Racist Kilroy axed by BBC - Irish radio & TV should axe similar bigots here

by James D Fri Jan 09, 2004 17:26

Strange, INDYMEDIA doesn't appear to have any problem with blatantly racist anti american rants.

by Ray Fri Jan 09, 2004 17:30

...is to allow even the stupidest idiots to post. Sometimes the people who complain loudest about this policy are the most obvious beneficiaries.

by exasperated Fri Jan 09, 2004 18:15

i hate to tell you but believe it or not america is a country not a race, hard to grasp i know but eventually your mind will be able to get around it. that is unless the americans have been revising history a little more energetically than usual..

by pat c Fri Jan 09, 2004 18:19

"America" is made up of many countries. Canada rarely gets a bad press here. Oh, you mean the USA.

by random input Fri Jan 09, 2004 18:27

I was incredulous while reading the initial article in yesterday's paper. I was actually waiting for the BBC to find a way to wrangle out of firing him. Thankfully, they did the right thing for a change.

May we never be subjected to Kilroy and his perma-tan ever again.

by Mags Fri Jan 09, 2004 18:31

Just to answer 'Kilroy-Silk's' "What did the Arabs ever do for us?" line.

How about:

The inventions and spread of modern mathematics, medicine, philosophy, quite a bit of architecture and a great deal of science including astronomy. And Turkish Delight :lol:

by random input Fri Jan 09, 2004 18:52

Those are silly little unimportant things - that in any case the glorious White Man has developed to greater extremes than those backward Ay-rabs.

But have the Ay-rabs given us truly insightful sociological talk-shows shown at 9.30 in the mornings? I think NOT!

[/sarcasm]

by mad-eline all-bright Fri Jan 09, 2004 19:38

America is ONE NATION UNDER GOD .....
It is the indispensible nation ....

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensible nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

by avi H. Fri Jan 09, 2004 19:50

Whatever achievements the Arabs may have had, they were an awful long time ago. For many, many centuries, the Arab world has festered in decay, ignorance and cruelty and it's getting worse. Kilroy just told it like it is.

You should all try living in one of these Arab countries: you probably wouldn't like it, not least because you indymedia people would be arrested and tortured for holding different opinions to the norm.

by lone gunman Fri Jan 09, 2004 21:06

Everyone seems to post here to have the biases and opinions confirmed.Rarely if ever challenged by anyone. if it gets too hot it degenerates into insults.I thought the point of debate is to put your point of view across and respond to the other point of view.
it seems that the media is becoming more like indymedia.If it is anyway outside the accepted PC norm get rid of them.

by james Fri Jan 09, 2004 21:09

Glad to see Kilroy get the boot. The list of contributions to mankind from arabs is enormous, as pointed out by mags.
Avi, was waiting on your zionist shite remarks, even if arabs are "arrested and tortured" in arab countries its no different to what you and your zionist facists do to them both in arab countries and your apartheid state "israel", in addition to summary execution, terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, denial of basic human rights, denial of the right to earn a living, denial of life saving medical assistance after injuries inflicted by your nazi style storm troopers simply because arabs are considered vermin by zionists. The list is endless really. Think arabs are better off taking their chances in their own countries then to be anywhere near your filthy israel nazi state.

by avi H. Fri Jan 09, 2004 21:30

is hardly a useful contribution to the debate - far from it. Further, such ranting and abuse shows just what Israel and Jews are up against.

by Brendan O Fri Jan 09, 2004 21:58

Surely that was a tongue in cheek remark??

by james Fri Jan 09, 2004 23:14

Whats the matter Avi cant take some home truths?? Its always the same with you "israelis" you always try to equate any criticism with anti semitism, I never mentioned jews anywhere in my earlier comment. Im surprised you didnt try to bring the holocaust into it, another cinical tactic, most vitims of it would probably abhorr israeli facis/zionism (same thing) having experienced facism themselves.Face it Avi, most of the world detests your pathetic excuse of a state for its evil construction and the evil it continues to perpetrate on a largely defenseless and civilian palestinian people. No amount of your rants and insipid sniping will change that so why do you bother?? Do you think you will convince any readers of Indymedia???

by Niall Sat Jan 10, 2004 01:42

Daytime television is a bit of a laugh really. Still, Kilroy was a Tory MP. Once a Tory always a Tory.

by avi H. Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:04

The Palestinians are far more victims of their fellow Arabs than they are of Israel. If the Arabs love their Palestinian brethren so much, how come they have let them fester in their slums for nearly sixty years? They haven't given them enough aid to rehouse themselves or even citizenship of any other Arab countries, even though the Arab states are awash in billions of petro-dollars? How is it that Israel absorbed its own 1.2 million refugees from the Arab world with far fewer resources and no outbursts of self-pity?

by democrat Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:59

Kilroy (who was a Labour MP, incidentally, not a Tory) penned a load of racist rubbish when writing about Arabs. However, people are entitled to their opinion - even if it is rubbish. I find most of the stuff on Indymedia to be puerile nonsense, but defend absolutely the right of anyone here to hold and express any belief they wish, in any forum they can find. 'I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' Sound familiar????

I am absolutely opposed to anybody being booted off the airwaves because of the views they express. And until more socialists can defend this elementary democratic principle they will continue to be marginalised in our society.....

by David D Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:42

Apparently this is what the crux of his 'article' was about. He has stated the article was first published over 6 months ago and that it contained glaring errors (such as labelling Iran an Arab state...doh) and that he doesn't hold those views now.
I believe things like this allow you and I and countless others the opportunity to see exactly what sort of muppets pass for educated commentators today.
The CRE in the UK reporting him to the cops is pathetic - arrest him for sure, crimes against TV springs to mind.

by non-plussed Sat Jan 10, 2004 14:17

Its the fact that he is a BBC employee, and since Hutton, BBC employees have been expressly forbidden to 'freelance' - for good or ill.

Also, it may be said that his statement 'brings the BBC into disrepute' (certainly in the eyes of Arabs, Muslims and people like me) and therefore, if justice is to be done, he must be sacked.

Apart from the fact that I personally hate the guy (have done since my student days) - I think his abuse of BBC rules merits his axing.

by David Sat Jan 10, 2004 14:30

I'm sure the Daily express is preparing a 6 figure contract for him right now

by Mr Disco - SA Sat Jan 10, 2004 14:45

Its real fun.

Not a big fan of religion me, but i suppose people have the right to believe whatever bullshit they want.

Any religious/state links are terrible. i think youll find thats what "you indymedia types" rail against.

Kilroys show was on before neighbours... right?

Also: Turkish delight is one of the better-for-you choclate bars.

by stonewallboy - wouldnt join one theyre 2 selective!! Sat Jan 10, 2004 19:57 !!!!!!!! !"!!!!!

i used to protest for palestine but then realised it was very silly for a queer man like myself to be campaigning for the rights of people who wud gladly c me put 2 death bcoz i like love people of the same sex!!kilroy no doubt has reactionary views,but the bit about arab nations being women oppressors is very true!!their seems to b at the core of most religions a hatred of women and homo's!!while i truly wud like to c freedom for palestine,i also wud like to c a totally secular agnostic world where people are people and diversity is cherished,and all species have the right to live,rather than the current world of flesh eaters,ignorance,bigots,soldiers and the disgusting religionists who gladly divide humanity and regard women as their property and believe silly superstitious things!! i really do hope their is an afterlife though,if only for the sake of all the victims of this mad MANS world,sumthing better.im so tired of ignorant peoples whims,double standards and prejudices!peace and love to all my brothers and sisters!!

by pasionaria Sun Jan 11, 2004 16:17

""However, people are entitled to their opinion - even if it is rubbish.""

does this mean that people have the right to incite hatred and racism, through the use of free speech??

by Drbinoche Sun Jan 11, 2004 22:12

In short, yes. People should have a right to say what they want no matter how racist or wrong it is. To some its the god given truth to others its inciting racism. Problem is that in all honesty, people who go out and read these things and believe em are no different than you or I reading an article on Iraq or Palestine, we choose to believe it or not. I have always believed that no matter how much I disagree with alot of the stuff that is mentioned on this site, I still would gladly fight for your right to say it. Its your right to say anything, even if it is to insult America, or to call the police officers pigs. Either way, the more you post it the more people will agree with you or disagree with you. Racism will always exist, for numerous reasons, one of the biggest being just pue old fashion hatred of strangers. If you try to stamp it out, you make it underground where you can't monitor it as much. I mean the Nazi parties and their ilk, went underground after WW2 and now we are seeing an upsurge in some of their beliefs in the world because, they are coming out of the woodwork and telling the people exactly what they want to hear in times of despair. If they had stayed around they would have been continuously shown to be wrong and therefore alot of people would not listen to em. Freedom is a liberty most people take for granted and also something most people do not fully understand, we live in a society where the freedom of Speech is slowly eroding. The papers, TV, movies, magazines have all become more PC, and because of this people are getting more and more watered down information. Its all gonna go pear shaped soon enough.

by skafrican Sun Jan 11, 2004 22:25

Yes killroy has every right to publicise his racist views, but not whilst being a supposedly impartial referee on a TV debating programme, his racist views may influence how he deals with subjects being debated and may colour the debate.

So he is very welcome to air his racist views but he should not be allowed to return to be an allegedly impartial referee a TV discussion programme.

by Brian McGee Mon Jan 12, 2004 00:37 Donegal

Excuse the pedantry but America is neither a race or a country It's a Continent composed of upwards of twenty countries and usually conveniently divided into two - North and South - North America is composed of four countries; Greenland, Canada, Mexico and the United States. The United States has a population of over 200,000,000 the vast majority of whom are fine people but who are unfortunately saddled with a government miselected in a flawed poll and representing the sole interests of a military/industrial sector that is out of control and must be challenged by all of us, for the sake of nothing less than the future survival of us all AND the planet. But know your enemy it's NOT the people of the United States- many of them are with us in this fight.

by Precision Man Mon Jan 12, 2004 00:58

North America is in fact composed of 10 countries (11 if you include Panama).
Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica.
I have not included the islands of the Caribbean, some of which are of mixed status, being colonies of the UK, USA, and apparently the Netherlands (?), (and possibly even France and Spain?) Interesting what emerges when you take a closer look at a map.
Perhaps we should take a closer look at these connections....

by kokomero Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:02

Nobody should be surprised by the remarks of Kilroy-Silk and the British tabloid press.

He is simply doing what any good Sayanim would do, ie trying to force Israel's world-view down our throats with a D9 bulldozer.

What is more surprising is how the British public (at least as "represented " by Sky) seems to support the scumbag by a massive margin of 92%.

This is truly worrying and shows that even after the past few years institutional lying by Blair and Bush almost nobody looks at the daily propaganda sheets with a critical eye!

by Maubere Mon Jan 12, 2004 14:10

Amazing! Avi supports racist comments about Arabs (i think theres about 250million Arabs), he sees no problem with labelling an entire people, is this not exactly the type of thing racist anti-jewish people have been doing for millenia? this dehumanising process led to the holocaust,

no society in the world is without problems, we had/have huge problems with church power and abuse in ireland, does this mean we cant be independent from Britain, every group in the world has to change their own society, i dont think the anti- catholic rantings of Ian paisly made us face up to the truth of the churchs power, arabs wont get rid of sexism by being critisiced by western hypocrytes,

as for this "what have they contibuted" line, this is social darwinism of the worst kind, are some people supposed to be superior to others coz someone in that country has invented something?

by kokomero Mon Jan 12, 2004 19:32

Another rule for the Arabs

Robert Kilroy-Silk's outburst shows that there is one ethnic group about whom it is apparently still OK to be flagrantly racist, writes Brian Whitaker

Monday January 12, 2004

While sifting through my father's belongings after his death a few years ago, I came across a book of autographs that he had collected as a child. Some of the signatories had added short verses or quotations, and on one page I found this:

God made the little nigger boys
He made them in the night
He made them in a hurry
And forgot to paint them white

In Britain during the 1930s, it was considered perfectly acceptable (at least among white people) to write that sort of thing, and some may even have found it amusing. In those days, of course, there were not enough black people in Britain to challenge such attitudes, but we have moved on and now have a multicultural society.

Today, anyone who suggested that blacks were created as a result of divine amnesia or a malfunction on God's production line would justifiably be accused of inciting racial hatred - as would anyone who suggested that Jews, for example, had made no worthwhile contribution to civilisation. Even now, though, there is still one notable exception: the Arabs. People happily write and say racist things about Arabs that they would not dream of saying about blacks or Jews - and usually they get away with it.

The explanation lies partly in international politics but also in the negative stereotypes of Arabs that have become deeply imbued in western popular culture. This is nowhere more apparent than in Hollywood films where Arabs, unlike other racial groups, continue to be demonised on screen.

A couple of years ago Jack Shaheen, a Lebanese-American professor, published Reel Bad Arabs, a massive study of some 900 films featuring Arab characters. With very few exceptions, he found that Arabs are portrayed as hate-figures in films to a degree that the studios would no longer dare with any other ethnic group.

He accused the film-makers of "systematic, pervasive and unapologetic degradation and dehumanisation of a people". In the early days of Hollywood, Arabs were portrayed as over-sexed, exotic creatures living in the desert, riding camels, fighting among themselves and buying women at slave markets.

By the 1970s - probably as a result of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the oil embargo - Hollywood Arabs turned into oil sheikhs: rich, vengeful, corrupt, sneaky and invariably fat. From the 1980s onwards, they have usually been portrayed as crazed terrorists - evolving more recently into crazed terrorist Islamic fundamentalists.

Which came first - the politics or the stereotypes - is a moot point, but Shaheen and others argue that both are interlinked. The stereotypes help to justify the foreign policies of western governments, particularly the US, while at the same time government policies help to legitimise the stereotypes.

It is only recently that such attitudes have been seriously questioned. The events of September 11, and the ensuing "war on terror", caused alarm among Arab and Muslim communities living in the west, sparking fears of a racist or religious backlash. As a result, they have become much more media-conscious, actively monitoring what is said about them and complaining when they feel they have been treated unfairly.

Last Tuesday, the Guardian (and presumably other newspapers too) received two emails complaining about a column which had appeared in the Sunday Express on January 4. One came from the Muslim Council of Britain, the other from the Islamic Affairs Central Network in Nottingham. Next day there were more, from the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (Fair), Arab Media Watch and the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.

The offending column was headed "We owe Arabs nothing" and it said: "Apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the west - what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I."

"What do they think we feel about them?" it continued. "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?" By any standards it was an appalling article, a sweeping denunciation of Arabs in general, without any qualification or exception, implying that all 200 million of them were "suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors".

The author of this trash, Robert Kilroy-Silk (who is known in the popular tabloids simply as "Kilroy") was once a Labour member of parliament, admired for his dashing good looks and occasionally tipped as a future prime minister.

Instead, he ended up as presenter of a TV chat show which goes out at nine-o'clock in the morning and is sometimes described as the BBC's answer to Oprah Winfrey.

He also airs his prejudices in a weekly column for the Sunday Express, a tired right-leaning tabloid which has suffered years of decline and cost-cutting under various proprietors.

The row over his latest anti-Arab outburst was reported by the Guardian and the Independent last Thursday. Other papers, which had shown little interest initially, took it up later when the Commission for Racial Equality - a government-funded body - said it had taken legal advice and was reporting Mr Kilroy-Silk to the police with a view to prosecuting him for incitement under the Public Order Act.

In the meantime, the Muslim Council of Britain received a large volume of hate-mail, apparently prompted by its complaints about the article. One message said: "Why don't you go back to the desert and get busy oppressing the opposite sex and everyone else who doesn't agree with your weird, backwards religion?"

On Friday afternoon, the BBC announced that it was suspending Mr Kilroy-Silk's show with immediate effect, pending further investigation. By Saturday, the story was all over the front pages.

On Sunday, the Express returned to the fray, defending the article on the grounds of free speech and attacking the BBC's decision, though it also published a reply from the Muslim Council of Britain, as well as several critical letters from readers.

The BBC's suspension of the Kilroy show has been criticised by some as an over-reaction, but the BBC - along with other broadcasters in Britain - has a legal obligation to be impartial. Newspapers, on the other hand, can be as partisan as they like. The BBC has also been trying to clamp down on freelance writing by its journalists and presenters (such as Mr Kilroy-Silk's column for the Sunday Express) because of possible conflicts between the two activities.

The problem of freelance writing came to light during the recent Hutton inquiry into the death of the weapons scientist David Kelly, over remarks made by the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan. In addition to his work for the BBC, Mr Gilligan wrote an article for the Mail on Sunday in which he said the prime minister's press secretary had been responsible for "sexing up" the British government's dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

BBC guidelines state that freelance writing by staff "should not bring the BBC into disrepute or undermine the integrity or impartiality of BBC programmes or presenters", and there can be little doubt that Mr Kilroy-Silk's latest rant has done just that.

In future, as the Muslim Council of Britain points out, Arabs and Muslims are going to be reluctant to appear on his show, knowing the views that he expressed in his newspaper column.

A broader point, made by the Arab League's ambassador in London, is that the BBC has its worldwide reputation to consider. The BBC's Arabic service has a large audience in the Middle East and is highly respected there, but the views expressed in Mr Kilroy-Silk's column, which were reported in the Arab press, have damaged that reputation.

One complicating twist in the tale is that the offending article has appeared twice in the Sunday Express - on January 4 this year and on April 6 last year - under a different headline and with some differences in editing.

The explanation given by Mr Kilroy-Silk is that his secretary accidentally plucked an old column out of the computer and emailed it to the newspaper instead of the column intended for January 4.

Nobody at the Express seems to have noticed, though there were several clues in the text that ought to have rung alarm bells. The first sentence began: "We are told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war that 'It is destroying the Arab world' ..."

Writing last April, Mr Kilroy-Silk was referring to the war in Iraq. Receiving the article again this month, a subeditor - apparently baffled as to which war the columnist was talking about - blithely changed "the war" to "the war on terror".

Thanks to this mistake, Mr Kilroy-Silk and the Sunday Express are able to point out that there was no great outcry the first time his anti-Arab column was published.

It seems that in the midst of the invasion of Iraq the monitoring groups simply failed to notice what Mr Kilroy-Silk was writing. That is scarcely surprising, because the headline on the April version of the column was barely comprehensible and cannot have enticed many people to read on. It said: "Us, loathsome? Shame on them." The headline on the second version - "We owe Arabs nothing" - was far more likely to grab readers' attention.

Part of Mr Kilroy-Silk's defence is that in its original context of the Iraq war his article was unobjectionable - as demonstrated by the lack of objections at the time. That has subtly muddied the waters, but it is really no excuse: racism is still racism, whether or not anyone happens to complain.

Throughout the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq, Tony Blair, and even George Bush at his most rabid, made clear in their speeches that they had no quarrel with Arabs or Muslims in general - unlike Mr Kilroy-Silk, apparently, since he included no such caveats in his column. Writing in the Sunday Express again yesterday, Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "The article was always intended to be a criticism of certain Arab regimes - never of Arab people in general."

If that was really the intention, it does not explain why he wrote instead about ordinary Arabs dancing in the streets to celebrate September 11, chanting support for Saddam Hussein or "living happily in this country on social security".

Mr Kilroy-Silk also "spoke movingly of how fiercely he guards the right to free speech for which his father died fighting during the second world war", according to an "exclusive interview" with the Sunday Express (who else?).

"He died so that I could grow up in a free society, with the right to free speech to say what I like, when I like," Mr Kilroy-Silk told the paper. That is all very well, but we also carry a responsibility for what we say. Racist articles by high-profile figures not only reinforce popular prejudices but lend credibility to the unsavoury views of neo-Nazi groups. If the freedom-of-speech argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then all kinds of racial abuse become permissible - blacks, Jews, the Irish, everyone. That becomes a recipe for communal disaster of a kind that even Mr Kilroy-Silk would probably not wish to see.

Where racism is concerned, therefore, freedom of speech has to be tempered by restraint. But whatever applies to one racial group has to apply to them all. It is no good having one rule for blacks, Jews and the Irish, and another rule - or none at all - for the Arabs.

Email
[email protected]

by ian nolan Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:02 totalringo at yahoo dot com

anyone is entitled to speak their mind, but when they say somthing that is so wrong they need to be educated, like killroy, remember his irish rant! and his mother is irish, maybe he is just a little bit thick, anyway viva free speach, but please be able to back up any accusations. e.g. i detest G. bush, and i have my reasons

by nadia Wed Jan 14, 2004 00:48

Is the case with macho male capitalist hypocrite Killjoy.

Killjoy decided to have a dig at Arab nations, partriarchal societies dominated by backward macho male neanderthal men

Most middle eastern countries including Israel are dominated by partriarchal macho male uber captialist neanderthal men.

The west is almost as backward in its unfair treatment of women. In the UK employers still insist on paying women less than men, women are more than likely to live in households existing below the poverty line, more women make up the majority of the UK/irelands homeless.

So western capitalist society is not far behind backward middle eastern states including Israel.
What is wrong with all our societies, be they Arab/Israelie/western is the prominence, privilege given to our precious male bastards and the abuse of power by these same male bastards.

Men should not be left in charge of animals,
nevermind given the responsibility of looking after whole households or teaching/professional positions.

In Arab/middle eastern societies men are supposed to be intellectually/emotionally/physically superior and closer to God than women.

Which is totally untrue and a myth created by another stupid male fucker. In reality men are scum of the earth, in their habits, their morals and their intellect. Men are on a similar moral level as pets. Yet these societies give men, responsibility over wimin and children, resulting in all manner of physical, sexual and emotional abuse towards women, children and poor people/peasants. Because as we all know you can't trust a man to look after a goldfish.

Similarly in the west our working class wimin are spoon fed sugar coated shite, about love and men, through popular capitalist culture, which programs wimin to be always on the look out for a man, who will allegedly look after /love her. In reality men have no inkling of providing for or looking after wimin, because they can't even look after themselves, which is why they have a mammy to do everyting for them. Men also only love themselves, and always look out for number 1, which is themselves.

Men are intellectually, morally, emotionally inferior to women yet all our male dominated societies value and mollycoddles men.

by CE Wed Jan 14, 2004 22:48

Please stop trying to undermine Feminism. We know you are a male.

by jeff Thu Jan 15, 2004 13:08

...I could easily imagine chopping his head off, on another, if I met him down the pub, we'd probably get a laugh out of each other. Julie Burchill writes for the Guardian, a supposedly leftist paper, yet she has railed, like Kilroy, against Muslims and, after apologising for that, on two occosians, us, the Irish. At the time, I flooded their mail box something lke 809 times, expressing my great anger.

My mate is an ex neo nazi married to a Burmese woman. He still goes around with his reactionary apparels on his clothing,as well as bondage trousers and a mohawk, but I understand him and his wife. However, their off the wall look on life, subversion of perceived norms, their thing, whatever, would be impossible to convey to the sterile, mind numbing screen that is the modern media.

Both Burchill and my mates (married with two boys) are examples of how so non 2d real life is. Thus, if Kilroy feels he can walk the strets without getting stabbed after his article, well then fair fux to him.

PS; His ma is Irish? From where? Is she a Tim or a Hun?!? Very insulting I know, but I don't care.

Last night I wanted desperatly to slag this American Jew for having a big nose, but I bit my tongue. Then he introduced me to another Irish fella( I'm in Holland) and I said to the Jew " Aye, I thought he was Irish, you can tell us by the width of our eyebrows!", whereupon I began to deprecate myself and my race by exagerrating the ferocity of closly knit Irish eyebrows.

by kokomero Thu Jan 15, 2004 15:30

What have the Arabs ever done for us?

Zero, just to begin with, and incalculably more than daytime-TV presenters, writes Derek Brown

Thursday January 15, 2004

It is pretty universally acknowledged that an informed world view is not a prerequisite for success in daytime television. Even so, Robert Kilroy-Silk's anti-Arab diatribe is not only offensive and stupid; it also speaks of a startling degree of ignorance.

"We owe Arabs nothing," he wrote. "Apart from oil, which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the west, what do they contribute?" Arabs, according to the sage of the sob story, are "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some useful links for Mr Kilroy-Silk
Arab achievements in mathematics
Abbasid golden age in Baghdad
The Defra view
Arab search engine
Andalucia
Granada
The Alhambra
Early Arab literature
Arab music
The importance of poetry in Arab life
The Thousand and One Nights
Ancient and modern Arab art
Arabic calligraphy
Astronomy in Baghdad
Early Arab architecture (pictures)
Contemporary Arab architecture

Related articles
13.01.2004: Leader: An English martyr
13.01.2004: David Aaronovitch: Free speech according to Kilroy-Silk
12.01.2004: Brian Whitaker: Another rule for the Arabs
12.01.2004: Faisal Bodi: Islamophobia is as wrong as racism

by susi - non Sun Jan 25, 2004 22:14 07986724975

WE now athat women are sex slave her more than arabs worldS so ask arabs came fram arabia I was in tunisai for 6 month and i never soo a men married to more than a women !