TigerHawk is delighted with the Queen for giving as knighthood to Salman Rushdie (link) (link). He sees it as tweaking the Mullah’s beard, tee hee. The lunch table Chez Buce is not so impressed.
“Why did she have to do it?” said Mrs. Buce, nibbling at her poached chicken breast in the Al Fresco room. “Why now?”
“Well, you recognize art and culture.”
“Oh, I suppose. But you know, it wasn’t that good a book. Midnight’s Children, I mean. I never read Satanic Verses, but I don’t know anyone who thinks it is better. But why now?”
“Well, a lot of worse books have got greater recognition. Anyway, do you want your cultural tastes dictated by a bunch of screamers in the street?”
“No, but I’ll tell you what. How about a day of public mourning for the mess we made at Abu Ghraib? How about a public apology, reinstatement, and promotion for General Taguba for trying to make us live by our own pretensions? How about immediate closure of
You know, the lady’s got a point.
Afterthought: I wonder if TH has ever read Midnight’s Children? Satanic Verses? Or does he just like it because it pisses somebody else off?
1 comment:
I just like it because it pisses somebody off.
Well, you asked.
I felt the same way about the Danish cartoons. Didn't think they were particularly good, actually, as cartoons go.
Suffice it to say that I have no interest, in the abstract, in pissing off Muslims. However, I believe it is downright barbaric for a state or people acting under color of the state (as is often the case in the Muslim world) to order the killing or brutalization of a person because of what he has written, and that if the West does not specifically respond to these threats each and every time we put our society at risk. We already have many documented examples of people and companies (such as newspapers and bookstores) who feel entirely comfortable attacking Christianity in fairly tough terms refusing to speak in the same tone about Islam because they fear the reaction. Muslims are trying to impose a "violence veto" over free speech in the West that must be resisted, actually or symbolically, or our speech will no longer be free.
One need not agree with the speech to defend it. But the point is this: the "right" of free speech is only relevant for somebody whose speech is subversive or offensive or critical or insulting to many people. People who say wholly benign and popular things do not need the right at all.
Post a Comment