Did this man deserve a Knighthood??

Zambia

Morlar wrote:

What do you mean 'like all peoples' - no other religious faiths in the 20th or 21st century issue fatwas to those who dont comply. Were not talking about all other peoples here were talking about funnily enough islamic extremism and threatening to murder authors who you dont like. That is stone age thinking right there and has no place in the developed civilised world where ideas and expression are more important than any religons right to expect a level of respect bordering on subservience.

You see thats your opinion of it and I can see your quite staunchly oppsed to this due to your upbringing and values and beliefs. However in life sometimes we have to respect the feelings and rights of others when possible as they may have equally staunch beliefs. As for you last sentences what would be subservient about not going into those lost verses.

If Salmans book was an expose into the aspects of the muslim faith you have mentioned fair enough instead he went for the aspect that served no purpose and enraged some members of the faith to no end well as far as i can see and no-one has yet to tell me the piont of the book.

Morlar

Zambia232 wrote:

You see thats your opinion of it and I can see your quite staunchly oppsed to this due to your upbringing and values and beliefs.

Peoples values often determine their outlook and opinion on a lot of things - not sure of the point of this sentence.

Zambia232 wrote:

However in life sometimes we have to respect the feelings and rights of others

No we dont - we live in a western democracy. When you say 'respect the feelings and rights of others' your not talking about respecting the rights of an artist to freedom of expression are you ? You are talking about obeying religious edicts for a religon that is not the majority faith in this part of the world.

Zambia232 wrote:

As for you last sentences what would be subservient about not going into those lost verses.

If people practice censorship of their artistic work for fear of offending a reliigon - then that is subservience.

Zambia232 wrote:

If Salmans book was an expose into the aspects of the muslim faith you have mentioned fair enough instead he went for the aspect that served no purpose and enraged some members of the faith to no end well as far as i can see and no-one has yet to tell me the piont of the book.

The book doesn't need to have a goal or a purpose or a point in your eyes in order for it to be exempt from death threats on the author.

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

Im sorry I thought you where asking for my opinion.

No, I was asking for an objective argument, not a subjective opinion.

Can you tell me what purpose the book serves ,it could have been a nice wee story without these verses?

It's not my place to say as I've not read it, however there are, as has already been pointed out, numerous critiques on the book in question that would argue that it does serve a purpose.

So should we ban something on the basis of your opinion or do you have anything more concrete?

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

No, I was asking for an objective argument, not a subjective opinion.

I have given this already

Zambia

Morlar wrote:

Peoples values often determine their outlook and opinion on a lot of things - not sure of the point of this sentence.

As in what makes yours values right an theirs wrong

Morlar wrote:

No we dont - we live in a western democracy. When you say 'respect the feelings and rights of others' your not talking about respecting the rights of an artist to freedom of expression are you ? You are talking about obeying religious edicts for a religon that is not the majority faith in this part of the world.

I do respect his right to freedom of expression I just think he used it in a very silly way and does not deserve a knighthood for it.

Morlar wrote:

If people practice censorship of their artistic work for fear of offending a reliigon - then that is subservience.

Thats a very narrow minded opinion you can choose not to offend others without good cause.

Morlar wrote:

The book doesn't need to have a goal or a purpose or a point in your eyes in order for it to be exempt from death threats on the author.

It needs to have a piont if the author thinks this piece of literature was worth the life of the poor bloke that died for translating it? If there was no piont to writing the book why write it?

El Stuntman

Zambia232 wrote:

I dont think they performed any great good but they where cartoons and should not be taken seriously. As for the other bloke well I think he is a bit sick to be honest. A blatant hate monger , please tell me what good he was serving by that film. He seems to be nothing more than a political porn peddler?

so it was OK for him to be murdered in the street?

Mick86

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Mick86,
So you're going to read Rushdie. Never mind "The Satanic Verses", read "December's Children" and I'll see that you get 76 (No, make that 77) virgins in paradise. If this is not to your liking you can have a plenary indulgence.

I said maybe.

Also can I have 77 women with a little experience. 30-40 year old, non-smokers with a sense of adventure.:D

SeanW

Zambia232 wrote:

If you cover your hand in meat juice and stick it in a wild dogs mouth, is it the dogs fault or yours that your now short a limb.

Ironically, one such comment was made by an Islamic mullah in Australia, who in discussing women who dress immodestly and/or get raped that "if you leave meat uncovered in the park, whos fault is it when the dogs eat it?" or something like that.

External censorship by Islamofascism is one thing, Self-censorship out of fear/ need for self-preservation is a much more dangerous phenomenon.

Either we all have the right to say something that someone might find offensive, or noone has the right to ever say anything that anyone might find offensive. That's how it is, and why is Salman Rushdie any different?

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

If Rushdie did not write the book no-one would be offended. Like i said before it was not a wise move despite his right to write it.

So you maintain that while everybody has the right to free speech in principle, people must take care when exercising that right not to offend anyone.

Zambia232 wrote:

No not at all, but like all peoples if you go way way out of your way to piss them off im not going to blame them for taking your arm off.

So by your logic when, for example, a young man gets kicked to death by three or four other young men outside a nightclub and it turns out that he annoyed them in some manner, then the whole thing is the fault of the lad that's dead because he shouldn't have annoyed the killers.

Zambia

El Stuntman wrote:

so it was OK for him to be murdered in the street?

No I never said that.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

So you maintain that while everybody has the right to free speech in principle, people must take care when exercising that right not to offend anyone.

You are basically taking the principle of it and turning it to your on ends here. The principle I am stating is although we all have the right to say what we like. A decent amount of common sense should be used when exercising this right.

Mick86 wrote:

So by your logic when, for example, a young man gets kicked to death by three or four other young men outside a nightclub and it turns out that he annoyed them in some manner, then the whole thing is the fault of the lad that's dead because he shouldn't have annoyed the killers.

Lets say the man walked behind them for 4 hours calling them all sons of motherless hoars etc blah blah . Are you saying he is completly at no fault in his untimely demise. NO he shouldnt have been killed but he is by no means blamless in the course of events.

Just because we have the right of free speech it should not give us licence to cajole and provoke others. No law should stop us doing that we should stop ourselves doing that.

Jackie laughlin

Mick,
You're a decent man but you'll have to make do with virgins. If I were to recognise the existence of experienced women, the mullahs would get me.

Zambia,
I played a lot of football in my youth and I know about trying to provoke someone into a violent response. Let me assure you that writing a novel, making a movie or even passing them a note would not work.

democrates

I guess there's no "one size fits all" in free societies. Believing in free speech means I won't support any gag efforts. When some imams take an extreme position it's predictable that some in the west will also be extreme, muslims don't have a monopoly in fundamentalism or rage.

Take the rise of anti-americanism, while nation bashing is not my first choice in how to solve the problem of hegemoic imperialism, there's no doubt it has led ordinary Americans upon seeing it to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.

For the muslims I think it's beneficial for them to hear the rest of the world say no, you're wrong.

Zambia

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Zambia,
I played a lot of football in my youth and I know about trying to provoke someone into a violent response. Let me assure you that writing a novel, making a movie or even passing them a note would not work.

Did you ever play a muslim team ?

Sand

Did you ever play a muslim team ?

What difference would that make? Muslims are ordinary people like everyone else. They have the same rights and *responsibilities* as everyone else. Muslims shouldnt be treated like high strung children - that implies a deeper level of patronising disrespect tbh. Do you discriminate against people who arent muslim by being less respectful of their views?

Salman Rushdie wrote a book. That is all. He bears no more responsibility in this whole sorry mess. He did not threaten or murder anyone. A bunch of psychotic nutjobs took his book and used it as an excuse to threaten his life for years and your sympathising with the hurt to the psychos feelings?

The principle I am stating is although we all have the right to say what we like. A decent amount of common sense should be used when exercising this right.

So freedom of speech should be curtailed by the fear of violence from a self empowered cabal of psychotics? I guess youd surrender any supposed rights if someone else threatened violence? Anything for an easy life.

SeanW

Not often I agree with Sand, but this time I have to say: Post of the Month FTW!

RedPlanet

There hasn't been much conversation about how or why this man deserved a knighthood.
I personally suspect that HMG views SR as some sort of contemporary crusader against Islam, and that's why they knighted him.

johnnyskeleton

That this thread is in politics suggests to me that the OP wishes to insinuate that the knighthood is for political, rather than for literary, purposes. A lot worse writers than Rushdie have been knighted - and much worse people (e.g. bob geldof).

Together with the fact that knighthoods are also given out to the guys who deliver the queen's milk, anyone who offers their seat on the bus to an elderly lady and to people randomly taken off the street to make up numbers, I don't think there is anything sinister about giving one to one of the leading authors of the day.

Also, thanks to Bunreacht na hEireann, you don't need to call him Sir Salman if you don't want to.

Zambia

Sand wrote:

What difference would that make?

What may slightly irrate one person enrages another

Sand wrote:

So freedom of speech should be curtailed by the fear of violence from a self empowered cabal of psychotics? I guess youd surrender any supposed rights if someone else threatened violence? Anything for an easy life.

[/QUOTE]

Ok so what your saying is lets go around insulting the muslim faith just because we can? The threat of violence does or should not come into it at all.

Your piont is valid but but it a scenario that is far removed from what i am trying to get across.

Although you have the right to insult people it is not prudent or basically good manners to do so unless you have a good reason for doing so. The insulting of a whole religon or even large sections of it for no good cause I see as wrong.

So I see the book as irresponsible.
I see the knighting of the author as ill advised
1 : Given the current climate.
2 : Given the fact I dont see his work as that worthy of it.

have a good weekend folks

Sand

Ok so what your saying is lets go around insulting the muslim faith just because we can? The threat of violence does or should not come into it at all.

Im saying that if you want to say something that some muslims take offence to, then you can. Not that causing offence is justification in its own right, but that it should not curtail our liberties. Any opinion or view stronger than a gentle summer breeze will offend someone. The only reasonable cause for curtailing freedom of speech would be incitement to violence and incitement to hatred - and the second one needs to be finely judged. If muslims didnt want to be offended by Salmans book then they could exercise their right not to buy and read the book.

Any threat of violence to curtail freedom of speech is an assault on all our freedoms and should be resisted by all.

So I see the book as irresponsible.
I see the knighting of the author as ill advised
1 : Given the current climate.
2 : Given the fact I dont see his work as that worthy of it.

Salamn Rushdie did *nothing* wrong. He wrote a book, some people reacted badly - sucks to be them. They are in the wrong when they issue threats of violence and incite hatred against this man. They are in the wrong. It is they who are irresponsible.

1 - The "current climate" is always going to be an excuse. Was there ever a time when dangerous fanatical maniacs didnt use threats to intimidate liberal society into bowing to their views?

2 - Irrelevant, though that opinion is a dangerous abuse of freedom of speech view given the militant Salman Rushdie fanclub have threatened to murder everyone who offends and insults their favourite author. Now youve gone and provoked them, why would you do something so irresponsible? Dont you know your theoretical right to say what you think is limited if it risks offending violent hateful fanatics? Their sensitive souls underneath all those angry outbursts.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

You are basically taking the principle of it and turning it to your on ends here. The principle I am stating is although we all have the right to say what we like. A decent amount of common sense should be used when exercising this right.

Then we may as well surrender our right to any freedom in case we get on the wrong side of someone with a grudge and the will to kill.

Veronica Guerin shouldn't have been rabbiting on about Dublin's criminals for years, then she would have been left alone and of course so would they.

Bob Fisk and Lara Marlowe should let up on the War on Terror in case they annoy some US/UK right winger with an attitude and a gun.

The Orange Order, whose members we claim as Irish Citizens, shouldn't exercise their right of association by marching in Dublin in case they annoy the Dublin Celtic Supporters Club.

It's only common sense.

InFront

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I haven't read the book so I can't say how good it is. But I think the Muslim world should mind its own business. It's none of their affair who Britain gives a Knighthood to. This is just another example of islam demanding we in the West do something OR ELSE!

There are over 1.6 million British Muslims. You think they're "demanding" that "you" do something? No, they're presumably a bit peed off with their head of state bestowing an honour upon a guy like Salman Rushdie on behalf of their country in which they live.

I don't see where "you" come into it.

Originally posted by democrates
For the muslims I think it's beneficial for them to hear the rest of the world say no, you're wrong.

Personally I'm not threatened by the idea of an old grey celebrity perfroming a sort of bizarre ceremony with her Granny's sword on a spent old groveling writer. Equally nonsensical is a dumb statement like yours quoted. I'm not sure what sort of fanciful image you've just had of "the rest of the world" in some matriarchal superiority coming out in opposition to Muslims, or what exactly you think this knighthood achieves for you personally. It's quite a patronising comment, I for one don't need to be taught a lesson, thanks anyway.

Hoops1888

I wonder did Anne Bill deserve an MBE.

SeanW

To be fair, InFront, I don't think he meant ALL Muslims. Just the ones that don't seem to understand the principles of freedom and "live and let live." Like the people who put a bounty on SRs head in the firstplace. And the man who shot Theo Van Gogh. And the people who started a worldwide carnage over the Danish cartoons. And Pope Benedicts quotation of a 14th century emporor. And so on. And so on. I fully accept that these people are not representative of all Muslims, they may even be a miniscule minority.

But they're there. And the West needs to send a strong, clear message that we stand over our right to freedom of speech and religion, and the attendant right to criticise and question. Everything.

Fratton Fred

Zambia232 wrote:

Did you ever play a muslim team ?

I have. Frontline based in Slough, they play in the east Berks league. There was also a Sikh team in the league (Singh Sabha) and a team of shaven headed nazi thugs caled the George.

Singh Sabha and the George had some great games:rolleyes:

Not sure what that's got to do with anything though:D

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

There are over 1.6 million British Muslims. You think they're "demanding" that "you" do something? No, they're presumably a bit peed off with their head of state bestowing an honour upon a guy like Salman Rushdie on behalf of their country in which they live.

With all due respect, Europe (and the West in general that derives it's culture from us) has a long tradition of humanism and rationalism that allows us to question, satirize and otherwise poke fun or ridicule at religion. It is a cultural right that Europeans have fought centuries of wars, reformations and counter reformations to achieve. We have no interest in taking, what we would consider, a step backwards in this regard.

Whether or not there are numerous Muslims in Europe or not, they must remember that they are ultimately in Europe, not Eurabia. As European citizens, Muslims are as much a part of this culture and part of shaping it, but that does not mean turning it on it's head. They've left their Islamic countries of origin to start anew, not try to recreate them.

wes

The Corinthian wrote:

With all due respect, Europe (and the West in general that derives it's culture from us) has a long tradition of humanism and rationalism that allows us to question, satirize and otherwise poke fun or ridicule at religion. It is a cultural right that Europeans have fought centuries of wars, reformations and counter reformations to achieve. We have no interest in taking, what we would consider, a step backwards in this regard.

Whether or not there are numerous Muslims in Europe or not, they must remember that they are ultimately in Europe, not Eurabia. As European citizens, Muslims are as much a part of this culture and part of shaping it, but that does not mean turning it on it's head. They've left their Islamic countries of origin to start anew, not try to recreate them.

The "West" also has a culture of Colonialism. Its even going on to this day in the form of so called "Liberal Intervention", instead of controlling countries, its about controlling the resources via local friendly dictators and the like. Of course, the rise of religious fanaticism in the ME, is due to the failure of Arab (and Persian) nationalism, which the "West" did there best to undermine and destroy and did a great job helping that along. This of course leads to people like the Ayotallah in charge, who then put Fatwa's on people like Mr. Rushdie. Now of course Muslims do share a lot of the blame as they have not stood up to these people.

A question I never see answered is why is the "West" best friend with the worst religious fanatics in the ME Saudi Arabia. Who fund Mosques around the world, who teach Wahhabism, using oil money. If the "West" hate religious nuts, they sure do have a strange way of showing it.

Also it should be noted, the current furor about Mr Rushdie e.g. protests have been contained to some Muslim countries and I have yet to hear of any protests in Europe or riots like the first time. So thus far Muslims in Europe have not caused trouble over this issue, to the best of my knowledge.

Of course Mr Rushdie has the right to satirize or of course insult Muslims. I still contend as I said earlier the best way to show there annoyance with Mr Rushdie is through peaceful means, e.g. protest, boycott the publisher (or even some products from the UK, as was done with Denmark), and any other peaceful means of protests to get there point across. I wish leaders in Pakistan and Iran would follow a more sensible line like this, rather than score cheap political points with the religious right of there nations.

Zambia

Fratton Fred wrote:

I have. Frontline based in Slough, they play in the east Berks league. There was also a Sikh team in the league (Singh Sabha) and a team of shaven headed nazi thugs caled the George.

Singh Sabha and the George had some great games:rolleyes:

Not sure what that's got to do with anything though:D

Great to hear and during these matches against these teams was there and overwhelming need surging through you to insult the Muslim/Nazi team just because by law you canmot be prosecuted for doing so.

I suspect not.

Folks/sand/etc what I am trying to get across is we already curtail or freedom of speech every day. We dont swear in business meetings , we dont call check out tellers idiots to there face we hold a basic sense of manners.

I would vote against any law in the UK curtailing the freedom of speech I also would not condon the murder or harm of people on the grounds of what they said. This includes people who as far as I can see bring this attention on themselves.

However SR has shown a lack of good judgement and IMO went for sensationalist writing in order to get his work recognised. This do me is not deserving of a knighthood.

And as to why I put this in politics , as far as i can see we are attempting to calm things in the middle east. The awarding of a knighthood to this man cannot assist that goal. So yes while the decision may not have been made on political grounds I see it as unwise politically.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

Veronica Guerin shouldn't have been rabbiting on about Dublin's criminals for years, then she would have been left alone and of course so would they.

Yes the aim was to combat organised Crime

Mick86 wrote:

Bob Fisk and Lara Marlowe should let up on the War on Terror in case they annoy some US/UK right winger with an attitude and a gun.

I can see the reason for them speaking

Mick86 wrote:

The Orange Order, whose members we claim as Irish Citizens, shouldn't exercise their right of association by marching in Dublin in case they annoy the Dublin Celtic Supporters Club.

They should as I can see these marches as a way of moving forward

All valid reasons for speaking out or marching Mick now equate that with the Satanic verses what was the piont of it?

Jackie laughlin

I even played against NORTHSIDERS!

Look, there's a fundamental difference between saying or writing something that is controversial or rude or insensitive or offensive or, or, or ... and inciting/instructing religious adherents to crime, to murder!

Someone brought up appropriate behaviour at meetings. At times business meetings can become constrained, unimaginative, unproductive because no one wants to break a cosy consensus. Then it is time to be controversial. Most times these days it's just a matter of telling some twat to speak English and cut the business-speak. It is often wrong to hold one's tongue.

Taking this idea into the political arena, offence/iconoclasm is often essential. Most time muslims should be confronted and told that inequality (Yes. I know this is a contested concept.) cruel punishments, ritual slaughter of animals etc. are not going to be tolerated in this society. However, if there is any risk that threats of violence (and I'm not suggesting that any but a tiny number of nutters are involved) will silence any freedom of expression, then ALL democrats must unite in causing insult PRECISELY BECAUSE we still can and in case a situation is allowed to develop in which we can't.