[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TV) rushdie - the first cut is the deepest (OT)
On Sep 26, 2004, at 5:18 AM, Murray Ramone wrote:
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
Well, we can't all be Lenny Bruce, and if I remember correctly, Rushdie
was a known author, but not a greatly known author. It would take a
great amount of money, never mind time and energy to fight the
government on an issue that he could very well lose. I don't blame him
for not wanting to be a test case, if indeed what you're saying is true
and he personally changed his book to avoid that. I find it more likely
that his editor asked him to change some things so the publishing house
wouldn't be liable, but I don' t know the whole story. Do you have some
references I could read more about it?
"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
No, Muslims aren't the crazies--that's not what I meant. The crazies
are the few religious nuts in our world that would consider murdering
somebody just because they wrote something they disagree with. I'm
non-denominational in my despising of this behavior. If ye be Muslim,
Christian, Jew, Buddhist (never hear of them issuing death sentences,
though, anybody?), Republican or atheist and you'd be willing to kill
somebody because they defamed your beliefs, then I hearby proclaim you
a crazy.
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
Frankly, I find the right (and write) to offend and be offended
inalienable.
But because the response of Khomeini was so radically disproportionate
to the so-called crime, that makes Rushdie a victim. Khomeini could
have called for all muslims to ban, protest, or burn the book, but he
didn't. He put a price on Rushdie's head. That, in any civilized
society, is not a viable prerogative, and as soon as he made such a
(and it's worth saying again) radically disproportionate response to
the offense, that makes Rusdie the victim, and you're still blaming
him.
apologies to everyone who doesnt like the political stuff - its got OT
in the subject so if you're not interested dont read it
My apologies too--although, hey man--it's LITERATURE we're arguing
over! Think they get that on the Limp Bizkit list (oh god, IS there a
Limp Bizkit list?)?
Cheers,
Murray
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"
martin@rosacordis.com
http://rosacordis.com
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"