I was not originally going to pass any comment on the recent and shameful attack upon the author Salman Rushdie. This was primarily for two reasons. First of all, I am aware that my readers do not follow me for my political opinion. My views are frequently at variance to their own and somewhat naive in expression. Secondly and rather more importantly, I wished to avoid accusations of virtue singling, band wagon jumping or whatever phrase is currently in fashion, to describe an inappropriate PR association.
I have never read the works of Salman Rushdie. I read little in the way of modern fiction and his corpus does not attract my interest. That is however, an irrelevance. Whether or not I like or approve of the expressed opinion, work or style of anyone, is not a good enough reason to promote censure. Yet today many feel that their personal disapproval is a valid reason to censure expression. We have today the white-washing or perhaps the black-washing of history, I am unsure of the correct terminology. We are furthermore, witness to the removal of statues and the alleged manifestation of Cultural Marxism.
People frequently declare that censorship is unacceptable, unless the opinion expressed is contrary to their own. Then censorship is strongly advocated, even if such an action is disapproved of by others. We have the most confusing situation of people calling themselves Anti-Fascists, behaving like Fascists; intimidating speakers at events and demanding the removal of books from circulation. It appears that the incongruous irony of such activities, is not fully understood.
My stance on censorship is naive and simplistic. If one doesn’t approve of a play, don’t go to the theatre. If one does not approve of a television show, don’t watch it. If one doesn’t approve of a book, do not read it. If one does not approve of a particular comedian, don’t attend the show. If your politics are contrary to those of a speaker, planning to visit your university or your town, avoid the hustings. In all cases there is one important thread and that is this, one should not prevent others from doing any of the above.
The attack upon Rushdie I find distressing for two reasons. The first is obviously that it was an attempted murder. That alone is an act deserving of the strongest condemnation and it is hoped that the individual responsible, will face the full weight of our civilised justice system. The second reason, is that the attack illustrates the danger of uninhibited and imposed censorship. Whether the attacker felt some personal affront with regards the opinions expressed by Salman Rushdie, is of no importance. The use of violence to impose some form of self-justified censorship or punishment, remains unacceptable.
A civilised and polite society, is built upon laws that maintain a set standard of behaviour. Those laws exist to preserve life and individual freedoms, all within the bounds of a reasonable expectation of state control. Deliberate harm, theft and other crimes, are outlawed in all such societies, whether their origins are Christian, Muslim or other. Civilised states all share a minimum standard of laws, justice and expectations of behaviour, carefully balanced against the need for personal freedoms.
Salman Rushdie does not deserve to have his books banned, his activities circumscribed or his voice silenced. He should be able to travel and speak wherever he wills, without fear or inhibition. His attacker however, fully deserves to have his own freedom of movement carefully controlled and his own living activities severely restricted. The attack upon Rushdie is a sad indictment that even in the twenty-first century, some societies are less civilised than others and that personal freedoms are curtailed. The attack is not only an attack upon an artist, a writer. It is an attack upon free-speech, free-expression and our civilised society.
Daniel Bran Griffith - The Chattering Magpie 
2 thoughts on “Our Civilised Voices”