A real pig's ear
Jingoism rears its ugly head in Britain following an article by a TV talk show host. Alistair Alexander reports from London
Is this the beginning of the end for British Prime Minister Tony Blair (photo: AFP)
|
"Is Britain racist?" was the issue discussed in a recent BBC daytime talk show. Hardly unusual -- race is always a sensitive subject in Britain, and all the more so recently, as the British government continues to warn of an allegedly ever-growing threat to Britain from Islamic terrorists. But the host of that show, Robert Kilroy-Silk, is now being accused of racism himself after a recent column in The Sunday Express newspaper. In his article, sensitively entitled "We owe the Arabs nothing," Kilroy-Silk treated readers to his insights on the Arab world.
Kilroy-Silk, a former Labour MP, wrote: "We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis?" And, in a phrase surely designed to win millions of hearts and minds across the Middle East, he added: "They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States."
Not that he was going to stop there. "What do they think we feel about them?" he continued, "That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3000 civilians on 11 September and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?"
Despite the perennially flagging circulation figures of the Express, just enough people read Kilroy-Silk's column to cause an uproar. The Muslim Council of Britain called the article "a gratuitous anti-Arab rant". No argument there.
But the outrage quickly spread far beyond the Muslim community. Labour MP Lynne Jones tabled a Commons motion denouncing Kilroy-Silk's comments as racist. And Trevor Phillips, chairman of Britain's race watchdog, the Commission of Racial Equality, also felt compelled to act. "Our lawyers have considered the column," he told the media. "In the light of widespread concern we are referring the article to the police to consider whether it might constitute an offense under the Public Order Act."
In a strange turn of events, it emerged that the column had first been published last April in the same newspaper. Kilroy- Silk's secretary had apparently e-mailed the article again to the newspaper by mistake. When it was first published, however, the article received as much attention as Express articles normally do -- none whatsoever. But, whereas the first version of the article had the word "Arab" replaced with "Arab countries", this time no such editing took place, leaving Kilroy-Silk's views to stand or fall on their merits alone. And fall they most certainly did.
This unfortunate turn of events has little bearing on the offense the article has caused, but it says about as much for editorial rigour at the Express as it does for Kilroy-Silk's talent for race relations.
Over the last few years the Express has filled its pages with endless stories about "bogus asylum seekers" flooding Britain and the "Muslim fanatics" swamping British mosques. So it was no surprise that the latest issue devoted its front page and several inside ones to their beleaguered columnist.
But even Express Editor Martin Townsend's defence of Mr Kilroy-Silk sounded distinctly sheepish. He refused to sack him, though; to do so, he said, would be "to bow to the forces of racial militancy and 'political correctness'" -- the latter being a standard whipping boy for those who defend bigotry in every conceivable form.
Kilroy-Silk's column is far more embarrassing for the BBC, however, and the corporation swiftly announced it was suspending his programme indefinitely. Following the Hutton Inquiry, which centred on an article BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan wrote in The Daily Mail, the BBC has placed restrictions on its news staff writing for the press. While Kilroy-Silk is not employed by BBC News, where the restrictions apply, with the Hutton report only days from publication, Kilroy-Silk's article was the last thing the corporation needed.
Kilroy-Silk wasted little time in springing to his own defence: "I didn't intend to say that all Arabs are uncivilised because clearly I don't believe that. That's stupid. That's nonsense." Hillary Hunter, his hapless secretary, also stepped into the fray. "He is not racist at all," she told a newspaper, "he employs a black driver." This last comment, for many, just made things worse. And Kilroy-Silk has a previous record on racism. In 1995 in The Daily Express, he wrote: "Muslims everywhere behave with equal savagery. They behead criminals, mutilate the genitals of young girls and ritually abuse animals. Nor are non- Muslims immune to their depravity."
In the wake of this debacle Kilroy-Silk's views may have been deftly condemned, but the row highlights the ambivalence in Britain towards growing Islamophobia. Kilroy-Silk is a relatively easy target because his views were so crudely expressed. But there is little assurance that public culture in Britain is fundamentally opposed to such ideas. After all, when Kilroy-Silk's article was published in April there wasn't even a murmur of disapproval.
Meanwhile the language of politicians grows steadily more intolerant towards Muslims -- Arab or otherwise. In November last year, Minister for Europe Denis MacShane planned to tell Muslim leaders they had to make a "choice" between the "British" way or Islamic terrorism. Following an outcry from Muslim leaders, MacShane left out the offending words and apologised profusely for his intended comments.
And in December last year, British Muslims protested against the wave of police raids on mosques throughout the country as part of the continuing war on terror. Over 500 Muslims have been arrested under draconian anti-terror laws. Though the majority has been released without trial, many complained of police brutality.
Doubtless some in the media will congratulate themselves at the swift condemnation Kilroy-Silk received, but for most British Muslims the response to Kilroy-Silk was the exception rather than the rule.
