arab states (a long with the fact that the "West" supplies arms and helps to install and maintain evil dictators, giving the Arab people little hope of defeating them - as was the case with Saddam) but don't forget that they are not occupying land despite more UN resolutions against them than any other nation on Earth as "israel" does. Yes Arab leaders are mainly scum - but zionism is a racist ideology that is opposed to Judaism and the zionist occupiers of Palestine are mudering men, women and children on a daily basis in their lust to hold onto stolen Palestine. The crimes of "israel", including their continuing ethnic cleansing and collective punishments, go unreported by the zionist controlled mass media - and when people like Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, James Miller (camera man) try to peacefully alert the world to the crimes of "israel" they are mudered by the IDF. If the Palestinian freedom fighters are to be called "terrorists" (as they are in the zionist media) then 101-Sharon must be Hitler or the devil himself
Angry Manc
e-mail:
angry_manc@hotmail.com
Re Exactly Colin
12.01.2004 19:16
Is it any wonder the US is so hated across the planet when it condones it's own variety of violence against states/countries that can't fight back. Then goes on about spreading democratic values, so is Saudi Arabia it's golden child????.
That country sucks the rest of the planet dry espicially less developed nations , then it wimpers & cries when groups hit back, funny I find how the death of one US citizen's worth say a hundred Iraqi's or Afghans , they don't get much reparation for getting their house & family blown up, yet we never hear the last of 9/11.
Time the US stopped backing Israel & allowed it to stand on it's own feet.
Wayne