News6 mins ago
The Satanic Verses:
39 Answers
Thirty Years on. BBC2 9.00pm
Look forward to this. Advertised as (stress added by VE) as "a return to Yorkshire where the protest first began to examine the lasting effects the book has had on the community".
Wonder what spin the Beeb will put on the story. Presumably we'll be seeing lots of "moderate" Muslims - and a few less so.
PS: Anybody wath Panorama this week on trans-gender medicine? Surprisingly fairly presented. A rogue producer must have snuck himself in.
Look forward to this. Advertised as (stress added by VE) as "a return to Yorkshire where the protest first began to examine the lasting effects the book has had on the community".
Wonder what spin the Beeb will put on the story. Presumably we'll be seeing lots of "moderate" Muslims - and a few less so.
PS: Anybody wath Panorama this week on trans-gender medicine? Surprisingly fairly presented. A rogue producer must have snuck himself in.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vetuste_ennemi. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//... I got the impression that this is one to delight apologists which means it isn’t worth an hour of my time. Am I wrong?//
Yes and no, Naomi.
The program begins with the spin that it wasn't so much the book itself as a long history of racism and prejudice. The book, which not a single Muslim interviewed had read - no surprises there, was the final straw for a marginalised group, you understand, and they felt forced to "fight back" (exact words of one interviewee).
But the program is well worth watching: it exposes the myth of the "moderate" Muslim (i.e. the 99.9% who are totally integrated and a positive contribution to British civic life) for the lie it is. Some interesting revelations about the Religion of Peace came from comments by the totally unreformed organisers of the original demonstrations, book burnings and riots: "we wanted to raise awareness so that no further book like this would ever be written or published"; "you'll have peace when the important [Muslim community] is properly respected".
Unfortunately the obscurantists who prefer to hyperventilate about the "far-right" won't watch. But in most cases their programming is irreversible, so it would't make much difference if they did, would it? The honest multiculturalist will be/ought to be troubled by this programme if they watch it.
Yes and no, Naomi.
The program begins with the spin that it wasn't so much the book itself as a long history of racism and prejudice. The book, which not a single Muslim interviewed had read - no surprises there, was the final straw for a marginalised group, you understand, and they felt forced to "fight back" (exact words of one interviewee).
But the program is well worth watching: it exposes the myth of the "moderate" Muslim (i.e. the 99.9% who are totally integrated and a positive contribution to British civic life) for the lie it is. Some interesting revelations about the Religion of Peace came from comments by the totally unreformed organisers of the original demonstrations, book burnings and riots: "we wanted to raise awareness so that no further book like this would ever be written or published"; "you'll have peace when the important [Muslim community] is properly respected".
Unfortunately the obscurantists who prefer to hyperventilate about the "far-right" won't watch. But in most cases their programming is irreversible, so it would't make much difference if they did, would it? The honest multiculturalist will be/ought to be troubled by this programme if they watch it.
In the main it just confirmed what I already thought. Not much if anything has changed in the 30 years since this book was published and the reaction to it would be the same now as it was then. I wonder what will become of the "moderate" muslims when push comes to shove.
Interesting to see who hasn't commented on this programme but then they probably didn't watch it.
Interesting to see who hasn't commented on this programme but then they probably didn't watch it.
Remember that clip very well, Spicerack. But the architect of Harold Wilson's educational reforms wasn't the first to stick the knife in former darling of the Left.
John le Carré, Roald Dahl (not to mention the lesser talented Charles Windsor) were quick to condemn Rushdie and appease the mob.
To his credit, while former "friends" in Britain were abandoning him, a popular writer in the States showed integrity and courage in defence of Rushdie and the principle of free speech. He told his (and at that time Rushdie's too) US publisher that if, as they had announced, they reneged on their agreement to publish Rushdie's work in the States then they would lose the rights to publish his. That, to his credit, was Stephen King.
John le Carré, Roald Dahl (not to mention the lesser talented Charles Windsor) were quick to condemn Rushdie and appease the mob.
To his credit, while former "friends" in Britain were abandoning him, a popular writer in the States showed integrity and courage in defence of Rushdie and the principle of free speech. He told his (and at that time Rushdie's too) US publisher that if, as they had announced, they reneged on their agreement to publish Rushdie's work in the States then they would lose the rights to publish his. That, to his credit, was Stephen King.
I hadn’t seen spicerack’s clip until now, but Christopher Hitchens who, together with Sam Harris, was an unreservedly outspoken critic of Islam, and indeed of all religion, when listening to Shirley Williams mealy-mouthed apologetics was clearly chomping at the bit in anticipation of adding his two-pennyworth. Admirable self-control.
The apologist presenter of the programme under discussion indicated that with the publication of Rushdie’s book came the first stirrings of Muslim dissent, but failed to acknowledge that, by the same token, it also heralded the beginning of the West’s ever-increasing capitulation to irrational sensitivities that demand abandonment of freedom of speech and freedom of the press – freedoms that will never be recovered.
I wonder ….if a book on a similar theme were to be penned in today’s world, would any publisher touch it?
The apologist presenter of the programme under discussion indicated that with the publication of Rushdie’s book came the first stirrings of Muslim dissent, but failed to acknowledge that, by the same token, it also heralded the beginning of the West’s ever-increasing capitulation to irrational sensitivities that demand abandonment of freedom of speech and freedom of the press – freedoms that will never be recovered.
I wonder ….if a book on a similar theme were to be penned in today’s world, would any publisher touch it?
“it is a good thread. Just a pity it's not better attended.”
Nor was this thread:
https:/
Probably because there was nothing good to be said about the subject of either programme, and it’s so much nicer to say how wonderful Europe and multiculturalism are.
Nor was this thread:
https:/
Probably because there was nothing good to be said about the subject of either programme, and it’s so much nicer to say how wonderful Europe and multiculturalism are.
Disappointed, too, that my thread has attracted so little attention.
What the Rushdie riots proved was that a significant section of the UK's and Europe's new citizens would respond in quite a different way to criticism or mockery of their faith from that of Christians who had to grin and bear it when the final passion of Christ was accompanied on film by a mocking "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life".
Our newdidn't grin and bear it, they responded with violent protest, burning in effigy and endorsement of the fatwa suborning Rushdie's murder.
This anti-civilsational menace has not diminished, but grown since the Rushdie affair.
None of our new citizens' "representatives" would ever say, of course, that they personally would condone such murder. But they do point out that when you insult their Prophet (far worse than insulting their mother, we're told) you shouldn't be surprised if some Muslims lash out.
That mafioso's threat ("I don't want to hurt you, but I don't know if I can control the big b***r behind me") is always there, isn't it? And, to quote the late Christopher Hitchens once again, that threat of physical violence is plausible.
What the Rushdie riots proved was that a significant section of the UK's and Europe's new citizens would respond in quite a different way to criticism or mockery of their faith from that of Christians who had to grin and bear it when the final passion of Christ was accompanied on film by a mocking "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life".
Our newdidn't grin and bear it, they responded with violent protest, burning in effigy and endorsement of the fatwa suborning Rushdie's murder.
This anti-civilsational menace has not diminished, but grown since the Rushdie affair.
None of our new citizens' "representatives" would ever say, of course, that they personally would condone such murder. But they do point out that when you insult their Prophet (far worse than insulting their mother, we're told) you shouldn't be surprised if some Muslims lash out.
That mafioso's threat ("I don't want to hurt you, but I don't know if I can control the big b***r behind me") is always there, isn't it? And, to quote the late Christopher Hitchens once again, that threat of physical violence is plausible.
Errrr, - what was that my Lord?
"In 2007, Lord Ahmed was highly critical of the knighthood awarded to the Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie, claiming it was an insult to Muslims and that the novelist had “blood on his hands.”
https:/
"In 2007, Lord Ahmed was highly critical of the knighthood awarded to the Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie, claiming it was an insult to Muslims and that the novelist had “blood on his hands.”
https:/
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics11 mins ago
News15 mins ago
