Whichever Duckhead decided to knight Rushdie

[Sultan of Cannock- SRFC]

Well what a clever idea that was to give a knighthood to author and one-time advert writer Salman Rushdie. I never had any sympathy for Rushdie when he faced his fatwa. With the right to free -speech comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Rushdie will have known exactly how much he would have wound muslims up with his Satanic Verses but decided he'd rather go ahead and be a smartarse anyway. Result- a whole generation of muslim youth radicalised and a cost to us the British taxpayer of a cool £10M to protect him. I'd have let the Ayatollah have him on a toasting fork.

Now with our soldiers up to their necks in it in Iraq and Afghanistan, some clever people decide to stir the whole thing up again by giving the smartarse a knighthood, instead of the £10M bill that he should be paying back to us.

Well done all round.

[Col ISIHAC.]

Perhaps Liz or Charlie boy, or even Phil The Greek liked his books.

I find the reaction to the news a little interesting - the gong is pretty well worthless, a form of recognition for learning an interesting handshake or something, but it does serve to demonstrate the extent of the blinkered, extremist views held by some so called "Intelligent" politicos in Pakistan & elswehere.

There's a more reasoned debate about the precise content of the book that actually disputes the view of the Moslem highbrow - most of whom have not even READ the bloody thing! Regardless of that, there are also many, many people who would quite happily debate the relevance and reliability of all religious texts - me included. Granted, I don't cost anything like as much to protect but I'd cheerfully defend Rushdie's AND my own right to state our view.

And, no. I haven't read it either.

His being awarded something doesn't concern me at all.
His being able to state an opinion and remain safe from harm having done so - that does concern me.

[amberaleman]

This has just been debated on the BBC's Question Time - where Christopher Hitchens gave a stirring defence of the award. Although I'm no great fan of the honours system, I agreed with him entirely.

As ISIHAC says, very few Muslims have read The Satanic Verses, and most probably don't give two hoots about Salman Rushdie. Those claiming to be offended are a small minority of religious zealots. I've no time for such people.

The Sultan mentions the responsibilty to use freedom of speech wisely. Certainly nobody should use that freedom to create gratuitous offence (i.e. where there is no aim other than to insult). But Salman Rushdie's writing is infinitely more sophisticated than that. And surely writers have another responsibility - to criticise, to challenge, and to encourage us to question entrenched beliefs.

Eighteen years after the fatwah, the Ayatollah who issued it is dead and Salman Rusdie is still very much alive. I think that makes a point.

[Sultan of Cannock- SRFC]

Both make good points that i'd like to address. Firstly, despite the moniker, I am was christened a Methodist and am now a Buddhist, so now torch to carry for Islam.

Don't run away with the idea that Mr Rushdie is some free-speech paragon. He wrote the book to make money. Maybe Islam wasn't insulted gratutitously, but the use of sophistry implies that he thought that Muslims would be too stupid to notice. As a writer, it was his perfect right to write what he wanted. As a rich and clever man, it was his responsibility to look after his own security at his own expense when the consequences which he knew full well might happen, did, rather than taking the taxpayer for a £10M ride.

Maybe there is a good point to be made for an honour. To me the timing absolutely stinks. This could cost us more British lives, both military and civilian.

By the way, the fact that the Ayatollah is dead while Rushdie lives on says that the former was born in 1902, a good 47 years before the latter!

I have no truck wuth the extremists either. Islam is 1500 years old and survived invasion, detruction of all it's cities and the murder of the Caliph by the Mongol hoards. They must be really insecure to think that a major relligion might fall because of a book...

[Col ISIHAC.]

That's what I like about this place. We can discuss stuff without peeps resorting to bad words and rudeness! Or, indeed without threatening to remove one anothers private parts, or lungs! ;D

Rushdie is a writer, nominally of fiction and fiction on the page as in other forms of media / entertainment should challenge and generate opinion. What is unreasonable is the manner in which some people in this case have openly stated that their opinion is the one, true opinion and the best thing to do in order to settle the dispute would be to terminate the writer. Hardly a reasoned debate, now is it? It all gets a bit tiresome, personally. I mean. Who is to say that they are right about the whole darn thing anyway?

[malxscfc]

Hmmm.

Totally agree with the original premise as broached by our dear, resident Sultan.

I'd add to that, and suggest that it's also the decision of a Duckhead to appoint Anthony Blair as "Peace Ambassador to the Middle East". I mean, wtf?

Like ISIHAC, I'm becoming slightly worried about the increasingly hard line of the Pakistani hierarchy in what is supposed to be one of our few friendly of a non-Monarchical Islamic States. And all this Command-State 'thought-control stuff' is dreadful. Forcing the poulation to think like the Government/Authorities!!

What next? The Nanny State?! ;D

Rushdie's Fatwah was farcical certainly, now that they've discovered the earth ain't flat.
But you've got to snigger in irrational bewilderment at the odd decision to Knight the bloke! I mean, wtf?

Do you think it's something he really wanted? I know it'll give his book sales a boost, but it must return him to the Islamic Terrorist's Playing Card list, surely?!


AmberAleman, I put my hands up and admit that I resisted the temptation to read Satanic Verses, and I'd have been reading it out of (my own idiomatic/social) context anyway, but it might be a bit of a generalisation to say

But Salman Rushdie's writing is infinitely more sophisticated than that.

considering that he once worked for an Ad Agency, and in a campaign for the Dairy Industry he penned "Naughty, but Nice". ;D

Have always found Christopher Hitchens interesting - nay, compelling, really - even if he trades almost exclusively on "Brand-outspoken" at times. (He's been a sort of talk-show presenter in the US for decades.)
But I do think this new book he's plugging, God is not Great, will be worth a look, even if it's very (provocative) title will probably place him in the same card pack!


All in all, Rushdie's KCB would appear utterly surreal if you consider the number of Authors who barely made a penny or gained any honours for their writing.

Sir William Shakespeare? Dame Jane Austen? I think not.

[amberaleman]

I rather doubt that Salman will get a KCB - as that's the brand of knighthood doled out to whiskered military types and old duffers from the Civil Service.

Shakespeare's misfortune was to have been a humble wordsmith at a time when it was more fashionable to be a dashing explorer or naval commander. And Jane Austen was a lady novelist at a time when ladies weren't expected to "do" serious writing.

Perhaps we get the honours system we deserve.

(And by "writing" I was, of course, referring to SR's novels rather than his snappy advertising copy!)

[malxscfc]

amberaleman said:

I rather doubt that Salman will get a KCB - as that's the brand of knighthood doled out to whiskered military types and old duffers from the Civil Service.

Shakespeare's misfortune was to have been a humble wordsmith at a time when it was more fashionable to be a dashing explorer or naval commander. And Jane Austen was a lady novelist at a time when ladies weren't expected to "do" serious writing.

Perhaps we get the honours system we deserve.

(And by "writing" I was, of course, referring to SR's novels rather than his snappy advertising copy!)

My ignorance of Knights, Orders, Commanders, Baths and other Knighthoodies is quite evident.

Shakespeare was never ever going to be Knighted, let's face it. As a "Bohemian" of the day; as a thinker, a theoretical subversive and closet Catholic; there was no WAY that the Establishment at that time was confident enough to publicly approve of his art, least of all reward, condone or endorse it!

In those days cards were played somewhat closer to the chest.
Compare the Modern, flibbertigibbet world, where Nelson Mandela and Bono are now main men in the British pantheon of 'decent foreign jonnies'....

For you types who are chronologically challenged, in our Queen's lifetime each of these individuals (among others) were considered Terrorists or nearly so...

As for my favourite girl, she gained a modest competence from her craft, and some personal recognition from the Prince Regent, but tragically went to her Grave* frustrated and unappreciated, yet typically stoical about her relative lack of personal social fulfillment in her short life.
Maybe her lamp was covered by a bushel - or maybe she only bothered to write because she didn't have a husband to love and distract her....

Egg/Chicken. Who knows.


*At that time she could never have known that her final resting place would be one of the greatest in Northern Christendom - Winchester Cathedral.

[peekay]

Bono was considered a terrorist?

I know he's made some criminal records in his time but seems a bit harsh even for that egomaniac.































I'll get me coat.

[malxscfc]

;D

I suspect he had a file with British Intelligence, under the 'Subversive' category, or whatever.

In those dark times, you couldn't release a hit record about Bloody Sunday, and make the NME, without making a few enemies.


[Orthographic Edit: subsversive? subservient? subsbench? substandard? ]