Sir Salman Rushdie

[scribblet]

Poor Sir Rushdie, just when he thought he was in the clear, he we go again.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...rget/article.do

Salman Rushdie faced fresh threats of suicide attacks this afternoon following his knighthood.

A senior minister in the Pakistani government insisted he be stripped of the honour which was described as an affront to Muslims and a justification to kill the author.

[Leafless]

Poor Sir Rushdie, just when he thought he was in the clear, he we go again.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...rget/article.do

Salman Rushdie faced fresh threats of suicide attacks this afternoon following his knighthood.

A senior minister in the Pakistani government insisted he be stripped of the honour which was described as an affront to Muslims and a justification to kill the author.

Your link won't open but this one should:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/18/...in2943041.shtml

I fail to see the merit granting knighthood to a wanted man.

As one Western official suggested: "Western diplomats based in Islamabad said they were expecting to see public demonstrations over the Rushdie knighthood issue, possibly called by Pakistan's more fundamental Islamic political parties. One Western official suggested such protests may provide a way for the more extreme parties to widen their appeal among members of the Pakistani public."

But then again freer societies are not part of the Islamic empire and do not have to be held hostage to the threats of barbarians.

[Argus]

Poor Sir Rushdie, just when he thought he was in the clear, he we go again.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...rget/article.do

Salman Rushdie faced fresh threats of suicide attacks this afternoon following his knighthood.

A senior minister in the Pakistani government insisted he be stripped of the honour which was described as an affront to Muslims and a justification to kill the author.

Your link won't open but this one should:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/18/...in2943041.shtml

I fail to see the merit granting knighthood to a wanted man.

He is not a wanted man. He was recognized for his literary work over many years. Why should he not be? Because some fanatic dirt people who can't even read howl and pull at their beards at the mention of his name?

[scribblet]

The only people who 'want' him or the extremists. Britain must have had some inkling that there would be a problem with this in some parts of the world, wonder if they are symbolically thumbing their noses at the Islamists.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...rget/article.do

don't know what happens to my links sometimes.

Pakistanis burn effigies of Salman Rushdie in protest at knighthood

[ScottSA]

Because some fanatic dirt people who can't even read howl and pull at their beards at the mention of his name?

Hahahaha...I love it! And you're exactly right of course. Leafless' comment is representative of the school of stultifying political correctness that would have the west avoid anything and everything that might conceivably "offend" anyone. The reason Muslims get all in a tizzy and burn cars over this kind of thing is because it works. The west immediately dons a hair shirt and starts apologizing even though it hasn't done a damned thing. Rushdie is not a particularly good writer, but he damned well deserves a knighthood for the ruin of his life by these 6th century goons and their howling fantoids.

[Leafless]

Leafless' comment is representative of the school of stultifying political correctness that would have the west avoid anything and everything that might conceivably "offend" anyone.

So what do you want to do?

Eradicate all Islamic countries, since this is what would have to be done to permanently eliminate world terrorist actions, death threats relating to the Rushdie controversy which is similar to the Danish cartoon caper and the migration of Muslims into Western and European countries.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/02/w...e_publishe.html

[ScottSA]

Leafless' comment is representative of the school of stultifying political correctness that would have the west avoid anything and everything that might conceivably "offend" anyone.

So what do you want to do?

Eradicate all Islamic countries, since this is what would have to be done to permanently eliminate world terrorist actions, death threats relating to the Rushdie controversy which is similar to the Danish cartoon caper and the migration of Muslims into Western and European countries.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/02/w...e_publishe.html

Partly. We can't control what happens in Islamic countries...if they want to burn their own cars, that's fine with me. But when they start burning our cars in the west, it should be put down immediately, sans the self-flagellating hand-wringing. Cartoons of a 6th century warlord are not a valid reason to burn cars any more than crosses submerged in urine and called art are a justification to burn cars. The pope quoting a Bysantine emperor speaking about the brutality of a religion is not a justification to burn cars or kill nuns. Especially in view of the fact that the Emperor in question spoke a few short years before Bysantium was sacked in one of the most brutal sackings in history, by those self same future car burners and nun slayers who got offended at being told they're brutal. Making a movie about the rather obvious fact that Islam subjugates women is not a justification to shoot to death a movie maker. None of it justifies car burning, and when car burning occurs, it ought to be dealt with exactly the same way it would be dealt with if white "thugs" were doing it and not Islamic "youths." And we can shut the doors tight to Islamic immigration. In fact it's foolhardy not to.

If other countries decide to export their terror here, or allow third parties to do so, then they are stepping into our turf, and we should respond with the might we still have, and not more wergeld.

[Mad_Michael]

I can't think of anything more absurd than granting 'knighthoods' upon writers of fiction, regardless of their political correctness or lack of talent.

Pretty much devalues the ancient noble concept of 'knighthood' to something considerably less impressive than a boyscout merit badge.

[Argus]

I can't think of anything more absurd than granting 'knighthoods' upon writers of fiction, regardless of their political correctness or lack of talent.

Pretty much devalues the ancient noble concept of 'knighthood' to something considerably less impressive than a boyscout merit badge.

How about knighthoods granted to pop singers?

[Mad_Michael]

I can't think of anything more absurd than granting 'knighthoods' upon writers of fiction, regardless of their political correctness or lack of talent.

Pretty much devalues the ancient noble concept of 'knighthood' to something considerably less impressive than a boyscout merit badge.

How about knighthoods granted to pop singers?

Slightly less absurd than writers of fiction and considerably less elitist.

[Leafless]

If other countries decide to export their terror here, or allow third parties to do so, then they are stepping into our turf, and we should respond with the might we still have, and not more wergeld.

I have been advocating similar sentiments since becoming a member relating to various Islamic issues and many other issues involving political correctness.

So please don't include me with the political correctness clique as I am neither a follower or advocate any form of political correctness.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Mark Steyn weighs in on the Knighthood - and history:

Rushdie’s precious lit. crit. crowd mostly opposed the fatwa on the grounds of artistic freedom rather than as a broader defence of Western pluralism. That was a mistake.

In the Fifties and Sixties, Nasserism attempted to import Soviet socialism to the Middle East. It never really took. A generation later, the Ayatollah came up with a better wheeze: Export Islamism to a culturally defeatist West. Everything that has become pathetically familiar to us since September 11th was present in the Rushdie affair.

First, the silence of the “moderate Muslims”: A few Islamic scholars pointed out that the Ayatollah had no authority to issue the fatwa; they quickly shut up when the consequences of not doing so became apparent.

Second, the squeamishness of the establishment: Rushdie was infuriated when the Archbishop of Canterbury lapsed into root-cause mode. “I well understand the devout Muslims’ reaction, wounded by what they hold most dear and would themselves die for,” said His Grace.

Rushdie replied tersely, “There is only one person around here who is in any danger of dying.”

large numbers of British Muslims had marched through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed. In the last few months, several readers have e-mailed me with their memories of those marches. One man in Bradford recalls asking a West Yorkshire police officer why the “Muslim community leaders” weren’t being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they’d been told to play it cool. The cries for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The police officer told him to “fuck off, or I’ll arrest you.”

As bad as the fatwa was, the inability of the establishment coherently to defend western values was worse. Clifford Longley, the Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Times, was one of the few to understand what was at stake. The British government must surely know, he wrote, that some Muslim beliefs, “at least at face value, are not compatible with a plural society: Islam does not know how to exist as a minority culture. For it is not just a set of private individual principles and beliefs. Islam is a social creed above all, a radically different way of organizing society as a whole.”

Longley wanted anyone parading a “Death To Rushdie” placard to be “taken at his word and arrested for incitement to murder. The immediate consequences could be unpleasant, even including the risk of riot. But the painful shock of such a confrontation may regrettably be necessary before the British Muslim community is brought face to face with the reality that tolerance and compromise, even over fundamentals, are a fundamental requirement of life in Britain.” Instead, all those British Muslims who called openly for Rushdie’s death are still around, more powerful and with more followers.

Her Majesty’s Government lacked the will then, as most of the West does today. In effect, the Ayatollah was allowed to get away with annexing Islam for political purposes, not just at home but internationally. If “moderate Muslims” are a viable demographic at all, they face a choice: They can follow the murder-inciters of Bradford, the suicide-bombers of the West Bank and the depraved killers of northern Nigeria on their descent into barbarism. Or they can wake up and save their religion. Either way, the West will be little use.

[Mad_Michael]

Mark Steyn weighs in on the Knighthood - and history:

Rushdie’s precious lit. crit. crowd mostly opposed the fatwa on the grounds of artistic freedom rather than as a broader defence of Western pluralism. That was a mistake.

In the Fifties and Sixties, Nasserism attempted to import Soviet socialism to the Middle East. It never really took. A generation later, the Ayatollah came up with a better wheeze: Export Islamism to a culturally defeatist West. Everything that has become pathetically familiar to us since September 11th was present in the Rushdie affair.

First, the silence of the “moderate Muslims”: A few Islamic scholars pointed out that the Ayatollah had no authority to issue the fatwa; they quickly shut up when the consequences of not doing so became apparent.

Second, the squeamishness of the establishment: Rushdie was infuriated when the Archbishop of Canterbury lapsed into root-cause mode. “I well understand the devout Muslims’ reaction, wounded by what they hold most dear and would themselves die for,” said His Grace.

Rushdie replied tersely, “There is only one person around here who is in any danger of dying.”

large numbers of British Muslims had marched through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed. In the last few months, several readers have e-mailed me with their memories of those marches. One man in Bradford recalls asking a West Yorkshire police officer why the “Muslim community leaders” weren’t being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they’d been told to play it cool. The cries for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The police officer told him to “fuck off, or I’ll arrest you.”

As bad as the fatwa was, the inability of the establishment coherently to defend western values was worse. Clifford Longley, the Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Times, was one of the few to understand what was at stake. The British government must surely know, he wrote, that some Muslim beliefs, “at least at face value, are not compatible with a plural society: Islam does not know how to exist as a minority culture. For it is not just a set of private individual principles and beliefs. Islam is a social creed above all, a radically different way of organizing society as a whole.”

Longley wanted anyone parading a “Death To Rushdie” placard to be “taken at his word and arrested for incitement to murder. The immediate consequences could be unpleasant, even including the risk of riot. But the painful shock of such a confrontation may regrettably be necessary before the British Muslim community is brought face to face with the reality that tolerance and compromise, even over fundamentals, are a fundamental requirement of life in Britain.” Instead, all those British Muslims who called openly for Rushdie’s death are still around, more powerful and with more followers.

Her Majesty’s Government lacked the will then, as most of the West does today. In effect, the Ayatollah was allowed to get away with annexing Islam for political purposes, not just at home but internationally. If “moderate Muslims” are a viable demographic at all, they face a choice: They can follow the murder-inciters of Bradford, the suicide-bombers of the West Bank and the depraved killers of northern Nigeria on their descent into barbarism. Or they can wake up and save their religion. Either way, the West will be little use.

Who is Mark Steyn? Some pseudo-journalist-pundit I presume?

And where is the substantive comment to accompany the cut'n'pastey stuff?

[M.Dancer]

Who is Mark Steyn? Some pseudo-journalist-pundit I presume?

You've been living in a cave these past 20 years?

if after a 20 plus year in career you call him a pseud.....well, disagree with him if will, I usually do, but he's paid his dues as a columnist.

[Mad_Michael]

Who is Mark Steyn? Some pseudo-journalist-pundit I presume?

You've been living in a cave these past 20 years?

if after a 20 plus year in career you call him a pseud.....well, disagree with him if will, I usually do, but he's paid his dues as a columnist.

I call everything "pseudo" as it seems highly applicable - especially with journalism. The term is not necessarily derogatory.

Twenty years as a columnist eh? I am blissfully ignorant of conventional mass media personalities. The only media product I consume on a regular basis The Economist.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, I'll 'google' his name to see what his game is. All journalists play games.

[Mad_Michael]

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, I'll 'google' his name to see what his game is. All journalists play games.

Good gosh - a theatre critic with no real education.

And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of our beloved mass media - and pseudo-journalists.

[M.Dancer]

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, I'll 'google' his name to see what his game is. All journalists play games.

Good gosh - a theatre critic with no real education.

And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of our beloved mass media - and pseudo-journalists.

he hasn't been an "arts" critic for over 10 years.....

[JerrySeinfeld]

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, I'll 'google' his name to see what his game is. All journalists play games.

Good gosh - a theatre critic with no real education.

And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of our beloved mass media - and pseudo-journalists.

oh - you're one of those who thinks the only smart people are the ones with degrees?

that explains alot.