How remarks escalate into thought crimes vol 125*

The Gru wants to exploit Tory disarray, obviously, but this seems pretty egregious:

Tory Islamophobia row: Warsi accuses Hancock of 'whitesplaining'

 Warsi hits back at minister for saying ‘others take a more balanced approach’ than Muslim peer

Hancock had said: “Well look, I like Sayeeda. She has a particular view on this, there are others who take a more balanced approach.” Asked if he was saying she was “unbalanced”, Hancock replied: “No...

Liberals have not only cleansed speech of  any reservations, qualifications or even subjunctives, they are now collapsing all comparatives (more) into binaries (un) which they can then hate.

 Warsi replied (naturally in a tweet):

Oh @MattHancock
Thank you for “whitesplaining” this to me.
I’m so glad I have colleagues like you who can educate me even after my 30 years of experience of work in Race relations 

 
Thirty years experience grants absolute and incorrigible knowledge? She has managed to escape all the usual sources of bias that so limit the rest of us, and has gained uniquely pure and impeccable judgement? Is 'whitesplaining' an inoffensive term, just obviously immediately applicable to what Hancock said, or is it something that all white must people do? 

Another expert, refusing any reservations as usual, was brought in to tell us what Hancock really or in effect had meant. He knew this becasue he knows Hancock really well? He is a skilled reader of body-language? He has trained in the interpetation of English texts?

Miqdaad Versi, the director of the media monitoring team for the Muslim Council of Britain, said Hancock was trying to pretend Warsi was isolated in her criticism.

Versi is saying that Hancock has a particular view on this, there are others who take a more balanced approach. Is he saying Hancock is unbalanced? I think he is, and asserting a role for cynical political motives. 

This item headed the 'News' section on the website.