AUTHOR STRUCK BY THUNDERBOLT
The media: Paul Johnson
on the growing inconsistencies of the Rushdie affair
WE ARE getting ourselves into an ever- deepening mess over Rushdie. Let us recapitulate. A young man of Asian origin decides to become a writer. He has little obvious talent. But he has certain qual- ifications for success in a London literary scene dominated by left-wing sentiment. He is non-white. He is a good hater. And his hate is directed at the right kind of target, ie, the British, Mrs Thatcher etc. So he is pushed, boosted, awarded prizes, turning into a best-seller. Then, in an ill-considered moment, he decides to direct some of his surplus hate-energy at the religion into which he was born, Islam. He writes and publishes The Satanic Verses. After a time, the novel is 'drawn to the attention' (or whatever the Iranian phrase is) of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He pro- nounces it blasphemous and publishes a fatwa condemning the author to death. This boosts the book's sales and it becomes an international best-seller. The author is made a multi-millionaire. But, as some British Muslims, or gangs sent from Iran, are prepared to carry out the fatwa, he goes into hiding and is given police protec- tion. About a score of protesters are killed in anti-Rushdie riots in various Asian countries. In Britain copies of the book are burned by angry Muslim mobs.
Rushdie at least is consistent and refuses to apologise. The Ayatollah is consistent too, and refuses to withdraw his death sentence, before dying in the odour of sanctity. His successors renew it. Every- body else is inconsistent. The British Mus- lim community is divided over whether the book is blasphemous and whether the death sentence should be carried out. But all feel that the British law as it stands gives them, as a distinctive group in society, inadequate protection. Rushdie's pub- lishers refuse to withdraw the book, as this would betray the principle of freedom of speech and publication. On the other hand they will not print a paperback, as they are afraid of more trouble. The literary estab- lishment, for the most part, backs Rushdie; some go further, and hail his novel as a deathless masterpiece. Others hesitate, not being used to disagreeing with non-white opinion. Labour MPs with large numbers of Muslim constituents are mostly anti- Rushdie. Government ministers deplore the death sentence and uphold the right of publication, but otherwise keep well clear of the affair, which they see as a problem for the Left. The authorities say there is nothing they can do other than provide Rushdie with police protection. No offence has been committed in publishing the book. The law of blasphemy, they say, protects only the Christian religion. But is not publication of the book liable to provoke breaches of the peace, indeed has produced breaches of the peace, and is therefore actionable under Common Law? Er — no, on the whole. Then what about these Muslim leaders who are publicly inciting their co-religionists to execute Rushdie? The literary Left, prepared to defend Rushdie's freedom of speech to the death, complain bitterly at his opponents for exercising their freedom of speech and demand that they be prosecuted for incite- ment to murder. The authorities reply that there is not enough evidence and, anyway, it would be — inconvenient. The Muslims have effectively demonstrated their power, driving one author into hiding, and dis- couraging others, and publishers, televi- sion companies and newspaper editors too, from putting out material critical of Islam and its claims. When one Muslim leader says he is starting a move to turn the British Muslim community into an inde- pendent, self-governing Islamic state, under the protection of Iran — a little matter of high treason, some might argue — there is an embarrassed silence.
Meanwhile, a Pakistani company makes a movie called International Guerrillas which portrays Rushdie as a drunken playboy who kills and tortures pious Mus- lims until Allah kills him with a thunder- `What's wrong with single parent families?' bolt. It is an immense success in Pakistan, where cinemas charge five times the usual admission price, and is widely shown else- where in the Muslim world. In Bradford and other British cities where many Mus- lims live, smuggled cassettes of the film are sold at prices from £100 to f200, and are displayed at private showings to rapt gatherings of the faithful. But when the firm which holds the world rights to the movie applies to the British Board of Film Classification for permission to distribute it here, the board, which controls videos as well as cinema showings, refuses. Last year the board banned a video, Visions of Ecstasy, about St Teresa of Avila and Christ, on the grounds that it was blasphe- mous; it received legal advice that it had a duty to censor films which outrage the feelings of religious groups. Now it bans Guerrillas on the grounds that it constitutes a criminal libel on Rushdie and would expose him to hatred and violence.
The literary establishment is divided on the ban. Some, trying to be consistent, say it should be shown, arguing that nothing should be banned except racism (the movie, however, appears to be anti- Semitic, certainly anti-Israeli, since the evil Rushdie is protected by Israeli guards, provided by the international 'Syndicate' of wickedness). But these are, in many cases, the same people who wanted British Muslims prosecuted for calling for Rush- die's 'execution'. Muslims are outraged, and genuinely puzzled. If the film is liable for prosecution for criminal libel, why not the book? If the Board of Film Classifica- tion feels able to act on behalf of any religious group which might be offended, why is not the same attitude taken by the ordinary civil authorities, who refused to prosecute The Satanic Verses? Why one law for films and cassettes, another for books? And another point arises, or rather recurs. The decision to ban the film has finally convinced the Muslim (that is, the Pakistani) community that they are discri- minated against by the British legal struc- ture. As a result of the Satanic Verses affair, their religious-racial feelings have been inflamed to the point where some of them, at least, are staging a UDI.
We have here by far the most serious crisis in the history of race relations in this country, with a truly frightening potential for trouble. Why, then was the book not prosecuted in the first place under the existing race relations legislation? Be- cause, it is argued, the law does not cover such a case. In short, as I have pointed out before in this column, both the blasphemy and the race relations laws are inadequate, and what we need is a comprehensive statute against incitement, whether on a racial, religious, class or any other basis.
However, I can't see Mrs Thatcher, at any rate this side of a general election•, putting her hand in that panier de crabs. So we must fasten our seatbelts and prepare for the Rushdie affair to run and run.
Previous page
