British dhimmis are falling over themselves trying to stick it to Robert Kilroy-Silk for his criticism of the Arab world, demanding that he abase himself before the extremist Muslim Council of Britain, and threatening that his comments could damage the owner of the Sunday Express: Kilroy, the ‘24-carat martyr’, urged to make amends. (Hat tip: NC.)

As the row continued yesterday, legal and regulatory experts said Mr Kilroy-Silk’s rant could damage the chances of the Sunday Express owner, Richard Desmond, buying The Daily Telegraph.

With a new “public interest test” due to be applied before a media tycoon can buy another paper, the matter could have a “hugely unhelpful” impact, they said.

Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality, insisted: “What I think Robert could do, because let me be clear I don’t think he is a racist, but I think that this kind of nonsense - trying to defend the indefensible - is throwing him into disrepute … What Robert could do is issue a proper apology, not for the fact that people were offended, but for saying this stuff in the first place.

“Secondly he could learn something about Muslims and Arabs - they gave us maths and medicine - and thirdly he could use some of his vast earnings to support a Muslim charity. Then I would say he has been properly contrite.”

Mr Phillips said Mr Kilroy-Silk should acknowledge that what he had said was “wrong, incorrect and very offensive”.

With all this talk about Kilroy-Silk’s comments being “incorrect,” not one of his critics has bothered to attempt to factually refute his statements.

UPDATE: An Arab columnist for the most hate-filled, bigoted newspaper in Britain, the Guardian, calls for Robert Kilroy-Silk to be prosecuted for “incitement to racial hatred:” Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as racism. This one is really over the top, and actually attacks Kilroy-Silk for his criticism of the Islamic death sentence on Salman Rushdie:

During the Salman Rushdie affair in 1989, he wrote that if Britain’s “resident ayatollahs” could not “accept British values and laws then there is no reason at all why the British should feel any need, still less compulsion, to accommodate theirs”. Buoyed by the support of liberals in a debate that was wrongly characterised as free speech versus censorship he went much further. “Muslims everywhere behave with equal savagery. They behead criminals, stone to death female - only female - adulteresses, throw acid in the faces of women who refuse to wear the chador, mutilate the genitals of young girls and ritually abuse animals,” he wrote for the Daily Express in 1995.