Re: (TV) rushdie - the first cut is the deepest (OT)

["Murray Ramone" <murrayramone@hotmail.com>]

> From: Martin McClellan <martin@rosacordis.com>
>
> As for Rushdie--I'm afraid I don't follow the line of reasoning that says 
> because somebody is blowhard or publicity whore that they don't deserve 
> much sympathy when a fundamentalist sect marks them for death. Talk about 
> blaming the victim. Would it have been better if he had accidentally 
> offended the crazies? Or, if his art was somehow pure from commercial 
> aspiration?

I'll try and explain again

my line of reasoning was he was trying to shock but yet taking great care 
that he couldnt be prosecuted by the Christian based english laws at the 
time (I think they've since been changed ?) - The Iranian clerics couldnt 
bring a court case against him over here so they had a fatwah

A much better scenario for everyone would have been for Rushdie to bring out 
his book as originally written and if he had been prosecuted for it then 
challenge the stupid law

"Would it have been better if he had accidentally offended the crazies?" - I 
think calling Muslims "the crazies" is pretty offensive in itself, but yes 
it would have been better if it was accidental, then he could have 
apologised - the thing was, it wasnt accidental

If you are going to offend someone you have to be willing to take the 
consequences of your actions - I found it amusing that the consequences of 
his actions were far greater than the ones he took steps to avoid - this 
isnt blaming the victim, he was the initial aggressor

apologies to everyone who doesnt like the political stuff - its got OT in 
the subject so if you're not interested dont read it

Cheers,


Murray
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"