Sacred?

I got into a debate with a muslim friend about Satanic Verses, who while not supporting the fatwa felt that it was a reasonable position to hold that Rushdie should never have written the book if it would hurt the religious feelings of millions of followers of Islam. There is the freedom of expression and how it is the bedrock of democracy. There is the freedom from religious oppression angle to it. But that is not the reason why I consider it shouldn't be banned or why it is one of my favourites. I think it is an extraordinary book. A masterpiece. I have had similar arguments about M.F. Hussein. Even moderates who are not incited to a frenzy, advice that he shouldn't paint something if it'd be controversial. Nevermind that very few people understand modern art (and those who do have no problems). And of course there are also hacks, who will do something just because it is controversial.

I understand it is a complicated issue. I swear to God, that everytime I hear a Glenn Beck or O' Reilly speak, I wish they didn't have the rights to pollute the airwaves with garbage. Or that time Ben Stein promoted Intelligent Design in a documentary (if you could call it that with a straight face) and asked scientists if they stopped beating their wives (Roger Ebert has a scathing article about the movie). I am stumped when people say that they should be allowed to call global warming a myth or evolution, "just a theory" because they have the fundamental rights to free speech (But thats for another post).

It is tempting and oftentimes easy to just ban things. Call them protecting minority rights or preventing the promotion of violence through hateful speech. I often ask the question, "Where do we draw the line?".

And clearly, I am not qualified to give an answer.

As I was browsing through the internet for some info about the whole affair and watched an hour long BBC documentary, I also came across an essay by Rushdie himself, aptly named, Is nothing sacred?. Read and enjoy.

As for me, I am perfectly happy to take the position - nothing is sacred. Nothing.

377

I embrace the scores of Indian men and women who have, by the Delhi court ruling overturning IPC 377, been deemed no longer criminals. Besides the fact that it is a regressive, archaic and discriminatory law, I wonder how one would (or did) even enforce such a law. Did the cops break into bedrooms in the middle of the night? (I recall a scene in 'The West Wing' where Sam Seaborn is bemused by the news that a town in Alabama wants to abolish all laws but the ten commandments. He wonders how one would enforce, say, coveting thy neighbours wife)

I admit there was a time when I was... homophobe is too strong a word, and implies active hate/disgust... confused. I just didn't get it. When I was share-house hunting in Canberra, I turned down a place because one of the guys was gay. I have educated myself in GLBT issues since. A certain lack of awareness does breed prejudice. I have friends who have opened my eyes to theories of sexuality, to not looking at homosexuality as deviance, to the fundamental principles of tolerance and human rights. (Max - I dedicate this post to you)

We are all threatened by the unknown, distrustful of the different.
No more.

I guess it is a far way to go to be truly free of social stigma. We need to banish discrimination from our hearts but banishing legalised gay-bashing is a good beginning.

To more victories