From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:22:10 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <larryd.703141259@milton> larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The amusing thing in the entire Rushdie episode is he spent a good deal
>>>>>>of his time his prior to the Iranian threat expounding on how the
>>>>>>British government was fascist.  I suspect 1) he hasn't endeared himself
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see anything amusing about this. Everyone has a right
>>>>>to the services of their government regardless of whether they
>>>>>voted for them.
>>>
>>>...Services of their government---three full-time, live-in, armed bodyguards
>>>ho ho ho...
>>>
>>Well what would you suggest that the British government does
>>about this unfortunate situation. It is not just a matter of the
>>rights of Rushdie, but a broader principle is involved, that
>>of freedom of speech. I am interested in what you would
>>see as a good solution.
>
>Rushdie is in the position of poking his finger into the eye of
>someone a *lot* meaner and tougher than he is then running to big brother
>and demanding protection.  To some extent, there is nothing wrong with 
>this.  What is irritating about Rushdie is that not only does he wants
>to get his cheap shots in while someone else fights his battles, he
>also wants to take cheap shots at the people he needs to protect him...

I still can't see anything wrong with him critising a government
or a society, and at the same time expecting protection from it.
It may be annoying to the Establishment, but that's all. It
does no harm and surely society's values should be constantly
questioned.

>
>Frankly, the only thing that will help Rushdie is if either the British
>or US threaten to use force and make the threat credible.  Now that isn't
>going to happen.  Anyway, that would be immoral according to you.  From
>Rushdie's point of view, he may well have a problem with no solution
>except maybe they will forget about him after a while.

It certainly looks like it.

>
>What do you suggest we do?  Continue to provide him with round the clock
>bodyguards?  Why should we if these services are not available to *me*?

Yes. I don't see that you need these services, nor would
you want them, as it means living in isolation. I hardly think
that Rushdie is happly living the life he is at the moment.

>Fight a war over it?  Tell them they are naughty and we are going to make
>them stand in the corner?  Do tell "Dave," just what do you suggest we do?
>
I suggest that we apply trade sanctions and cut off communications until
they wake up to the fact that we have the right to freedom
of speech in our countries, and we do not appreciate others interfering

>>>The ironic thing is that you aren't going to get those "services" if
>>>you are not politically connected, or in Rushdie's case, going to be
>>>an embarassment if you get bumped off.  Rushdie spent years telling
>>>and maybe even believing that the British (and US) governments were
>>>uncivilized.  Somewhere along the way, he lost sight of the fact that
>>>there *are* institutionally uncivilized governments.  Now he is in a
>>>pickle and *demanding* protection from a government he claimed was
>>>uncivilized.  Even better yet, he has lately been in the USA trying to
>>>get a little official help with his problem from Uncle Sam.
>
>>Don't you think that all citizens have rights, regardless
>>of their political opinion? In the case of Rushdie and the US,
>>I thought the US was meant to support freedom of speech. Many
>>US writers support Rushdie and would like to see their government
>>make a stand. 
>
>All citizens of the USA do have rights (and responsibilities); something
>you have been trying to deny up until now.  I guess as we sometimes say,
>the wrong ox is getting gored.
>
>I wouldn't mind if Uncle Sam took a hard stand.  We would all be better
>off in the long run.  However, lets look to see what would happen if
>Uncle did something like that.  All the "intellectuals" currently claiming
>that we should do something would immediately start condemnimg the US
>for poking its "imperalistic nose" into other people's business.  "Concerned
>individuals" such as yourself would be demonstrating in front of the US
>embassy and burning US flags in protest.  

Well I don't demonstrate outside US embassies. I disagrred
with those that did during the Gulf War. I think you are
not reading what I say. Why do you think I would demonstrate
outside US embassies?
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.