In defence of Rushdie

For the past couple of weeks there have been some rather specious arguments thrown around on the subject of Mr Salman Rushdie and his gift of a knighthood from the British establishment. People like Jack Marx from The Age and coolsie author Will Self have surprised and disappointed me with their failure to grasp the issues, to put it bluntly*.

So Rushdie, the Indian-born author educated at Rugby and Cambridge, gushingly accepted the knighthood. As a result, predictable old angers were stirred, and there was instant furore, from left and right, in papers like The Guardian and The Age.

The issues commentators seemed to have with his gong fell into one or more of the following categories:

1. His writing isn't worthy of a knighthood.

Come on! If we set aside for a moment (I shall return to it) the notion that a knighthood is nothing more than a reward for political cronyism and that the people who receive this honour are usually a conga-line of suckholes (to poach a phrase from Mark Latham) - it's an award that dozens of deserving and undeserving people receive every year without comment from either the left or the right. It's just a measure of recognition.

So leaving the Queen out of it for a minute - do we really think he is less deserving than Ian Botham? Than Mick Jagger (give me a break!)? Than countless faceless public service drones lining up to kiss arse for the privilege? After all, he's a Booker Prize winner. Artistic merit is subjective, but at least he is an artist and not a sporting 'hero' or a bureaucrat who said the right things in the right ears.

2. As a member of one of Britain's ethnic minorities, he shouldn't be getting into bed with imperialist dogs lest he get fleas.

This is a tricky one. But it is his choice to do so, and it is thoroughly patronising for anyone other than those in the same position who have actually rejected the honour (and there are several) to comment.

3. He is irritating/smug/looks like Garfield/has married a fancy piece and is therefore not a serious author/leftie/human being.

Yes, this about sums up what Jack said in The Age. I have not heard the same accusations levelled at Paul McCartney, Bob Geldof or John Major as reasons for their ineligibility for the prize. And surely all of the above slurs are equally applicable to those guys.

4. He is Indian.

Yes, there are still vile bigots out there in Little Britain who think along these lines. We won't even bother to discuss this, save to say that I feel some concern that some of the commentators who have cited other reasons are using those other reasons as a shroud for basic racism.

5. The big one - he 'insulted' Islam in his 1988 book The Satanic Verses.

The price Rushdie paid for doing this has now gone down in folklore. The Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (effectively a death sentence executed by the faithful, upon whom there is a 'duty' to kill him) against him. Riots and violence in many muslim countries ensued, and Rushdie's Japanese translator was killed and two other translators badly injured. Rushdie himself went into hiding and only re-entered public life in 1998 when Iran made undertakings to the British that it would no longer actively support the fatwa. Many fundamentalists believe the fatwa to be irrevocable, because the person who issued it, being the only person able to withdraw it, has since died.

Those who thought he should not be knighted for this reason fall into one of two subsets - obviously, his religious detractors, who clearly don't believe he should live, let alone receive an award, and secondly, those who fear upsetting the aforementioned group, or believe it is too costly to protect him from the consequences of a reinvigorated fatwa.

Right.

I'm not even going to bother with the 'they probably haven't even read the book' line, because in this case it's almost a guarantee that 99% of those burning effigies of Salman haven't read the book - it was banned in most of the countries where there has been protest. I'm not going to say that he has written plenty of other 'non-controversial' novels to justify his award. Because the people I'm concerned about are not just those who are angry on religious grounds, who will never be placated, but the flippant western columnists who are happy to take pot shots at Rushdie.

These commentators, in a range of publications, have taken the opportunity to extricate themselves from defending Rushdie against worrying attacks (for example, the Pakistani foreign minister saying that the knighthood would 'justify' the actions of suicide bombers - though he later modified this remark) on very flimsy grounds, and I find this despicable.

Freedom of speech for writers, artists, musicians, politicians as well as religious nutters, cronies, monarchists, fish and chip shop owners and yes, even Garfield-lookalikes is fundamental to our society.

The sort of cultural relativism that says that we must edit speech lest it cause offence is patronising to all concerned. Lots of ideas people have are offensive to me, but I don't expect anyone to edit their thoughts around me in case I pop a cap at them!

Religion is based on ideas. As long as attacks on these ideas do not stray into the realm of cultural bigotry and racism, and I agree it is murky territory, then discussion of the merits (or otherwise) of these ideas, and yes, open parody of them (them being the ideas) in art and literature, should be allowed without fear of reprisal. After all, we still live in a secular society, and long may that continue.

Whether you dislike Rushdie's writing or the fact that he's married a hot younger woman or you think he's a hypocrite is entirely irrelevant.

He is worth protecting because the freedom to speak is worth protecting.

End of rant.

*It's mortifying to have to say that I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this one.