Why is it that Kilroy-Silk’s statements in vilifying and scorning the Arabs (Muslims) are applauded under his right of ‘free’ speech, but Dr. Mahatir’s remarks regarding the Jews were deemed to be unacceptable by the Western intelligentsia? Yet in comparison to Kilroy-Silks vitriolic attack, Dr. Mahatir’s statements were benign and almost complementary to the Jews. Is there an underlying principle that makes Kilroy a hero and Mahatir a villain in the West? This begs the question, what does ‘free’ speech really mean!
Any reasonable person, from any part of the world would state the obvious, ‘free’ speech is the right to express opposing views. The implication is that, you may hear an opinion that you like but by the same principle you must be prepared to tolerate an opinion that you detest. It is the latter situation that tests ones integrity and commitment to the principle of ‘free’ speech.
Those who control the mass media, clearly have disproportionate power and influence on the society. Therefore, they have a special responsibility to assure that a balanced opinion is aired. Particular care has to be taken in protecting the disadvantaged minority communities and in particular, those who do not have a representative voice in the media. It is therefore irrational to advocate that Kilroy-Silk has the right to express his personal opinion under the banner of ‘free’ speech, regardless of its consequence, given his influential position. In the same way, no senior army officer or a government minister would be allowed to voice criticism under the same pretext, regardless of the consequences.
In reality, it seems that ‘free’ speech only surfaces when it comes to ‘protecting’ those engaging in abusing the Muslim community, using the most gratuitously derogatory language, whilst hounding and silencing those who makes any form criticism of Israel, under the umbrella of anti-Semitism. It is inconceivable that if the Muslims were to engage in criticising Israel (Jewish community) using similar language, they would be given the same level of support as Kilroy-Silk. On the contrary, they would be immediately gagged, sacked and then most probably incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay style.
Kilroy-Silk now conveniently claims that his disparaging remarks were aimed at the Arab States rather then the masses in general. A close examination of his statements exposes once more, the typical Machiavellian nature of those who tend to engage in Politics. The constant lies and deception to further their career. Iraq’s mythical WMD, 45-minute threat from Iraq, plagiarised dossier and the mysterious death of Dr. Kelly are clear examples.
Kilroy-Silk never explicitly or implicitly referred to any Arab countries. His examples of suicide bombers were pertaining to the desperate individuals sacrificing their lives to protect their lands. The reference to “limb amputators and women repressors” was clearly derogatory comments about the Islamic laws. If he feels that strongly about the issues, why does he not have the courage to debate these issues openly with the proponents of Islamic laws? Is that not the spirit of ‘free’ speech? In addition, Kilroy-Silk admits that he is not a novice, when it comes to ‘criticising’ the Arabs. He has an excellent track record.
There are three possible options. Firstly, abolish all such criticism and suppress ‘free’ speech, which may be fairer to a degree on all the different communities, in comparison to the current situation.
The second alternative is that Mr Kilroy-Silks right to ‘free’ speech should be upheld. In that case it would only be fair, to say the least, to provide an EQUAL opportunity to the Muslim community to respond. Let the dialogue and discourse take place on this subject, as an example of ‘free’ society. However, given the track record, and the flimsy arguments that the West posses on this subject, it is doubtful that they would ever risk engaging in such an open and honest dialogue. If they did, no doubt that they would capitulate faster then the Iraqi army, as it would be difficult to use bribes, and the playing field is a lot more level.
Therefore most likely the third option would be pursued, which is the duplicity of upholding Kilroy-Silks right to ‘free’ speech, whilst silencing and hounding the Muslim community even further. The likes of Nick Ferrari, Richard Little John, and Clive James are already rushing to ‘protect’ the ‘distraught’ Kilroy-Silk.
In line with the hypocrisy of ‘free’ speech, the recent banning of Islamic Political parties, books, Islamic charities, Islamic scarf, incarcerating Muslims without applying the due process of law, torture, summery execution and collective punishments are reminiscence of the Medieval Europe, where crusades and Inquisition and burning of witches were the order of the day. Not to mention the barbarism of the Fascists and Nazis era of the recent past. Whilst the West moves leaps and bounds in Technology and Science, it is taking steps of similar magnitude towards becoming more Medieval and Fascist.
