LETTERS
Salman Rushdie
Sir: Paul Johnson's article on the Salman Rushdie case ('When the cursing had to stop', 17 June) is based on several factual and logical errors.
He says that the Asian community in Britain 'have proved themselves excep- tionally law-abiding'. Maybe; but it is hardly law-abiding to attempt to suppress a perfectly lawful publication by threats of murder and acts of violence against people and property.
He says the attempts to impose legal censorship of material which offends racial feeling haven't been successful. Maybe; but it is hardly consistent then to argue that such censorship ' should be extended to material which offends religious feelings.
He says that, 'publication of The Satanic Verses has led directly to the creation of more racial hatred in Britain than any other single publication in our history'. Nonsense; he obviously hasn't read the book or followed the case. The Satanic Verses doesn't incite to racial or religious hatred, and what caused all the trouble was not its publication but the deliberate cam- paign first in this country and then around the world by a few Muslim fanatics who objected to Salman Rushdie's treatment of Mohammed and whp then circulated mat- erial containing a few extracts from the book in order to arouse outrage among other Muslims, of whom the overwhelming majority have never read or even seen the book itself and have no idea what it is really about. Mr Johnson says that, `therg may be a case for a particular statute providing penalties for writings and speeches liable to arouse hatred'. Nonsense; there is already the common law of sedition, which has been used for precisely this offence and which is still in force. But the authorities are reluctant to use it because they have difficulty getting juries to convict, because ordinary people are reluctant to suppress free speech for bad reasons. Anyway, in this case the hatred has been aroused not by The Satanic Verses but by its opponents, who should be prosecuted if anyone should.
He says that, 'a compromise should be reached', and the author and publishers, `should now cease to publish the book', and give the profits to the victims of 'the various riots which publication provoked'. Nonsense; this would be not compromise but surrender, and where would it stop? Muslim and other fanatics could suppress any book by similar threats, and Paul Johnson would support this new concept of free speech by riot and assassination.
Anna Freeman
3 Hartwell Grove, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
Previous page
