Kilroy and his Defenders. posted by Richard Seymour

Kilroy claims:

"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'. Out of that context, it has obviously caused great distress and offence and I can only reiterate that I very deeply regret that."

On the basis of that pitiful claim, a number of neophytic defenders of free speech have emerged to claim that Kilroy is being subject to a politically correct pogrom. Here is what Kilroy wrote:

“We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really?… 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… That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women-repressors?”

Does that say "Arab states" or "Arabs"? Oh, you read it right. Apart from anything else, claiming that "Arab states" "murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11", or were responsible for the bombings in Mombasa and Yemen makes absolutely no sense at all. Unless Kilroy-Silk knows more about the planning behind the 9/11 attacks than we would hitherto have assumed, I suggest he's trying to pull one over on us.

As Inayat Bunglawala notes in this week's Sunday Express (yeah, they let the Arabs have their say):

"Unfortunately Mr Kilroy-Silk didn’t restrict himself to attacking the actions of a particular criminal few. As the Muslim author Ziauddin Sardar commented, "It is like blaming Yorkshire people for the actions of the Yorkshire Ripper”."

Kilroy is also guilty of basic ignorance:

“The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime - part of the axis of evil."

Apart from drawing on this fictitious notion of an "axis", since when was Iran part of the Arab world?

Andrew Dismore, Labour MP, comes out to make his pitch:

"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."

No, Mr Dismore. Tom Paulin said that occupiers of someone else's land should be resisted with force. He did not denigrate "Jewish people", or even Israelis. He specifically called for violent resistance against Israeli "settlers" (occupiers, in other words). That is not a racist statement, however inflammatory it is for Israel's amen corner.

The Telegraph claims that Tom Paulin described "Jews living in the Israeli-occupied territories" as "Nazis" who should be "shot dead". That's an interesting way to describe it. Imagine someone saying that armed Russians living in the Russian controlled territories of Afghanistan following the Soviet invasion were "Nazis" who should be "shot dead". Would they be decried for this? Well, no. They would be armed and trained by the American government. Such distortion, which privileges the rights of occupiers, bigots and racists over those of Arabs, Muslims and anti-occupation forces, can only be wilful stupidity.

The lengths to which Kilroy's defenders will go to avoid the substance of what he said and to divert the argument down side-tracks is truly a wonder to behold. One hopes that the next time some nutter stands up in Finsbury Park and describe the Jews and Americans as "pigs", we will see such an emotional, passionate defense of "free speech". But one doesn't expect it in such a manifestly racist culture as ours.

Side note: For those interested in raising the stakes over Kilroy, and indeed his defenders, I'd like to point out the following.

1) Under the Public Order Act of 1986, the offence of incitement to racial hatred can carry a maximum sentence of an unlimited fine, or up to seven years imprisonment. The crime can be committed if a person "publishes or distributes threatening, abusive or insulting written material" or "uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour".

2) Matthew Wright on his populist Channel Five show, The Wright Stuff, this morning took the time to smear Tom Paulin, claiming that he had made "derogatory comments about Jews" and that he had called for "Israelis" to be shot at. This was in the way of claiming that perhaps there was a "double standard" at work in the BBC reaction to Kilroy and to Paulin. Paulin has, of course, been subject to a certain amount of censorship, (banned at Harvard on account of pressure from the University's pro-Israel lobby). Indeed, had he made the comments ascribe to him by Matthew Wright, noone would object to him being censured and suspended from the BBC while the comments were looked into - albeit he doesn't have a daily talk show on the channel. But what Tom Paulin is alleged to have said in Al-Ahram Weekly is that colonisers of Palestinian land, coming from the US to build outposts in what is legally recognised as Palestinian territory, are "Nazis, racists." He is also alleged to have said that these elements should be “shot dead.”

This may sound somewhat uncharitable, but no construction can plausibly make this an anti-semitic statement. It does not make derogatory statements about "Jews". It does not advocate the killing of "Israelis".

Further to this, Tom Paulin does not accept the veracity of the comments ascribed to him by Al-Ahram Weekly. He told the Daily Telegraph that: “I do not support attacks on Israeli civilians under any circumstances. I am in favour of the current efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”

In an interview with the BBC, he insisted “My quoted remarks completely misrepresent my real views. For that I apologise.”

If every word ascribed to Mr Paulin were his own, they would not match those made in Robert Kilroy-Silk's column in the Sunday Express on January 4th, 2004. They cannot plausibly be construed as "derogatory to Jews" nor do they call for "Israelis" to be shot.

Now, this one's for Matthew Wright, when he gets way from those porno sites: Libel is a derogatory or defamatory statement that is permanent because it's in writing, on film, or in a picture. This includes all print products, radio and TV programmes and even stage plays. Should it become clear that Mr Paulin suffers a material loss as a result of this smear, The Wright Stuff could be paying out compensation and court fees. It's unlikely, because hardly anyone watches The Wright Stuff, but you don't want to take a risk like that. Watch your flappy little gob.