The case against the Rushdie knighthood
12:07pm
Yesterday, I was happily thundering away against all the hand-wringing over the Rushdie knighthood when a friend brought me up short my making a rather good case against it. The argument goes that we defended, rightly, the Satanic Verses on free speech grounds and we are always telling these protestors, Voltaire-style, that while we might not agree with what is said—or in the case of the Danish cartoons, drawn—we defend their right to say it. But HMG giving Rushdie an honour blurs this line and suggests that the State has a position not only on Rushdie’s right to speak freely but also on the worth of his statements.
Previous
Comments
hogarth zombie
June 20th, 2007 12:17pmBut he won the Booker of Bookers! surely that's pretty good for a writer
TDK
June 24th, 2007 1:11pmWhy does it blur the line? Just because we defend R on free speech grounds doesn't imply we disagree with R. The issues are separate. Let's test this by changing the matter to "racism in the UK". R criticised the UK for being racist. I disagree but I defend his right to say it. By giving him an award The UK establishment suggests it supports his views. This has no relevance in my determining his right to free speech. Moreover, I'm bound to at least conjecture whether the award was given despite his criticism of the UK.