The only reason to knight Rushdie

hogarth zombie

whatever we think of him as a novelist, we have to back him against the terrorists

Toby Belch

The Satanic Verses is virtually unreadable, Ruth. Count yourself lucky to have got with Midnight's Children

DJB

Backing him against the terrorists - I have no problem with that position, but the gist of RDE's post was to question why he was knighted. I find myself completely in agreement. He writes unreadable tosh, is a self-publicist beyond belief, offer nothing, appears to be a "celebrity" (define the word), a troublemaker... Could someone pleas explain why Salman Rushdie and not David Beckham - at least the latter has skill; or is that just too terribly politically incorrect?

David

Almost everyone surely is going to say a plague on both their houses. I tried to read Satanic Verses but just couldn't wade through the treacle. Rushdie is also a graceless bu**er, and I can't see why we should feel so strongly that he should have a knighthood which we know is going to p*ss so many people (of more than one persuasion) off. OK, so he's got it now, and we can't have people making threats. But really. All so totally unnecessary.

Andrew Ian Dodge

I have read at least three of his books and found them pretty good to read. I have to admit that Satanic Verses was the weakest of the three.

However this is one of those instances where we all need to stand up for freedom of expression.

Good to see the Queen has the courage to stand up for what Britain stands for.

Gaurav Ahuja

We have to back him against the terrorists? I suppose British soldiers murdering millions of Muslims throughout their reign isn't enough for you. They burn a flag and bomb an embassy and people in America and elsewhere in the West are supposed to be angry?! Yet, even some of the most skeptical won't call the British, American, and other Western governments for what they are. They are mass murdering genocidal maniacs who should be responded to. I can't blame Muslims for their response in killing soliders. I can only blame them for murdering civilians. Remember who has murdered more civilians. It has been Western governments and not a few bands of Muslims.

Old Chap

I am not British, but I have to say that I too have found Rushdie's writing to be highly unreadable, and the man is so full of himself (and hyper-critical of his adopted country) that it is amazing he hasn't been offed by one of his acquaintances, leave alone a mad mullah. His getting a Knighthood is just one more sign of the PC times we live in. Still, cheers to him for standing up to the Fatwa-wielding Fanatics.

Alistair Hale

Apart from the fact that Blair wants to "remind" us of what he is "fighting", Rushdie showed his true form in a two page broadsheet spread two weeks after a Saudi Imam in Belgium was assasinated. The Imam had expressed the view that Rushdie was entitled to his opinions and he did not subscribe to the fatwa (opinion = fatwa) of Khomeini. Rushdie did not mention this man once in his lengthy piece. Priorities noted. Much of the said work is virtually a straight lift from early Islamic history books, but with a vicious satirical twist.Instantly recognisable to most Muslim children, but not so to his heroic enlightened saviours. It had no more merit than "Spitting Image". He knew what would hurt, he knew perfectly well what the reaction would likely be on both sides - the on-cue spectacle of one-upmanship militancy on the part of idiots in the Muslim world, and him becoming a secular martyr in the West. He should have known perfectly well that hundreds of millions of Muslims do actually endeavour to love the people whose life stories he so cheaply "mined". More than themselves, more than their immediate loved ones. He was happy to kick the third world underdog in the teeth, heart and balls just for the lavish praise of secular know alls who think they know whats best for everybody. But of course haven't read any Islamic history books whatsoever, apart from cherry-picked titbits in the likes of "The Arab Mind" The worst aspects of the fatwa are that it draws attention to and amplifies the insult, and then deprives us of the opportunity to see the offender for what he is. Just to keep the right froth going for politicians trying to divert attention from their failure to deliver. Bit of a pattern here. I await his use of the word "regrettable" if Iran gets nuked.

Alistair Hale

Correction... "The worst aspects of the fatwa" - that should have been - "other bad aspects of the fatwa" (or words to that effect) Apologies

Eddie

Our queen isn't innocent in this as she isn't innocent in the promotion of multi-culturalism. The Queen must be held accountable for her actions and it is absurd to think that she could not refuse to grant these honours, or deliver those Winterval speeches if she didn't want to. The Windsors are the authenticators of the multicultural state and are a big part of the reason the common man thinks it is illegitimate to object to any of this stuff.

Bill Brazell

The descriptions of Rushdie's literary achievements as "largely indifferent," and the crowing about being unable to read them, have left me stunned. One may not love "Midnight's Children," but it didn't win the Booker of Bookers -- the prize for Best of All Booker Winners -- on a lark. "Satanic Verses" is a tremendous novel. Rushdie is one of the strongest writers on the planet, period, and would deserve that knighthood on the merits of his work alone. Give one to Beckham, too, for all anyone cares. But it's Rushdie's work that will be remembered and loved centuries hence. Good for Blair.

Richard

Why are you Brits still knighting people? Do your taxes then pay for the upkeep of these illustrious folks? And what of the quest? HSouldn't Sir Salman have to go and find the Grail or sack Jerusalem?

Harris

Can the left in the UK really have misunderstood their fellow jihadists in the Umma so badly?

fella

I don't think wee ought to protect him fromthe "terrorists". I for one wouldn't give my life to protect him, I don't feel it would be right to ask someone else to do so just because they only make a private's wages.

Daryl Sawyer

It's one thing to protect him from murderers of any persuasion. It's quite another to knight him for nothing more than pissing people off.

Nigel Fletcher

It is interesting that the source of the most violent reaction to the knighthood has come from Pakistan: the same country that has training camps for terrorists, produces people planning to plant bombs in London and provides the UK with its most extreme muslim revolutionaries; a country governed by a military dictatorship which, even with its military power, is unable to govern large parts of the country.

Is it not ime that the UK broke off diplomatic relations with Pakistan, withdrew our high commission, suspended all flights between the two countries and introduced stringent interviews to establish the views of prospective immigrants?

Michael Price

If it's not OK to ask someone to die "for a private's wages" to protect the rights of his fellow citizens, why is it alright to ask him to die to invade a country that didn't threaten his own?

Brad

No, we don't "have" to back anybody against the "terrorists." The so-called "terrorists" are only opposed to Western countries because of imperialistic policies such as the War on Iraq or the proposed War on Iran (which is absolutely no threat to anybody and has not invaded any country in over a millennium, unlike Britain, the USA, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Israel, Japan, China etc.). The attacks on New York and London were blowback from the idiotic foreign policies. Rushdie really hasn't done anything worthy of a knighthood (has anybody even read his book?). He should not be killed for anything he has said, nor should anybody who has threatened him be prevented from doing so (either is a violation of the inalienable God-given right to Freedom of Speech). He should be permitted to defend himself (which is unfortunately not the case in Britain these days, as the British government has chosen to violate the inalienable God-given right to own any weapons which a person deems necessary for their defense against all criminals) and to use as much force as he deems necessary against anybody who threatens him (there is no such thing as "excessive" self defense). It is rather sad that everything I'm saying in this comment is not self-evident anymore.