‘The Satanic Verses’

Press, 1 March 1989, Page 20

‘The Satanic Verses’

Sir, —I wonder how many of the thousands of violent protesters against “The Satanic Verses” have read the book and formed a judgment? None, I suspect, since the book is banned in Muslim countries. It follows, therefore, that the riots were orchestrated on the say-so of a handful of people in power. This, I think, is the most alarming aspect of this amazing drama, reminiscent of the crowd frenzy whipped up by Hitler — and demonstrates the ease with which passionate responses can be manipulated.—Yours, etc.,

JANET E. I. RICHARDSON. February 26, 1989.

Sir, —One cannot defend what Bill Stringer and others have criticised as Mr Lange’s unfortunate initial attitude by appealing to possibly similar cynical or callous actions by other governments. Two wrongs do not make a right. Nor is it very helpful to note that New Zealand, like Iran, has already demonstrated a readiness to compromise morally for financial or political advantage, as in the Rainbow Warrior affair. What has been very positive and encouraging has been the eventual condemnation of the Iranian incitement to murder by so many countries, including New Zealand. In this we can see the upholding of a noble Christian teaching against an extreme and militant branch of Islam. We may all be tempted to not take a stand against immorality if we fear consequent loss. Islam is powerful and aggressive, possibly the greatest threat to Christian civilisation world-wide. More is at stake than Salman Rushdie’s life. —Yours, etc.,

JOHN D. CANHAM. February 26, 1989.

Sir, —The controversy over the book by Salman Rushdie has highlighted the fundamental differences in values between those of Muslim fundamentalists and those of our society. I am concerned by the failure of the New Zealand Government to state clearly its attitude towards the position espoused by Muslim fundamentalists. The Government ought to have stated that New Zealanders support the rights of authors to create works of literature even though such works will often offend. They also should have made it quite clear that New Zealand considers it offensive and barbaric that leaders should advocate using violence and murder to resolve their difficulties with

others holding different values. I wish to live in a society where people attempt to protect their values by communication and not murder. Unfortunately, in this world people choose not to share my secular values. Fortunately, in this world religious fundamentalists also find that people refuse to share their values.—Yours, etc., (DR) GARTH RITCHIE. February 25, 1989.

Sir, —A number of governments have been very quick to take action regarding trade with Iran in the light of the recent death threat from Ayatollah Khomeiny. However, these same countries seem very reluctant to impose any kind of sanctions against South Africa, where people are dying every day in an effort to end the brutal system of apartheid. Why does one person command so much respect from the international community when thousands of people who are being tortured and denied basic human rights do not?— Yours, etc.,

YVONNE HOLMES. February 23, 1989.

Sir, —Having despaired at recent confused press and radio reactions to Mr Lange’s ill-con-sidered utterances on the subject of Mr Rushdie’s book, “The Satanic Verses,” I found it a refreshing change to read Friday's “Press” editorial, which was a well-balanced and succinct approach to this matter. Regardless of attempts by Mr Moore and others to cloud the issue by a xenophobic smokescreen, the culprit is clearly Mr Lange. As usual, it is not so much what was said, but the manner in which he said it. Mr Lange makes many intemperate remarks, including his famous invitation to teachers in a school playground, who had happened to raise his ire. They made brief domestic headlines. Translated to the international scene, they can prove disastrous. Mr Tizard could have told him this. To a nation vitally dependant on international trade, we can ill afford to be represented by leaders whose feet are permanently in their respective months. — Yours, etc., CHARLES W. SIMPSON. February 25, 1989.

Sir,—Past meddling in Iran’s affairs produced a regime many disliked. Then international cowboy Reagan and his side-kick, Thatcher, spread that problem into a force most people fear. It is ludicrous that New Zealand is being castigated over fall-out from author Rushdie’s book when our present Government has been at least party to developing, provoking, and condoning threats from militant Islam. That some British politicians should try and pass the blame to us for their self-inflicted problems is understandable. What surprises is that we still have politicians performing the role of yapping lap-dog for the worst leaders suffered by modem Western civilisation.—Yours, etc.,

M. BURKE. February 25, 1989.

Sir, —So the Brits, the Common Market and the United States are upset because of the attitude of the New Zealand Government over the Iran murder threat on Rushdie. Where were these same countries when the French committed murder in New Zealand not too many years ago? Were diplomtic relations broken off with France? Were trade embargoes put into place? Right. So we might currently have a woolly headed, naive and gullible Government (even though it acts tough on a patheti- —

cally lethargic populace), but that is no reason why other countries like the N.A.T.O. group should be so hypocritical. In many respects I agree that Iran is wrong in its stance because it is against Christian principles. But is it worse than the Rainbow Warrior affair — an act by Christians on Christians? — Yours, etc.,

A. W. INTEMANN. February 23, 1989.