All entries by this author

Rod Liddle Goes After the Blame Rushdie Crowd *

Jun 22nd, 2007 | Filed by

While the rest of us were still worrying about the Cold War, Rushdie was warning us about the war yet to come.… Read the rest

More ‘Rushdie Should Have Refused’ Nonsense *

Jun 22nd, 2007 | Filed by

Repuation in the media, ingratitude, entitled to decline the honour, surprised he didn’t, eh, what?… Read the rest

New ex-Muslim Group Speaks Out *

Jun 22nd, 2007 | Filed by

Inayat Bunglawala comments: ‘We’re not taking them seriously.’ Back atcha, dude.… Read the rest

Okinawa Protests Change to Textbooks *

Jun 22nd, 2007 | Filed by

Furious reaction to government plans to revise textbook accounts of army activities during WW II. … Read the rest

Rod Liddle on Rushdiephobia

Jun 22nd, 2007 11:59 am | By

Gorgeous. Someone gets it.

The decision to knight the author Salman Rushdie has brought together, in angry concordat, almost the entire world…Rushdie is loathed — and not just by the mediaevally minded bigots of Islamabad, Tehran and the Finsbury Park mosque. He seems to be loathed by everyone else, too. No sooner had his knighthood been announced than the British Right waded into attack….We give him expensive police protection when the mad mullahs order his death and he repays us by continuing to speak his mind. Beneath all this is the usually unspoken intimation of racism: Salman — well, he’s a darkie, isn’t he? A chippy little wog. Comes from Bombay or Mumbai or somewhere ghastly like that…The British

Read the rest

Sympathy for the community

Jun 21st, 2007 5:37 pm | By

More sinister crap.

Jack Straw today sympathised with the hurt feelings of the Muslim community over the knighthood awarded to the author Salman Rushdie – and disclosed that he too is no fan of Sir Salman’s writing.

Ah – he too. He too like…? He too like Ijaz ul-Haq who thinks strapping on a bomb is the right response to novels one is not a fan of? He too like Khomeini who thought novelists who write novels unworthy of fandom should be murdered forthwith? Is that what Straw meant? If not, what did he mean? Well, maybe nothing, since maybe it was the reporter who put it that way. But why say it at all? An effort to throw … Read the rest

Starving Children Found in Baghdad Orphanage *

Jun 21st, 2007 | Filed by

Emaciated children lying on the floor, some tied to cribs; food and clothing in storeroom.… Read the rest

Beckett ‘Sorry’ if Some Muslims are Offended *

Jun 21st, 2007 | Filed by

Spoke hours after John Reid said Britain would not apologise to whiners from across ‘the Muslim world.’ … Read the rest

No Intention of Apologizing *

Jun 21st, 2007 | Filed by

Life of Brian ‘offended’ people too; so what.… Read the rest

Johann Hari Notes: Rushdie is not the Criminal *

Jun 21st, 2007 | Filed by

Left and right, people have reacted by blaming Rushdie for being the victim of wannabe-murderers. … Read the rest

BBC on Council of ex-Muslims *

Jun 21st, 2007 | Filed by

All scare-quotes and sneers.… Read the rest

Rushdie has time to reconsider, BBC points out

Jun 20th, 2007 1:55 pm | By

This is the worst yet. Tendentious manipulative hostile language in every line. It defies belief. The damn BBC seems to be convinced that Rushdie committed a crime.

Salman Rushdie’s knighthood has provoked protests around the Islamic world and a diplomatic row. So how was the decision made, and why did no-one appear to consider the consequences?

See? There it is again – the knighthood ‘provoked’ protests. No it fucking didn’t – some mindless zealots and some political thugs keen to distract attention from their own real malfeasance decided to make a fuss; Salman Rushdie’s knighthood didn’t provoke anything. And what does ‘consider the consequences’ mean? Predict that mindless zealots would blow their tops again and that therefore an … Read the rest

Honours Committee Surprised by Fuss *

Jun 20th, 2007 | Filed by

Hari Kunzru: ‘The real insult is to the intelligence and decency of “the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims”.’… Read the rest

Bunglawala Rejects Book Burning but not Fatwa *

Jun 20th, 2007 | Filed by

‘If we were not treated with respect then we were capable of forcing others to respect us’ – thanks to fatwa.… Read the rest

Michael White Talks Even Worse Nonsense *

Jun 20th, 2007 | Filed by

Sinister mixture of sneering and crawling, both aimed at the wrong targets.… Read the rest

Oliver Kamm on the Tyranny of Moderation *

Jun 20th, 2007 | Filed by

The notion that free speech was an ethnocentric imposition on other cultures has developed mightily.… Read the rest

Oliver Kamm on Rushdie *

Jun 20th, 2007 | Filed by

‘The last thing we should do is accept the terms in which religious obscurantists seek to frame this issue.’… Read the rest

Patronizing Clueless Dreck About Rushdie *

Jun 20th, 2007 | Filed by

‘Bad on Whitehall for not spotting the trouble it might do to British-Muslim relations at this delicate time.’… Read the rest

More lefthand dreck

Jun 20th, 2007 11:19 am | By

Next round of sinister crap. (Who is this Michael White? Why have I never heard of him before? Why have none of you pointed him out to me before? He certainly seems obvious enough.)

So who is to blame for the latest blow to the fragile relations between Britain and two key Muslim states 19 years after The Satanic Verses earned its author that fatwa from Iran?

Isn’t that cute? Isn’t that just adorable? Someone is to blame for Rushdie’s gong; it is blow to the fragile relations between Britain and two key Muslim states; Rushdie’s novel earned its author that fatwa. That’s a lot of nasty stuff for one sentence.… Read the rest


Jun 20th, 2007 11:05 am | By

Man, there’s a lot of sinister crap out there today. From Bunglawala for instance, on his way to disavowing book-burning.

The Thatcher government had banned Peter Wright’s Spycatcher and had gone to court to prevent its distribution. Surely, Rushdie’s novel, which had caused such offence to hundreds of millions of believers, deserved a similar fate?

The Thatcher government didn’t ban Spycatcher because it ’caused such offence’ to anyone. That’s not to say it had good reasons, it’s just to say it had different ones. Much more to the point, what on earth does he mean, ’caused such offence to hundreds of millions of believers’? ‘Such’ as what, exactly? What ‘such’ does he have in mind? He must know … Read the rest