I missed this article in the Telegraph yesterday. It was written by Ibrahim Nawar, an Egyptian, who is the Head of the Board of Management of Arab Press Freedom Watch, a non-profit organisation based in London that works to promote freedom of expression in the Arab world.
I fully support Robert Kilroy-Silk and salute him as an advocate of freedom of expression. I would like to voice my solidarity with him and with all those who face the censorship of such a basic human right.
I agree with much of what he says about Arab regimes. There is a very long history of oppression in the Arab world, particularly in the states he mentions: Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, as well as in Sudan and Tunisia. These regimes are not based on democracy and their legitimacy comes from military dicatorships or inherited systems. The basic right of an individual to voice his or her opinion is not granted in any kind of form in the Arab world.
It is worth remembering, however, that there are individual Arabs who do work hard to defend human rights and one cannot make a blanket generalisation about Arab people. We support Mr Kilroy-Silk’s comments specifically in reference to Arab regimes because we are against the oppressive policies supported by rulers in the Arab world.
As already expressed here on Samizdata.net, we do not agree with the contents of Kilroy-Silk’s article in its ‘totality’, as Tony Blair would say. But we do agree with some of the points, namely the ones about oppressive Arab regimes. These are echoed by Mr Nawar and I am particularly fond of his last paragraph though.
I condemn the decision to axe his programme and call for the BBC to reinstate him forthwith. Indeed, the treatment of Mr Kilroy-Silk is very worrying because it indicates that censorship is now taking place in liberal, Western countries like the United Kingdom. These countries should instead be setting an example to the oppressive Arab regimes that violate freedom of expression on a daily basis.
Yes, but it was the BBC, after all.
Update: Mr Nawar does have stronger words for Mr Kilroy-Silk in an article on the Arab Press Freedom watch website. And his defense of freedom of speech is pertinent as ever.
Those who are calling for a swift action against Kilroy-Silk through the administrative route will not be able in the future to defend any victim dealt with in the same way. Moreover, it is not in the interest of advocates of freedom of expression in the Arab world or in Muslim countries to resort to the state in order to punish someone they may differ with.
Well said, that man! What an articulate and reasoned letter. I would be willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint if it came from such an intelligent and worldly source. If we have to have a race relations board (and I think it should be binned) it would be safer in the hands as someone as knowledgable, worldly and articulate as Mr Nawar. He is light years in advance of the ignorant, provincial, agenda-driven, knee-jerk, neo Hitlerian nonentity occupying the office at the moment.
While they are still a small minority, it is people like Ibrahim Nawar and Ibn Warraq who will ultimately make winning the war on terror possible.
Frankly, Shawn, I wouldn’t be too sure. If you read Mark Steyn in The Telegraph today, discussing Kilroy-Silk/Trevor Phillips and other “multicultural” issues, he closes with the chilling words: I don’t know about you, but this “multicultural Britain” business is beginning to feel like an interim phase.
Inadequate, not terribly bright, people like Trevor Phillips are put in (unelected) positions of power and immediately begin sucking up to the Arabs by denying the simple, straightforward truths that Kilroy-Silk stated. He is now demanding that Kilroy-Silk makes a major contribution to an Islamic charity, apologises profusely and learns about Islam. How dare he?
Additionally he states that Arabs gave us maths, which it didn’t. Maths passed through the Arab world on its way from India, where they were already using the decimal point, to Europe.
Yet someone of such monumental ignorance, with absolutely no pride in his own country, is in a position to do real harm.
I would not count on the elegant and thoughtful writings of Messrs Nawar and Warraq to save us. We must save ourselves by chucking out this rubbish “multiculturalism”, telling immigrants to fit in or ship out, axing political correctness and flinging wide open the windows of legitimate debate.
oh Verity, Verity… here we go again… How much “fitting in” is required in order not to be “shipped out”? Would you have denounced those who introduced curry into Britain, demanded they eat fish & chips? Tell everyone to stop listening to desi beats & pump Robbie Williams instead? How far do you go?
I think we make it pretty clear what *is* criminal in this country, & if we don’t, we damn well should… but this “fit in” rubbish is utter crap. “Respect the rules of the land”, for sure, but any more than that, you’re asking for thought police. As I’ve said before, provided we don’t ghettoise people, their children & their children’s children will be increasingly “integrated” anyway. Yeah, a few domestic fanatics may arise, but so far there’s little evidence to suggest this is any real threat to “our way of life”.
And as for Kilroy pointing out some “simple, straightforward truths”, if he’d chosen his words more carefully, his piece might have qualified. As is, he went for “arabs”, undifferentiated, which is just stupid. Why not characterise all Irish as terrorist-bombing, illegitimate-mother-imprisoning, catholic anti-contraception crazies?
First, let me clear up what Kilroy said because that is straight forward. In his original article, published in April in the run-up to the war on Saddam, he referred not to Arabs but to Arab states. When it reran, who knows how it happened – could have been the work of a sub who was short of space – “Arab states” became “Arabs”.
I was guilty of sloppy usage in my post. You are correct when you say “Respect the laws of the land” should be the requirement and that is what I should have said. In other words, don’t come over here and start trying to change Britain because it’s not like it is at home (thank god). Obey the laws, don’t preach sedition, and understand that you are living in a country which has allowed you residency.
I don’t know any of the pop groups you refer to, but it’s a moot point as I freely admit that I wasn’t precise enough.
Verity, fair enough, and yes, with “arab states” substituted, it makes a lot more sense. One wonders however, if this is what he intended to say, why he hasn’t pointed this out, rather than defending the words as they stand.
I agree with most of what you say, but i’m uneasy about your “don’t preach sedition” clause.
If I were to preach sedition, as a person of long British descent, would this be acceptable? If so, then how long does a person have to be resident in a country before preaching sedition is permitted? Free speech should not be compromised in any way, regardless of how much you may dislike what the person is saying. If the hateful words turn into actions, then by all means, crack down, but before that, either you’ve accepted a person into your country, & the same laws apply to them as to anyone else, or you haven’t.
(oh, & for reference, desi beats = catch-all name for contemporary trendy asian music [although probably already superceded by another, making me look like an old fogey], and Robbie Williams = very very popular, and very English entertainer/singer)
A_t – “… why he hasn’t pointed this out …”
My god, the poor man’s pointed it out every time he’s opened his mouth over the last few days. The original article, which was published in The Express last April and raised nary a twitter (maybe because Herr Phillips missed it) referred, perfectly correctly to “some Arab states”. It got changed when it reran last week. He’s been pointing at the original article for the past three or four days.
I’m sorry, I don’t agree with your unease about the “don’t preach sedition” clause and won’t back down on this – although I understand your concern. If you are lucky enough to be accepted into the country you have queued for hours, if not days, for an interview for; have spent money on visas and lawyers and all the legal stuff, have bought your tickets and got your friends/family to meet you at the airport; if you have sweated your way through Immigration in case a mistake has been made … you have a duty to the country that took you in.
It’s as simple as that. They didn’t let you in in order for you to try to overturn their government. They let you in to lead your life peacably.
Sometimes, observing good manners in someone else’s house requires that we hold our tongue, no matter the provocation. Perhaps for second and third generation, born and bred and with citizenship as a right, we could be more relaxed. But first generation that sweats to get in have absolutely no right to try to change our society because it’s not “like it was back home”. That tells me they did not come for freedom and democracy, but want to carry their theocratic baggage and bigotry with them and transfer it forcibly onto the host nation which offers better economic opportunities.
But, I hear you furiously keying in, curbing freedom of speech is not the British way!
Oh? Isn’t it?
“But, I hear you furiously keying in, curbing freedom of speech is not the British way!
Oh? Isn’t it? ”
It may or may not be the British way, but it’s not my way, which to me is far more important.
I completely agree with you about what would be *correct* behaviour, but if people wish to deviate from this, i’d view it as impolite, rude and wrong, but not grounds for eviction. I’d rather have people talking crazy talk, and take the risk of a few loons acting on it, than suffer any extra restrictions on freedom of expression, whose usefulness would be questionable at best (since when has banning the discussion of ideas actually stopped them from forming?). This “you will accrue the right to dissent through generations of living here” stuff is pie in the sky unworkable nonsense.