April 15, 2024 - 10:00am
His Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi was murdered in Tokyo. His Italian translator Ettore Capriolo was stabbed in Milan. His Norwegian translator William Nygaard was shot in Oslo. Salman Rushdie had been dreading this day for over 30 years: between 1989 and 1998, he moved houses 30 times to avoid it.
Then, in August 2022, Rushdie was attacked and nearly killed by a young man in the upstate New York town of Chautauqua. The author has a new book out this week, Knife, which recounts what happened and his recovery afterwards. In an episode of CBS’s 60 Minutes aired last night, he was interviewed about the experience by Anderson Cooper.
The attack was a vicious reminder of the death sentence imposed on Rushdie by the savage theocracy of Iran in February 1989 for the alleged crime of writing his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses. He survived, to the relief not just of his friends and family, but also of anyone who thinks novelists should be free to write about controversial subjects without being subject to murderous intimidation.
Rushdie’s conversation with Cooper is his first televised interview since that dreadful summer day. Despite the sombre nature of their conversation, he is still humorous. “One of the surgeons who had saved my life”, he tells Cooper, “said to me first you were really unlucky, then you were lucky.” The lucky part was that “the man who attacked you had no idea how to kill a man with a knife.”
He nevertheless describes the fact he didn’t die as miraculous: “something happened which wasn’t supposed to happen. And I have no explanation for it.”
On the status of free speech in America today, Rushdie — who has lived in New York City since 2000 — tells Cooper that “the attack is coming from so many different directions. It used to be the case that very conservative voices were the places from which you would hear that such and such a book should be banned or is obscene.” But the “thing that’s different now is that it’s also coming from progressive voices. There are progressives saying that certain kinds of speech should not be permitted because it offends against this or that vulnerable group.”
Violence and intimidation still constitute the most severe threats to free speech globally, and should thus be the most vociferously condemned form of censorship. But this does not mean that other threats to freedom of expression should be treated with indifference. What Rushdie says about America also applies to the UK. The new Scottish hate crime law, for example, is an obscenity law by another name; it claims to be in favour of tolerance, but is the very definition of intolerance.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFine words, but unlikely to affect the actions of those who would cancel discussion of inconvenient views. Even if, or perhaps especially, those views are legal.
Yes, a bit of irony that Mr. R would appear on 60 Minutes.
A sobering reminder of what the regime in Tehran has always been like and food for thought (if they had brains) for those who expect Israel to hold themselves to some unimpeachable standard of behaviour while the mad mullahs exact the death penalty willy-nilly across the globe because they don’t like your opinions.
I notice ageing hipster Cat Stevens is playing gigs for his fans again and we’re all supposed to forget that his hands are still somewhat bloody. But bien-pensant lefties will always forgive their own group any shocking behaviour, while screaming blue murder over microaggressions.
Is he calling himself Cat Stevens again. Id really like to know. Because if he is thas significant. Of something. Even if it’s only a greater recognition factor useful for selling tickets. I’d like to know.
It surprised me that the people who compiled the Quran left those verses in there.
It’s suggested (perhaps too kindly) that, using the criteria for embarrassment, the story bolsters Mohammed’s claims to having been a real person and I suppose an authentic one.
However, a more prosaic explanation is that its a case of ‘historic telescoping’ ie, the three goddesses were accepted by the new religion for a time and so their sudden vanishing would have resulted in loss of face. So an allegorical re-telling that accepts their presence and then their removal – after an appropriately short time – was the only path open once it was decided they had to go.
Is he any safer here? Also, I recall that when Rushdie first moved to New York he was very scathing about life in the UK.
Progressivism is a metastasising cancer.
I’ve never read that book. My cousin had a copy but it looked too long and boring. I do actually think the K is a luciferian.knock off. The thing is if I have the right to Free Speech so do the people who deplore me.
I’m actually referring to ME,MYSELF now.
And I’m told that I and they,we all,have NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. I don’t actually agree with that but I comprehend the idea behind it. The trouble is it’s always vile,rude people who say “I.talk straight me,I always say what I think’. They hate it when someone does it back to them. So in my opinion,if you,me,this author,anyone writes,creates or says something that one lot of people find offensive they have to accept that there will be consequences and they shouldn’t do it unless they are brave and fearless enough to face the kick back.
Like J.K Rowling is (different issue). It does help to have money to fund your barrier.