I've been searching various forums but seems no one can find a link to the whole article. Guess there aren't many Sunday Express readers that can type, or connect to the web.
Kilroy and his Defenders.
http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/ 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.
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. "