Gotta make a run for that book.

Posted by: allat at February 6, 2007 6:44 PM

It's not just a matter of "offending religion" - it's one particular religion.

Which gives me an excuse to repost this, because it's not just in Egypt:

First read this (I've posted it before, but remind yourself anyway):

"" U. K. Government: Islamic Propaganda.
Statements [1] and [2] below are taken from a U. K. Government document - "How journalists can contribute to community cohesion".

Section [1] basically advises journalists that any one who opposes Islamic extremists should be portrayed by the media as racist and accused of hiding behind a cloak of respectability while Section [2] advises journalists to conceal the statements and actions of Islamic extremists from the public.

The document also contains threats of criminal prosecution in the event of a media group or journalist that has been deemed not to have acted in the interests of "community cohesion".

“A journalist will be guilty of an offence if he or she intends to stir up racial hatred or, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up by what is published.”

U. K. Government: Islamic Propaganda.
[1] Expose and counter racist propaganda. Bigots who hide behind a cloak of respectability can be the most damaging. Make sure they are always drawn into the open and their words never go unchallenged.

[2] Take care in reporting extremists. Generally quote people who are representative. Be wary of those with views that might make good copy but to most people seem extreme. Though it is sometimes essential to quote such extremists, be sure to place their views in the context of the numbers they might represent. Be aware of creating negative images. Minorities carry the burden of being different. Don’t make them synonymous with the things that worry everyone, like terrorism, subjugation of women, forced marriage, illegal immigration, fraudulent benefits claims and cruel animal slaughter. Few are. ""

And here's the original document:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/401/ReportingDiversity_id1502401.pdf

Then go and read this.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/02/preparing_for_w.html

!! Que??

Maybe I'm just paranoid?

Some people are having difficulties with Blogger (and anti-Muslim films are getting removed from YouTube - recently taken over by Google).

Regarding difficulties with postings and with comments on Blogger, I personally find that it's only anti-muslim and other 'anti' type political sites.

It's noticable that these problems only started when Google took over Blogger.

And Google has already shown itself to be totally craven when subjected to political pressure ...

Naah ... really ... I'm just paranoid. Dib dib :)

The uk bit above originally came from this blog. Apologies.

http://4symbols.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C97D2C379282BFB3!772.entry

I once read her account of how they came to do the razor blade job on her when she was eight. I've got a lot of time for Nawal el Saadawi. She's been through the mill.

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at February 6, 2007 7:39 PM

1) "We decided to remove the book, titled God Resigns in the Summit Meeting by writer Nawal Al Saadawi, from the shelves once we learnt it offends religion," said Mahmoud Madbouli, who runs a publishing house in Cairo.”

2) “Madbouli, who has already published a dozen books penned by Saadawi, said apologetically: "We do not normally read all the books we publish. But on learning that Saadawi's book, which takes the form of a play, offended readers' religious sensitivities, we decided to withdraw it."

So which is it - "Offends religion?" or "Offend[s] readers' religious sensitivities"?

Those are 2 very different things. If it's the first - that it "offends religion", then let the claimant call for "religion" to step forward and express its distress, it's testimony of offense before the world. Hmmm...no returned phone calls...

So it must be #2 - the book didn’t actually offend “religion” but rather offended "readers' religious sensitivities".

For a start, these reports from the Muslim world have to stop using meaning number 1 and progressives in the Muslim world ought to call them on that and force them to focus only on meaning #2. In doing so, now they would be focusing on "reader's sensitivities" – the sensitivities of real concrete people. That would be a start.

From there they need to focus then on the "sensitivities” of readers who are offended by not having access to points of view which they want to read. Why are the "sensitivities" of "readers" who want to read a book any less important than the sensitivities of those who don't want to read a book? Since it has now come down NOT to the sensitivities of a "religion" but to the sensitivities of "readers", the sensitivities of those who want to read the book are now in direct conflict only with the sensitivities of those who do not want to read the book. It’s now a person- to- person issue as opposed to a person against this monolithic “sensitivity of a religion” thing.

So in a person- to- person sensitivity case, who has the better case? Obviously it’s the sensitivities of those who want to read the book and will be offended if they cannot read it, as the sensitivities of those who would be offended by reading it can be protected merely if they choose NOT to read the book while the sensitivities of those who desire to read the book can only be protected in one way - IF the book is actually published.

Posted by: Caroline at February 6, 2007 7:46 PM

"We decided to remove the book, titled God Resigns in the Summit Meeting by writer Nawal Al Saadawi, from the shelves once we learnt it offends religion,"

My goodness, how fragile Islam is if it can be offended by a book, written by a woman. If it can be offended by a book written by a woman, it can be defeated by men and women willing to stand against it.

All we have to do is get over our fear of offending the easily offended.

Posted by: USBeast at February 6, 2007 9:58 PM

Slightly offset (on topic)
but it's hilarious

first, go to:

We Don’t Need No Obscuration

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

then go to:

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/burqa_queen/

Posted by: allat at February 6, 2007 10:47 PM

Where are the feminists--ONCE AGAIN!

There is no condemnation of Islam's treatment of women by the 'liberated" modern woman of the West.

Does multiculturalism overshadow their feminist beliefs? Or maybe they simply find Burkas fashionable.

Posted by: genevieve at February 6, 2007 11:48 PM

...The Muslims should have the option of just not buying the book....There are many books published today that contain material I disagree with, I choose not to buy it...

....Maybe Muslims cannot make decisions like that...They prefer to have someone else make decisions for them....

...Islam is a great religion for those inclined not to use their brain.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 7, 2007 6:37 AM