In the 30 years since the fatwa by Iran, Western media has embraced the postmodernist idea that “offensive words are violence”. As well, progressives (who run every major media outlet) now claim that any non-white person who claims to be offended must be believed.
This combination makes it it’s very hard for them to condemn the Ayatollahs for their fatwa. They can condemn the attack, but only by ignoring the motive. After all, journalists broadly support “cancel culture”, and a fatwa murder is really just an extreme form of cancellation. Once you’ve decided it’s acceptable to socially ostracize and economically ruin those who disagree with you, that imprisoning people for their beliefs is acceptable, the step to murder is far smaller than most progressives realize.
Thankfully, it appears Rushdie will survive, but he will be scarred for the remainder of his life (and I don’t mean psychologically.) I suspect there will be many journalists who would say “he brought it on himself by being offensive”. And that’s a pitiful indictment of their occupation and class.
These days ‘motive unknown’ serves as media code for ‘Islamic jihad’.
Last edited 1 year ago by Michael James
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago
And after handing that deal over to Iran, Biden was clueless enough to go beg Saudi Arabia to increase its oil output! <face-palm>!!
Vijay Kant
1 year ago
The New York Times probably believes that Salman Rushdie is an Islamophobe!
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Yes, indeed.
I for one am disgusted that the Guardian is condemning the attempted assassination. It likes to have it both ways: on the one hand claiming that words are violence, and on the other hand, condemning violence in response to words.
It should at the very least have the self honesty to be consistent with its theme of “words are violence” and claim that Rudhdie had it coming to him.
The level of self delusion and double-think required to believe that words are violence and then, at the same time, imagine you are simultaneously on the side of Rushdie when your wishes are implemented, is completely mad, but also completely unsurprising.
It seems that only some words are violence – well reasoned, thoughtful pieces by Rowling or Stock, or classic literature for example – whereas actual death/rape threats and fatwas are not considered so.
Martin Smith
1 year ago
Rushdie is an embarassment to the globalists. Didn’t you know? They find Islam a useful weapon to undermine western culture, and they’re scared of it too. Hadn’t you noticed? How many more times does it have to be rehearsed?
Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Smith
Derek Smith
1 year ago
‘Compare the American press’s muted reaction to the Rushdie stabbing to its response to the October 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi by agents of the Saudi state, which received wall-to-wall coverage for more than a month and prompted the city of Washington, D.C.. to rename the street in front of the Saudi embassy “Jamal Khashoggi Way.”‘
The main difference is not geopolitics, but that Jamal Khashoggi was a journalist. Journalists always get upset when one of their own is killed, because they think of themselves as a uniquely worthy bunch, because ‘freedom of the press’.
Khashoggi seems to have been a nasty piece of work. And of course, so was that hero of the World’s Left, George Floyd.
Obviously that is no reason or excuse for either of them to be murdered. If the latter really was.
But we should also remember that Rushdie is a deservedly famous author whose books will likely still be read in a hundred years. (If our craven nincompoop leaders haven’t managed to supress them.)
Khomeini’s Little Green Book may also still be read, by historians trying to puzzle out one of the first big steps in our Beloved Leaders’ cowardly and venal attempts to destroy the West, by facilitating this 7th Century crackpot to take over Iran.
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Let’s just keep focusing on the spec in your eye, whilst ignoring the plank in mine. – U.S. Media
Richard Powell
1 year ago
Not just the US media. Two days ago the Financial Times published Simon Schama’s essay “Salman Rushdie and the sacred right to irreverence” which majored on the role of the US religious right without once mentioning Iran.
In the 30 years since the fatwa by Iran, Western media has embraced the postmodernist idea that “offensive words are violence”. As well, progressives (who run every major media outlet) now claim that any non-white person who claims to be offended must be believed.
This combination makes it it’s very hard for them to condemn the Ayatollahs for their fatwa. They can condemn the attack, but only by ignoring the motive. After all, journalists broadly support “cancel culture”, and a fatwa murder is really just an extreme form of cancellation. Once you’ve decided it’s acceptable to socially ostracize and economically ruin those who disagree with you, that imprisoning people for their beliefs is acceptable, the step to murder is far smaller than most progressives realize.
Thankfully, it appears Rushdie will survive, but he will be scarred for the remainder of his life (and I don’t mean psychologically.) I suspect there will be many journalists who would say “he brought it on himself by being offensive”. And that’s a pitiful indictment of their occupation and class.
The step to murder is dangerously smaller for sure! But, apparently, it’s the right that is supposedly a danger to democracy.
Why is the American press letting Iran off the hook?
The Rushdie attack is inconvenient for the Biden administration
Your sub-headline exactly answers your headline.
These days ‘motive unknown’ serves as media code for ‘Islamic jihad’.
And after handing that deal over to Iran, Biden was clueless enough to go beg Saudi Arabia to increase its oil output! <face-palm>!!
The New York Times probably believes that Salman Rushdie is an Islamophobe!
Yes, indeed.
I for one am disgusted that the Guardian is condemning the attempted assassination. It likes to have it both ways: on the one hand claiming that words are violence, and on the other hand, condemning violence in response to words.
It should at the very least have the self honesty to be consistent with its theme of “words are violence” and claim that Rudhdie had it coming to him.
The level of self delusion and double-think required to believe that words are violence and then, at the same time, imagine you are simultaneously on the side of Rushdie when your wishes are implemented, is completely mad, but also completely unsurprising.
It seems that only some words are violence – well reasoned, thoughtful pieces by Rowling or Stock, or classic literature for example – whereas actual death/rape threats and fatwas are not considered so.
Rushdie is an embarassment to the globalists. Didn’t you know? They find Islam a useful weapon to undermine western culture, and they’re scared of it too. Hadn’t you noticed? How many more times does it have to be rehearsed?
‘Compare the American press’s muted reaction to the Rushdie stabbing to its response to the October 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi by agents of the Saudi state, which received wall-to-wall coverage for more than a month and prompted the city of Washington, D.C.. to rename the street in front of the Saudi embassy “Jamal Khashoggi Way.”‘
The main difference is not geopolitics, but that Jamal Khashoggi was a journalist. Journalists always get upset when one of their own is killed, because they think of themselves as a uniquely worthy bunch, because ‘freedom of the press’.
Khashoggi seems to have been a nasty piece of work. And of course, so was that hero of the World’s Left, George Floyd.
Obviously that is no reason or excuse for either of them to be murdered. If the latter really was.
But we should also remember that Rushdie is a deservedly famous author whose books will likely still be read in a hundred years. (If our craven nincompoop leaders haven’t managed to supress them.)
Khomeini’s Little Green Book may also still be read, by historians trying to puzzle out one of the first big steps in our Beloved Leaders’ cowardly and venal attempts to destroy the West, by facilitating this 7th Century crackpot to take over Iran.
Let’s just keep focusing on the spec in your eye, whilst ignoring the plank in mine. – U.S. Media
Not just the US media. Two days ago the Financial Times published Simon Schama’s essay “Salman Rushdie and the sacred right to irreverence” which majored on the role of the US religious right without once mentioning Iran.