Brits surprised

Last updated on August 5th, 2017 at 08:17 am

Mark Steyn on revived enthusiasm for grilled Salman:

It’s slightly depressing to read that Her Majesty’s Government were entirely taken aback by the hostile Muslim reaction to their decision to knight Salman Rushdie. One assumed they had factored into their calculations at least a bit of pro forma Death-to-the-Great-Satan prancing in the livelier quartiers of Pakistan – or even, with classic Brit cynicism, figured that enraging hundreds of millions of Muslims over an imperial bauble was a cheap way to look courageous and tough and determined after the recent humiliations inflicted on the Royal Navy.

But no: the whole burning-effigies-of-the-Queen routine took them completely by surprise. It really is impossible to exaggerate the depths of self-delusion within which the multiculti bien pensants exist.

It’s also difficult to exaggerate the historical hypersensitivity of certain people, as Alexander Chancellor recalls:

These troublemakers are not new. They were around in the 1970s when the late Auberon Waugh, in a column in the Times, made a flippant remark about the baggy trousers traditionally worn by some Turkish men, that was deemed to be insulting to Islam. A mob in Rawalpindi, unlikely to have been Times readers, burned down the British Council building, and Waugh lost his column.

Posted by Tim B. on 06/24/2007 at 12:10 PM
    1. It’s slightly depressing to read that Her Majesty’s Government were entirely taken aback by the hostile Muslim reaction to their decision to knight Salman Rushdie. …enraging hundreds of millions of Muslims over an imperial bauble was a cheap way to look courageous and tough and determined after the recent humiliations inflicted on the Royal Navy.

      Perhaps next time they could consult a few Austrailian sailors for the wording of the proclaimation.

      Posted by Apostic on 2007 06 24 at 12:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. Mark Steyn is always fascinating to read.  Alexander Chancellor, on the other hand, seems like a supercilious twit.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 06 24 at 12:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. Another silly and disappointing aspect to this whole kerfluffle is that so many idjits believe that these are honest-to-goodness grass roots uprisings.

      These are highly scripted and choreographed demonstrations coming from centralized command and control with communications disseminated through the mosques.

      Each and every mosque acts much more as a battalion HQ element in an army of jihadi imperial aggression, rather than a center of religious fellowship.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 06 24 at 12:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. The religion of excitable men. It’s the gift that keeps on giving for people who enjoy a really good comedy show.

      Posted by mareeS on 2007 06 24 at 12:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why aren’t the United Kingdom’s other knights defending their knightly breatheren against this Muhammadan tyranny? Surely it is the duty of Sir Branson, Sir Hopkins and Sir Elton John to raise a Crusade against this vicious rabble of infidels. Does knighthood no longer have any meaning!

      Ohh wait it doesn’t, will someone please let the Muslims know this.

      Posted by AussieJim on 2007 06 24 at 01:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. Most of what I have to say about Islam in general and islamic clerics in particular would probably get me banned from this great blog. Still , it would be nice to see governments across the anglosphere show some backbone when it comes to the daily domestic incitement to violence and murder that originate in most mosques…. I think we are doing pretty well outside our borders but the enemy within is a real problem.Arrowhead Ripper…. Hell yeah!

      Posted by greene on 2007 06 24 at 01:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. Not buying the “oops, we had no idea”. Am tipping a Sir Humphrey has read the Beeb story re the colonials showing the Royal Navy how to not get captured (viz point gun at enemy, and say loudly “come and get it camel jockey”), and suggested/decided to restore some pride. Photo of Missus Salman would have sealed the deal -maybe she should be getting an award?

      Posted by Muzza on 2007 06 24 at 01:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. Considering the kinds of things that have already been said about Muslims here, I’d give a purty to examine what you think is worse.

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2007 06 24 at 01:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. May I suggest for Sir today’s blackboard special, the Halal-slaughtered Salman Chateaubriand steak, or will it be American Cheeseburger as usual, Lord Mohammed?

      Posted by splice on 2007 06 24 at 01:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ah! Auberon Waugh. I’ve quoted his war cry before, but it bears repeating, since it could easily serve as the motto of Tim Blair’s blog: “There are countless horrible things happening all over the country, and horrible people prospering, but we must never allow them to disturb our equanimity or deflect us from our sacred duty to sabotage and annoy them whenever possible.”

      Posted by paco on 2007 06 24 at 02:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. The British have a long history of not believing some people mean what they say: 1776, 1914, 1916, 1939, 1948, now 2007…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 06 24 at 05:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. I suggest having Jim Treacher write up the next Muslim-offensive announcement…

      Posted by mojo on 2007 06 24 at 05:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. 4. MareeS, couldn’t agree more about the gift. But I think you mean the religion of excitable child-men.

      then again… when your mommy is kept in a separate part of the house and can’t go out w/out a sack from head to foot, and when women and girl children treat you like a little prince just because you’re male, I guess you would end up wiht a ludicrously overblown sense of self-importance and only the haziest idea what self discipline is.
      Recipe for tantrums, seems to me.

      Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2007 06 24 at 07:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. #12 Mojo,
      I think Treacher’s translation from the Pope’s Latin was a bit loose, but possibly he got the underlying sentiments correctly.  I liked Mark L’s comment about going over to a Commie site and annoying them.  He said it was like clubbing baby seals.

Speaking of Treacher, has anybody heard from Puce lately?  Is he still learning to “red buks” in “Clook country”?

Posted by Michael Lonie on 2007 06 24 at 09:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. Alexander Chancellor considers that “Salman Rushdie should have realised that a knighthood would revitalise his enemies”.

      He probably did, but didn’t care, just as he didn’t care to travel incognito when the fatwa on his life was first declared.

      Following the proclamation of the fatwa, British Airways and the British Government asked him to travel by air under an assumed name but he refused, fully prepared to take a planeload of passengers down with him in those first dangerous years.

      I’ve never forgotten because I was one of those passengers.  At the time, I was scared to death.

      Posted by ann j on 2007 06 25 at 02:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, Slammy probaby realised a knighthood’s useful for getting a good table in a restaurant – right next to the window when the muzzies start throwing bombs. Otherwise, being a Knight Commander of the British Empire (Pakistan excluded of course), doesn’t cut much ice these days.

      Posted by Big Arnie on 2007 06 25 at 05:29 AM • permalink

 

  1. KCBE? I thought she gave the old tit a KG at least…

    Posted by mojo on 2007 06 25 at 12:09 PM • permalink