THE NEWS BLOG

 
Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Independent
Washington Post
Newsday
Iraq Order of Battle
Agonist
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News
CNN
Blogger

 
Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Atrios
Digby's Blog
Skippy
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Uggabugga
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Tbogg
Corrente
Gropinator
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Wonkette
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Driftglass
At-Largely
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

 
Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Wednesday, April 26, 2006

So, don't go


Salman Rushdie

Controversy at Commencement: Who Needs It?
Categories: Free Speech

Faculty members and administrators at Nova Southeastern University, in Davie, Fla., got more than they bargained for when they invited author Salman Rushdie to give this year’s commencement speech at the Farquhar College of Arts and Sciences on May 7. They got controversy. Some student members of the International Muslim Association are protesting the invitation, presumably because they agree with those who regard Mr. Rushdie’s 1988 novel “The Satanic Verses” as a blasphemy against Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. (It’s the Danish cartoons all over again, only this time with an additional twist provided by the literary quality of the offending document.)

Graduating senior Farheen Parvez is planning not to attend. “I was looking forward to my graduation,” she told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, but “when I found out that Salman Rushdie would be the speaker, I was appalled.”

Apparently taken aback by the protest, university officials have defended themselves by denying any malign intention. Dean Don Rosenblum told the Sun-Sentinel that choosing Mr. Rushdie was not meant to insult anyone. Mr. Rosenblum also pointed out that the faculty chose Mr. Rushdie as a fitting climax to the university’s yearlong study of good and evil. It seems neither Mr. Rosenblum nor anyone else saw the tension between these two defenses: if good and evil is the theme, Mr. Rushdie must represent the former (you’re not going to invite evil to be your speaker) and those who condemned him (and issued a fatwa against him) the latter. And if, as the protest indicates, there are graduating seniors who would align themselves with the Ayatollah Khomeini (who issued the fatwa) and against Mr. Rushdie, they are sure to be insulted.

It doesn’t help to declare, as Mr. Rosenblum did, that Mr. Rushdie is “an outspoken advocate of freedom of expression, which is a critical core value of the university.” To invoke freedom of expression as a core value is to elevate it above any and all of the sentiments that might be expressed; expression itself, rather than its content, becomes the cornerstone of your theology. But it is not, one would think, the cornerstone of the Muslim students’ theology. What they are likely to hear when the mantra of free speech is preached at them is another statement by the university they attend that their beliefs—especially those that would lead to labeling some expressions blasphemous—are wrong.


This isn't the same as the Danish cartoons for a couple of reasons. The first was that Rushie's "crime" was offending the Iranians, who had no possible justification to punish the British subject.

The cartoons was a direct insult from Danes to other Danes of another religion. It was designed to denigrate them. Most American papers treated them a culturally offensive and wouldn't run them, as they wouldn't for any other religion

Rushdie was not denigrating Islam. Also, no one sent hit teams to kill the cartoonists, most people simply protested, some rioted and died. Rushie's life was in real, verifiable danger and most importantly, state sanctioned. That is a world of difference than some ginned up mobs. The Iranian state wanted him dead, a person they had no control or contact over. It's called terrorism.

To think in 2006, people could be offended by him speaking is sad. But so what. Don't fucking go.

It's one thing to be insulted by people meaning to insult you. It's another thing entirely to stand cheek and jowl with a repressive goverment calling for assassination.

Gilly, you have it wrong. The SAME sorts of people with the SAME interests and SAME insane sense of intolerance called for (and where necessary fabricated the materials) for both the Danish riots and the fatwah against Rushdie.

You can't pander to extremists, period.

And you know what? Libraries are full of books that insult various precepts of pretty much every religion.

I'll say it again: If your religion preaches the destruction of nonbelievers and nontheocratic systems of government, please stay the fuck out of Western civilization. Strawmen to the contrary be damned.

When someone with something to say--Muslim or not--can dare to criticize some aspect of Islam or heaven forfend tell a joke without some mullah somewhere sparking cross-nation state-sponsored riots, fatwahs, boycotts, protests, etc--and the world stoping to watch the collective temper tantrum--then it will be the first baby-step in the right direction.

When those university students protest Rushdie speaking, they're saying "I'm just here for show; I have no intention of thinking for myself--AND I think that I have a divine right to do the non-thinking for others also."

Fuck extremists.

Except the Danes were chortling about their insults to Islam until people got pissed. Thewere gleeful at bringing Muslims to "heel," and the insult was felt widely among ALL Muslims, not just extremists. It is no different than Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs racist, anti-immigrant paranoia.

When Muslims refused to stand for being insulted in the name of "free speech", when the same paper refused to mock Jesus Christ, the Danes were confused by the reaction. It isn't extreme to reject a racial insult and call it that. Those cartoons weren't just meant to be offensive, they were meant to degrade Muslims and their beliefs, despite the Danes not allowing Muslims to integrate into the wider society.

The same kind of racial paranoia CNN hosts are upbraided for, are part of Danish parlimentary politics, they even have a political party based on it.

The Danes thought they had a free shot at Muslims and they got any thing but.

Rushie, being a Muslim, was a target of state terror because the Iranians wanted to play politics. He was being punished for his ideas on Islam, not because he mocked Islam to diminish the humanity of others, which is what the Danes did and then expressed shock that muslims worldwide were deeply offended and boycotted their goods. Did they issue a fatwa to kill the Danish PM? No. Extremists played on this, but this wasn't just due to them.

Rushdie's fate was due entirely to extremists and anyone who boycotts his speech is an idiot.

posted by Steve @ 12:00:00 AM

12:00:00 AM

The News Blog home page





 

Editorial Staff
RSS-XML Feeds

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
 
 
 
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans