Did this man deserve a Knighthood??

Zambia

This month Salman Rushdie recieved a Knighthood

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6769671.stm

and for those of you who dont know this is him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

My question is this why on earth in the current climate in the UK did this man get a Knighthood. Not to mention the fact that he did not write anything mind blowing he just insulted people. He did recieve some booker prizes for some of his works. But in his life I see nothing ground breaking , or deserving of such an honour. Until he released the satanic verses no-one really knew him for his work and the book itself was a booker finalist but did not win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_%28novel%29

Iran has called it an insult to them and it has in no way improved there relationship with the west.

So does anyone else think this is just not a good idea?

lostexpectation

well either he was awarded it for pissing of the most people in recent history or his book was a deeply inciteful well studied examination challenge to a culture religion.

Sesshoumaru

I haven't read the book so I can't say how good it is. But I think the Muslim world should mind its own business. It's none of their affair who Britain gives a Knighthood to. This is just another example of islam demanding we in the West do something OR ELSE!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070618/ap_en_ot/pakistan_rushdie_knighthood

"The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title," ul-Haq said.

A Pakistani cabinet minister has already said suicide attacks are now justified. Just wait till Friday prayer ceremony when the imams get a chance to rouse up the mob.

Zambia

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I haven't read the book so I can't say how good it is. But I think the Muslim world should mind its own business. It's none of their affair who Britain gives a Knighthood to. This is just another example of islam demanding we in the West do something OR ELSE!

I can see where your coming from but , if Iran gave an accolade to one of the 7/7 bombers. The response of you should mind your own business would not fly with me.

seamus

Islamic/Muslim extremists again, attempting to tell the rest the world what to do and what to think. How long before they organise mass rallies and book burnings? Oh, wait...

I have no idea if Rushdie deserves a Knighthood. I don't care. In fact, it's none of my business. I live in a different country. It's none of the Islamic extremists' business either.

People have a right to write pretty much whatever they want. If it offends you, you have the right to ignore it. Everyone's happy.

I can see where your coming from but , if Iran gave an accolade to one of the 7/7 bombers. The response of you should mind your own business would not fly with me.

Perhaps it's an idealogical difference, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Honouring someone for attacking another country, and honouring someone who also happened to write a book of his opinions (I understand the honour has nothing to do with "Satanic Verses" at all) are two entirely different things.

RedPlanet

I think it's a fair point to say that others should mind their own business. However i think Iran and muslims generally are probably right to interpret this as a provocative act directed toward them.
And if that is the case, then HMG be damned.

I know that i'd feel pretty hot under the collar if HMG awarded Conor Cruise O'Brien a knighthood for his standing as a UK Unionist Party canidate.

stovelid

While I deplore the bilge emanating from some Muslims about this, it does seem very imprudent to give him a knighthood in the current climate.

seamus wrote:

People have a right to write pretty much whatever they want. If it offends you, you have the right to ignore it. Everyone's happy.

I hear ya and agree. I think the point is that in a security context, it's a bit of a headache.

Edit: rephrased

Glenbhoy

I think the awarding of a knighthood to this man was inflammatory and illjudged - but this thread is not about Tony O'Reilly:D

mike65

If a decision had been made to NOT award the Knighthood for fear of offending Islam then the western world might as well bow towards Mecca.

As for his deserving, I dunno as I hav'nt read any of his books but I understand Midnights Children is considered a modern masterpiece.

Mike.

cavedave

it does seem very imprudent to give him a knighthood in the current climate.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,

Benjamin Franklin

stovelid

Cavedave, so you think archaic, monarchical status symbols are an essential liberty?

Inflaming Muslim opinion for important reasons , for example, enforcing the laws of a secular society like the UK, is one thing.

For a knighthood, it's just a headache for what is, at best, a minor matter.

edit: expanded post

Sesshoumaru

Zambia232 wrote:

I can see where your coming from but , if Iran gave an accolade to one of the 7/7 bombers. The response of you should mind your own business would not fly with me.

An award to a guy who wrote a book or an award to a suicide bomber.... I really don't think you can compare the two no matter how offensive some people think this particular book is. It's not like we are forcing all muslims to sit down and read the book. I'm sure there are plenty of books out there in the world I find offensive. But I don't get all antsy about it, I just don't read them.

cavedave

Cavedave, so you think archaic, monarchical status symbols are an essential liberty?

No the right to insult people is the essential liberty.

Jackie laughlin

I read Midnight's Children and I would have supported a fatwah over that. There, I've just made a joke of Salman Rushdie AND Islam.

Rushdie's novels are longwinded and boring. However, when he writes on democracy, he's spot on. He says it's not for the faint hearted; it's rough and argumentative.

Does he deserve a knighthood for his novels? Probably not. Should he get a knighthood? Yes! It says firmly that we will be free.

A knighthood for the Cruiser? Now, there's an excellent idea; I'm sure it would wire up some of our own mullahs no end. Moreover, he'd be more deserving of it than most Irish ennoblements.

Fratton Fred

does he deserve a Knighthood, then I would say no he doesn't. His books may or may not be good, but I'm pretty sure he did not write them out of the goodness of hs heart, or to help others.

Still, you can get an OBE these days for beating a country a quarter of your size at Cricket for the first time in 20 years:rolleyes:

maybe the award was to get back at Iran for nabbing those sailors a while back.:rolleyes:

fly_agaric

Zambia232 wrote:

I can see where your coming from but , if Iran gave an accolade to one of the 7/7 bombers.

Er, did you actually think before typing that out!:eek:

Zambia232 wrote:

The response of you should mind your own business would not fly with me.

Why not?

Zambia232 wrote:

So does anyone else think this is just not a good idea?

I dunno? Is there really anything the UK could do to please these kinds of Allah-botherer fascist-types who make an issue out of stuff like Rushdie getting knighted? Rushdie today, someother invented "insult to Islam" tomorrow!

stovelid

fly_agaric wrote:

Zambia232 wrote:

I can see where your coming from but , if Iran gave an accolade to one of the 7/7 bombers.

Er, did you actually think before typing that out!:eek:

Sorry if I misunderstood but just because the 'crime' of defaming Islam isn't comparable to that of 7/7 doesn't make it an obsolete analogy.

The comparison is that one state (UK) is being seen to honor somebody for an action that is seen as an outrage by a large section of another state (Pakistan).

To some Muslims, the defamation causes as much outrage as 7/7 does to Britons.

Obviously that seems completely crazy to me (and I guess most people here) but I don't think Zambia was comparing the 2 events.

Trollheart

I think the point here is that if, for some reason, Iran, Pakistan or whoever decided to "knight" or otherwise honour the 7/7 or 9/11 bombers, the West would be very upset, but we wouldn't demand the honour be rescinded, and we definitely would not incite our people to blow themselves up in protest!
Can you spell "extremism"?

Lemming

And so the Danish cartoon furore raises its head again (in different form) ... :rolleyes:

lets not dress this up as anything other than general rampant hysteria. Most muslims haven't even read the book (like most muslims hadn't even seen the bloody Danish cartoons) and have simply been told what they must think.

I'll admit to not having read the book in question or as to whether or not Rushdie is deserving of a knighthood. But then again, most people aren't so into literature that they'd be able to say whether or not they would be familiar with him regardless of what book he released.

Four questions have not been asked here. Four, very important questions.

Yeah? And? So? What?

Mick86

Why shouldn't Mr Rushdie be knighted for his literary talent? He has won many prizes for his books so he has obviously done some service to his craft.

Do Joe Corre and Serena Rees deserve MBEs for setting up a business selling naughty underwear?

Fratton Fred

this is hte same Iran that renamed the street the British embassy is on, Bobby Sands Avenue.

Nope, I'm sure the British government wouldn't want to upset them:rolleyes:

Zebra3

Nobody deserves a knighthood. They're a load of elitist crap.

Zambia

fly_agaric wrote:

Er, did you actually think before typing that out!:eek:

Yes I did and stovelid answered quite well for us.

The pure fact is the UK is holding someone up as being a good example when another society believes they are the Polar opposite.

Its also not a case of bowing to Muslim pressure either as there was no cry from the british public either to have him knighted.

See if he did deserve a knighthood for the likes of Midnights Children well i am sure it could have waited.

As for the mind your own business re-mark we all live on the same planet.

The Corinthian

Mick86 wrote:

Why shouldn't Mr Rushdie be knighted for his literary talent? He has won many prizes for his books so he has obviously done some service to his craft.

I think this is really the point, not what he is 'infamous' for. Indeed, how many of those here have even read one of his books?

Zebra3 wrote:

Nobody deserves a knighthood. They're a load of elitist crap.

It's not everyday you hear something as ill conceived as that, but there you go.

Ireland, AFAIK, is actually the only country in Europe that lacks any honours system to reward citizens who have contributed beyond the normal call of civic duty. That includes republics and even under communism, Warsaw pact countries had such systems. We have honorary doctorates and 'freedom of the city' - both of which are frankly a bit of a joke.

TBH, I'd prefer such an 'elitist' system to the one that we have at present that rewards only meritocracy.

Mick86

Zebra3 wrote:

Nobody deserves a knighthood. They're a load of elitist crap.

That's no longer completely true. The British honours system is also used to recognise the efforts of people who have contributed to society such as those who work for good causes. Like Bob Geldof who might be a gobby pain in the rectum but he did a bit of good for Africa.

Zambia232 wrote:

The pure fact is the UK is holding someone up as being a good example when another society believes they are the Polar pposite.

It's nothing to do with whether he's a good or bad example. The award was presumably for his work in his chosen field. Ina Botham was honoured last week despite the fact that he was the recipient of a positive drug test some years ago. And Teddy Sheringham was also honoured at the same time as he was done for reckless driving or was it speeding.

Zambia232 wrote:

Its also not a case of bowing to Muslim pressure either as there was no cry from the british public either to have him knighted.

The British Public has no say in who is awarded a knighthood.

Zambia232 wrote:

See if he did deserve a knighthood for the likes of Midnights Children well i am sure it could have waited.

If he was to be knighted for that specific book it would have happened years ago.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

It's nothing to do with whether he's a good or bad example. The award was presumably for his work in his chosen field. Ina Botham was honoured last week despite the fact that he was the recipient of a positive drug test some years ago. And Teddy Sheringham was also honoured at the same time as he was done for reckless driving or was it speeding.

Its been said, in his choosen field he was not outstanding or even deliver great service.

Mick86 wrote:

The British Public has no say in who is awarded a knighthood.

True but you missed my piont there was no requirement he be given a knighthood now

Mick86 wrote:

If he was to be knighted for that specific book it would have happened years ago.

Or years in the future..

democrates

What Zebra3 said.

If SR were Irish I'd be against him being lauded with a citizens award. In literary terms fine, he may be awarded by that community for his craftmanship, but in socio-political terms the net impact of his choice in how he used his freedom of speech has not been for the greater good. A hand of friendship, good, a fist of fury, unhelpful.

If someone wanted to improve things they could write a short and very accessible book that asks questions not of Islam itself which is counter-productive, but how and to what extent ordinary muslims can interpret the Koran safely, without misreading what they believe to be the words of Allah and thereby incurring divine wrath. This of course implies a question of those who assume authority in doing so and who encourage some of Allahs children to kill some other children of Allah, which we all are according to the text.

Many imams and spiritual leaders would denounce such a threat to their power positions if independant thought and moderation were to spread. The solution to extremism is difficult, that's unavoidable, and let's not forget the fundamentalist Christians and Zionists, another two books would do well there. "God is on our side" - risky statement to make George unless you got word directly at a Skull and Bones meeting or something...

Sand

Whether Rushdie deserves a knighthood, whether a knighthood is an acceptable form of title in the modern world etc etc are sideline issues. If the UK wish to bestow a knighthood on Rushdie, thats their own business. Not everything has to be run past Mecca first. Those who feel it should be dont deserve to be free tbh.

seamus

stovelid wrote:

The comparison is that one state (UK) is being seen to honor somebody for an action that is seen as an outrage by a large section of another state (Pakistan).

But they're not. The book in question isn't why he's being knighted.

If one of the 7/7 bombers received a Pakistani honour for other contributions he made to their society, I don't think we would have a right to be outraged.

stovelid

seamus wrote:

But they're not. The book in question isn't why he's being knighted.

If one of the 7/7 bombers received a Pakistani honour for other contributions he made to their society, I don't think we would have a right to be outraged.

I was just observing the 'probable equal outrage' on both sides.

I doubt that offended Muslims care what SR is being knighted for. They just see an infidel.

Equally I doubt that Britons care about whatever else terrorists have contributed to their own society outside of their terrorist actions.

If we had a situation where a terrorist clearly associated with 7/7 was up for the Nobel price in science or an similar honor in Pakistan; I'm sure it would cause diplomatic (and public) outrage in Britain, whether they had a right to be outraged or not.

The Corinthian

democrates wrote:

What Zebra3 said.

If SR were Irish I'd be against him being lauded with a citizens award. In literary terms fine, he may be awarded by that community for his craftmanship, but in socio-political terms the net impact of his choice in how he used his freedom of speech has not been for the greater good. A hand of friendship, good, a fist of fury, unhelpful.

In fairness, I don't think Zebra3 is capable of saying anything like that, TBH.

Jackie laughlin

Of course we would be outraged and of course that outrage could and should be forcefully stated. However, if anyone in a free society were to incite or encourage someone to murder, they should be jailed.

Go back to the original Fatwah. Rushdie wrote a book which upset the meglomaniac mullah in the tent, who then called on muslims to kill Rushdie. The former's novels are crushingly boring but relieved by a bit of irreverence while the latter was inciting murder. The gulf between right and wrong could not be wider.

Incidentally, Cat Stevens said on the Late Late Show that he supported the Fatwah and would kill Rushdie if the opportunity arose. I take that he will not be allowed enter this country again. Yes, Cat Stevens uses another name now and yes, I'm being rude. Who wants to reprimand me for being rude about a man who speaks in favour of murder?

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Its been said, in his choosen field he was not outstanding or even deliver great service.

I've never read one of his books so I can't comment.

Zambia232 wrote:

True but you missed my piont there was no requirement he be given a knighthood now......Or years in the future..

What requirement was there to give Ryan Giggs an OBE now? Why not a few years ago when he won his eight Premiership medal or wait until he reaches ten. The committee that decides on these things said that Giggs, the underwear manufacturers, Ian Botham, Teddy Sheringham and Salman Rushdie had all contributed enough to society to merit a civic honour. Why should Salman Rushdie be ignored because he wrote a book which annoyed one man almost twenty years ago?

stovelid wrote:

I doubt that offended Muslims care what SR is being knighted for. They just see an infidel.

Salman is a Muslim. Or at least of a Muslim family.

stovelid wrote:

If we had a situation where a terrorist clearly associated with 7/7 was up for the Nobel price in science or an similar honor in Pakistan; I'm sure it would cause diplomatic (and public) outrage in Britain, whether they had a right to be outraged or not.

Yes I can see crowds outside Canterbury Cathedral on Sunday morning jumping up and down on blazing Pakistani flags and effigies of Musharraf being burnt in the streets. Not likely

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Incidentally, Cat Stevens said on the Late Late Show that he supported the Fatwah and would kill Rushdie if the opportunity arose. I take that he will not be allowed enter this country again. Yes, Cat Stevens uses another name now and yes, I'm being rude. Who wants to reprimand me for being rude about a man who speaks in favour of murder?

Well you haven't been rude enough.:D

democrates wrote:

...but in socio-political terms the net impact of his choice in how he used his freedom of speech has not been for the greater good...
If someone wanted to improve things they could write a short and very accessible book that asks questions not of Islam itself which is counter-productive, but how and to what extent ordinary muslims can interpret the Koran safely, without misreading what they believe to be the words of Allah and thereby incurring divine wrath...

Therein lies a problem. Why should people be afraid to question Islam. People question Christianity all the time. Did the Pope demand the head of Nikos Kazantzakis for his blasphemy? Why shouldn't Rushdie, a Muslim, be allowed question the basis of his religion?

Incidentally an author not allowed interpret the Koran. It is the word of God delivered to Mohammed. God is infallible therefore his word is infallible and not open to interpretation. Which leads us back to the religious nutters who issue the Fatwas.

fly_agaric

Zambia232 wrote:

The pure fact is the UK is holding someone up as being a good example when another society believes they are the Polar opposite.

With respect, making an analogy like that implies a nasty kind of equivalence even if that wasn't what you intended.

Zambia232 wrote:

Its also not a case of bowing to Muslim pressure either as there was no cry from the british public either to have him knighted.

Again with the
If they decided to give it to someone else they would be changing procedures wouldn't they?
Which would be either due to "muslim pressure", or maybe for the good of "their" health...:)

Zambia232 wrote:

As for the mind your own business re-mark we all live on the same planet.

Good point. Thankfully we don't yet have a UN Muslim Sensitivities Council which every country must report to to receive their "approved" list of novelists they can honour without causing "Offence to Islam" ):gasp!:.

Jackie laughlin

Let us applaud irreverence!

stovelid

Mick86 wrote:

Salman is a Muslim. Or at least of a Muslim family.

Apologies, I wasn't aware of that.

Wouldn't they still see him as guilty of apostasy? The point was that protesting Muslims see the 'crime' and not his achievements.

Mick86 wrote:

Yes I can see crowds outside Canterbury Cathedral on Sunday morning jumping up and down on blazing Pakistani flags and effigies of Musharraf being burnt in the streets. Not likely

A bit facetious this.

My point stands: A lot of people in Britain would be offended if a 7/7 terrorist was lauded for achievements in other fields.


I should point out that I'm getting away from my original point here. I don't believe in 'bowing to mecca' (as another poster put it) when enforcing secular law in the UK. However, I just thought a knighthood is hardly a pressing enough matter to spark all this trouble unless of course there is a motive, to wit: to make a political point or to signal the start of a harder line against Muslim protests.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Incidentally, Cat Stevens said on the Late Late Show that he supported the Fatwah and would kill Rushdie if the opportunity arose. I take that he will not be allowed enter this country again. Yes, Cat Stevens uses another name now and yes, I'm being rude. Who wants to reprimand me for being rude about a man who speaks in favour of murder?

:eek:

Don't remember this. What was the response?

Mick86

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Let us applaud irreverence!

Only as long as we are not being irreverent towards Islam. We have an obligation to be tolerant towards them you know because otherwise they'll blow the sh1t out of our transport system.:D

fly_agaric

stovelid wrote:

I was just observing the 'probable equal outrage' on both sides...If we had a situation where a terrorist clearly associated with 7/7 was up for the Nobel price in science or an similar honor in Pakistan; I'm sure it would cause diplomatic (and public) outrage in Britain, whether they had a right to be outraged or not.

But being famous (or notorious) for killing commuters by blowing yourself up is always somewhat worse than being famous (or notorious) for writing a book that píssed alot of people off isn't it? It's not all relative.

In that case it would seem that the British reallly would have more right to their outrage.

Jackie laughlin

I say, "The Prophet is a bollicks!"

If you disagree or are offended, what is an "acceptable" response?

Mick86

stovelid wrote:

My point stands: A lot of people in Britain would be offended if a 7/7 terrorist was lauded for achievements in other fields.

Naturally. But what crime has Salman committed that he should be denied an award for his work?

stovelid wrote:

However, I just thought a knighthood is hardly a pressing enough matter to spark all this trouble unless of course there is a motive, to wit: to make a political point or to signal the start of a harder line against Muslim protests.

So from now on, any award to an author, Booker Prize, Nobel Prize or whatever must only be made having first ensured that the recipient has never written anything that could be construed as an offence against Islam. To be on the safe side he or she had better sign an undertaking not to offend Islam in the future. Jews will naturally be barred from nomination. Oh, and women too. Just in case it offends Islam.

Now I am being facetious but maybe you see the point that Britain does not have to confer with the Mullahs, or even take their feelings into account, before honouring Salman Rushdie. The honour was awarded by a democratic, liberal society to a man who has committed no crime. Why should Britain dilute democracy by allowing Iran or Pakistan dictate to it the basis on which it makes such decisions.

stovelid

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I say, "The Prophet is a bollicks!"

If you disagree or are offended, what is an "acceptable" response?

Ka-boom

Mick86 wrote:

Naturally. But what crime has Salman committed that he should be denied an award for his work?

No crime, only a "crime". We're both agreed on that.

Mick86 wrote:

Why should Britain dilute democracy by allowing Iran or Pakistan dictate to it the basis on which it makes such decisions.

They haven't in this case obviously.

By choosing to award him thus (probably as much a symbolic gesture toward his persecution as an award for his literature) they have made a political point.

fly_agaric

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I say, "The Prophet is a bollicks!"

If you disagree or are offended, what is an "acceptable" response?

On this board, a banning if you happen to be in the Islam Forum.:p

Perhaps this man might be upset also at such an insult?

SeanW

I agree with many of the above posts. The West, and those of us who treasure the values of humanity, must make it very clear that Islamofascism won't be pandered to. Because its a slippery slope.

Zebra3

The Corinthian wrote:

In fairness, I don't think Zebra3 is capable of saying anything like that, TBH.

:rolleyes:

And why's that?

In theory acknowledging the good that someone like Geldof done is commendable, but those systems get abused and he ends up with the same level of acknowledgement as some muppet like Beckham or below someone who made huge donations to the political party who were in power for a certain length of time.

As I said earlier, a load of elitist crap.

Mick86

stovelid wrote:

By choosing to award him thus (probably as much a symbolic gesture toward his persecution as an award for his literature) they have made a political point.

What political point? Honouring a writer who insulted Islam twenty years ago is just too obscure a means of making a political point. Besides which the people who rule Iran and Pakistan don't give a damn about Rushdie. He's just a convenient means of keeping the peasants on the boil over mythical insults to Islam. It's not like the Iranians are going to get all depressed over this and shut down the nuclear weapons program or the Pakis close down all their terrorist academies. Bombing Baghdad is making a political point. Giving a boring bstard an OBE is just blowing up his ego. Pun intended.

The Corinthian

Zebra3 wrote:

And why's that?

I'd tell you, but it might be interpreted as personal abuse by a moderator.

In theory acknowledging the good that someone like Geldof done is commendable, but those systems get abused and he ends up with the same level of acknowledgement as some muppet like Beckham or below someone who made huge donations to the political party who were in power for a certain length of time.

As I said earlier, a load of elitist crap.

Suggesting that something is good in theory but prone to abuse is not the same as calling it 'elitist crap'. The former is a fair comment, the latter is a juvenile one.

stovelid

Mick86 wrote:

What political point? Honouring a writer who insulted Islam twenty years ago is just too obscure a means of making a political point.

Although the SV is 20 years old, a lot more bad 'US/UK axis'-Muslim world water has gone under the bridge since 1988. It must have crossed the minds of the UK establishment that awarding SR would go down badly with some Muslims. They went ahead and awarded him anyway. It's reasonable to assume that they were making a point, however minor.

Mick86 wrote:

Besides which the people who rule Iran and Pakistan don't give a damn about Rushdie. He's just a convenient means of keeping the peasants on the boilover mythical insults to Islam.

I personally don't know these leaders enough to say for sure that they are careerist apostates who are "keeping the peasants on the boil" TBH.

Mick86 wrote:

Bombing Baghdad is making a political point. Giving a boring bstard an OBE is just blowing up his ego. Pun intended.

Nope, bombing Bagdhad is making a political point militarily. There are others ways of making a political point.

As for the boring bstard bit. I tried to get into his books and never understood the fuss so mmmm

Anyway, this is getting circuitous and I'm not going to be the Islamic bad cop in this argument

My original point was only that the UK are correct to insist that Muslim citizens abide by secular laws but that this minor issue was always going to cause a lot of grief. Especially as much harder decisions will probably be made down the line regarding fundamentalists in the UK.

cavedave

Ok it is money where your mouth is time

I am of the opinion that people should not care that some criminals are going to riot over Salman Rushdie.

But now there is a new "love ulster" march planned am I willing to allow this in spite that some criminals will likely try smash up the city centre? I am but I do not own a shop/work in the Dublin city centre so it is easy for me to be brave.

Can anyone else see an equivelance between honouring Salman Rushdie and allowing a "love Ulster" march in terms of the likely outcome of each?

stovelid

cavedave wrote:

Can anyone else see an equivelance between honouring Salman Rushdie and allowing a "love Ulster" march in terms of the likely outcome of each?

I refuse to answer this until we verify if SR is a taig or prod apostate...

SeanW

Yes. The Love Ulster people should be allowed to march. But this time with the Army on standby in case another horde of thugs show up to ransack the city centre.

Last time around there were only minimal preparations for trouble. In addition, the City Council was called on to remove loose bricks from the O'Connell St. regeneration works, and other work sites in the City Centre. But instead gates, boards, bricks and other construction supplies (ammunition) was left lying around for the mob to use.

The last time the Love Ulster parade attempted their lawful march, the authorities were caught with their trousers down. That mistake should not be repeated.

Make no mistake - Islamofascism is insidious. And Islamofascist terrorists don't need a reason to murder people and bomb things. Just excuses that get used for propoganda.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote:

:rolleyes:

And why's that?

In theory acknowledging the good that someone like Geldof done is commendable, but those systems get abused and he ends up with the same level of acknowledgement as some muppet like Beckham or below someone who made huge donations to the political party who were in power for a certain length of time.

As I said earlier, a load of elitist crap.

I agree with some of what you say, the England Cricket team being given OBEs for winning the Ashes in my opinion, made a mockery of the honours system. But, An old neighbour of mine, a widow in her sixties, had been running the local Netball league for around 40 years. She did this out of a love of the game and out of a love for her community. She tried to get a Muslim team, not because she wanted more Muslim's playing, but because she could see that Muslim girls were, geneally speaking, unable to integrate because of their family's values. She did all this for no reward, but was, quite rightly, awarded an OBE two years ago.

To say that the honours are "Elitist Crap" is very disrespectful to a country's recognition system that more often than not, recognises the little person, it's just that the afore mentioned recipient does not make the headlines.