MORE ON KILROY-SILK
The censorious ways of 'multicultural' Britain were splendidly indicted by Bush-backing columnist Mark Steyn (
Telegraph,
13 i).
The Muslim 'Media Monitors Network' website added that broadcaster Nick Ferrari,
Sun columnist and anti-PeeCee crusader Richard Littlejohn and top Ozzie
litterateur Clive James were also supporting Kilroy-Silk.
In 2003, the British media watchdog, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, noted that the British media were unduly "self-censorious" about criticizing Islam while allowing themselves to jest obscenely about Christianity - e.g. envisaging that Jesus and Judas were sodomites (
Telegraph, 29 xii).}
'WE'RE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING GAGGED'
Thus the front page of the
Daily Express (13 I*). Smelling blood at the BBC, the paper threw its weight behind its "crusade" to reinstate presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk. In particular it named and shamed the three women bosses who axed 'Kilroy' -- one of them, the head of BBC 1, on an annual salary of œ434,000 and further getting the BBC to employ her own husband; it carried an interview with with K-S in which he lambasted the "PC Police", defined PC simply as "Censorship" and ripped into 'self-styled tsar' CRE boss Trevor Phillips; it had an article by top publicist Max Clifford blasting the Beeb ('Why Auntie has let us all down') and saying it had created "a public relations shambles"; the
Express claimed overwhelming public support for K-S, e.g. among the 50,000 of its readers who had phoned in; it claimed the new Conservative leader Michael Howard had joined its campaign, saying "Our tradition of free speech is precious and we shouldn't lose sight of that"; and it gave the terms of a Commons motion tabled by MP Andrew Rosindell -
"This House deeply resents the gross and disproportionate over-reaction of the BBC in suspending transmission of the Kilroy programme. It further regrets the climate of political correctness which pervades the BBC; urges the Government to defend and maintain the right to free speech and opinion within the media without censoring majority opinion as has happened in the Kilroy case; and urgently calls on the BBC to reinstate the Kilroy programme without delay."
The paper also carried several nice picturs of a smartly besuited and smiling K-S, and remarks from readers_e.g. that he was sensitive and a "real gent." Its leading article declared -
The media luvvies of the BBC are behaving like tin-pot dictators. They pay lip service to freedom, but they only want it for themselves. This fat-salaried, politically correct ‚lite sneers at the views of licence payers. The only opinions these half-baked intellectuals care about are their own.
Several letters to the paper were also supportive, e.g. asking why Kilroy-Silk had been "vilified for telling the truth." Elsewhere, in the
Daily Telegraph (13 i) one letter said it was quite in order to generalize about the vile Arab ways - just as it would once have been OK to complain of 'the South Africans' system of apartheid'; and another letter wondered why the Muslim community was up in arms when K-S's criticism had said nothing about Islam - only about Arab countries. In the
Daily Mail, columnist Stephen Glover headed an article 'Let Kilroy speak his mind, even if it's full of nonsense.'
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 the 'anti-Zionist' academic and broadcaster, Tom Paulin. Tory MP Roger Gale, a former BBC producer, wrote to his old bosses to complain about their political correctness (
Scotsman,
14 i).
However, Robert Marshall-Andrews, the Labour MP, said of K-S's piece: ''I think it is the most loathsome and illiterate article I have ever read in a British newspaper. The only conceivable purpose is to create ignorance and prejudice. I, and people in my section of the Labour Party, hope that Tony Blair will realise that we must not accept any more support from Richard Desmond, the proprietor of the
Express. It may well be bordering on criminality.''
And Muslim leaders persisted in denouncing K-S's remarks as "indisputably racist" and part of a history going back to 1995 when K-S wrote "Muslims everywhere behave with equal savagery" (
Daily Mirror,
14 i). The first leader in the
Telegraph (14 i)complained of the 'decadence' of London police in investigating Kilroy-Silk's 'racism' when they could have been arresting burglars or stopping Muslim fanatics shouting 'Infidel!' at Londoners.
Education minister, David Milliband, called the BBC's decision to suspend the 'Kilroy' show "absurd". "I don't believe Kilroy-Silk is a racist. I think the decision by the BBC to take him off the air is absurd," he told BBC1's Question Time. But the BBC's high-earning top
witches Jana Bennett (director of television) Lorraine Heggessey (controller of BBC1) and Alison Sharman (head of daytime programmes) stuck to their line that the price of free speech on the BBC's airwaves was 'responsibility', 'sensitivity', self-censorship and -- for good measure - instant censorship by them. They had clearly forgotten the words of Lord Chief Justic Lord Hailsham in 1965:
"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty."**
The thoughtless harridans eagerly told journalists that more viewers had tuned in for their 9a.m. replacement for 'Kilroy' than usually watched K-S's victim-venerating show; but since the replacement was a mixture of news and gardening - notoriously popular with British housewives - this should have been no surprise at all. The
Express and other papers retaliated by putting the boot into the Beeb over its money-wasting digital channels which no-one watches.
The pro-Muslim 'Media Monitors Network' carried (
14 i) the interesting information that Kilroy-Silk's January 2004 article had in fact been his own unedited original - the April 2003 publication had in fact been heavily edited at the
Sunday Express to tone it down. {Time for K-S to 'fess up to race realism?! - The alternative of denying racism never did Holocaust historian David Irving any good.}
* The
Daily Express did not interest itself in appearing on the Net. But thanks to the Muslim Council of Britain, the text of Kilroy-Silk's 2004 article was
made available - making it quite clear that even this unedited version of K-S's thoughts was clearly targeted at Arab countries rather than at Arabs tout court. As was noticed by the U.S.
National Review, the full text of Osama bin Liner's incitements to hatred, not to mention limb amputation was
made available by the BBC itself. (It said America wanted "religious-economic war" and "the occupation of the entire Gulf" {strange when the U.S. had just withdrawn from Saudi Arabia} and that there could be "no dialogue with occupiers except through arms."}
** Belfast Telegraph, 16 i:
About four or five years ago a wise old judge, Lord Justice Sedley, acquitted a woman street preacher, on appeal, at the London High Court, after she'd been convicted of breaching the peace outside Wakefield Cathedral where a hostile crowd threatened her. The prosecution had claimed that she would not have caused a breach of the peace "as long as what she said was inoffensive".
"That will not do," declared Judge Sedley, "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having."
SCOURGE OF THE ARAB WORLD BOWS OUT
After a week of enjoying public support and vowing to 'fight on', TV host Robert Kilroy-Silk met with BBC witches for eight hours and was persuaded to resign (
Sun,
16 i, 19:00) - with the inducement of a big financial settlement. The BBC declared its tolerance in principle of the free speech of its broadcasters did not extend to "presenters of a news, current affairs or topical discussion programme." But its top witches
announced it was working on a new version of K-S's topical discussion programme, which would continue to be produced by the 65-strong team at the Kilroy Television Company Ltd (owned and run by K-S). The
Times believed further cash had been put on the table by the BBC, compensating K-S for any shows under his own editing and hosting which would no longer be broadcast.
{Would 50,000 people ever again bother to defend a fellow Brit who erred too close to race realism? K-S's settlement looked a big and perhaps decisive victory for PeeCee - though K-S said he remained unrepentant about his views and might sell his show after its remaining six BBC-contracted months to one of the UK's independent TV channels.
The only real consolation of the day was that an English Employment Tribunal backed a prison officer sacked for joking about Osama bin Laden while in the same room as two Asian men - who actually never heard the officer's remarks (
Sun,
16 i). And perhaps, in future, Prince Philip might emerge as a popularly supported race realist if students at the LUniversity of Edinburgh persist with their bizarre plan to remove him as their Chancellor?_}
LETTER TO BBC
I do not normally see any point in submitting my views to the enemy. But in the K-S case, where my views accord with those of the vast majority of correspondents, it seemed worth a try (and I sent a similar letter to the
Guardian). The BBC had asked what people thought of Kilroy-Silk's "controversial views."
Mr Kilroy-Silk's views are NOT "controversial." Some 93% of those phoning to the Express and BBC have agreed with him. To have bribed him to drop out as a TV presenter must put fear into smaller-fry personnel at the BBC. They will not now dare to criticize 'the West', 'the USA' or even that convenient shorthand, 'the Americans' -- unless assured that the BBC's secret agenda does not involve castigating anti-White 'racism.' The BBC has grossly dishonoured itself as a champion of the free and fair interchange of ideas. Let's hope Kilroy-Silk's settlement with the Beeb will not long gag him from speaking out elsewhere!
Sincerely, -- Chris Brand.
Comments at the BBC's
website ran roughly 50% in K-S's favour, and were 75% favourable on the particular issue of whether he was entitled to free speech. Cathy Lloyd of London wrote: "The BBC have lost something more than a TV host, they have lost their integrity and imagination." According to the
Guardian (
17 i), there was a prospect that Channel 5 TV would hire Kilroy-Silk to run their morning chat show (with which they are were known to have been unhappy). The
Persian Journal (17 I) appeared to take K-S's side with an item titled "When Arabs don't like the truth, let's lie to them" - apparently the journal did not know that, at the time of writing his
Express piece, K-S had believed Iran to be an Arab country_.
Scotland Yard said it was still investigating the suggestion of the Campaign for Racial Equality that K-S might been guilty of incitement to racial hatred. K-S said: "I have been overwhelmed by the support from the general public, and I continue to believe that it is my right to express my views, however uncomfortable they may be. "However, I recognise the difficulties this has caused the BBC, and I believe my decision is the right way to resolve the situation."
------------------------------------
Comments?
Email Chris Brand.
Some history.
-----------------------------------