Longrider

I am not in favour of book burning because I am aware of the underlying anti-knowledge motivations behind such activities. And it is this that Anshuman A Mondal refers to in his CiF article on the Qu’ran burning story that has been stirring up the media and politicos this past few days.

This is where it gets interesting, because it highlights the ways in which misinterpretation can complicate cultural relations, and burning books is now part of a globalised idiom of protest that has undergone several mis-translations.

In effect, it has moved from destroying learning that is deemed unacceptable, to a protest similar to the burning of effigies and flags – symbolism. It’s a very juvenile practice carried out by intellectual pygmies who have no other way of expressing their hatred for whatever it is they are irked about and is best ignored. Still, it works for the mad mullahs. After all, the managed to get a crowd of people who had probably never heard of David Cameron to come out on the streets and burn an effigy of him.

The obvious precedent is the burning of The Satanic Verses in Bradford, which precipitated Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa.

My point made, I think…

Anyway;

This was read by western commentators as a reprise of Nazi book-burnings, thereby indelibly associating in the liberal western imagination a relationship between Islam, fascism and totalitarianism.

A resonable association, frankly. Given who was doing the burning, it was a logical interpretation – although at the time, I took it to mean they didn’t like that particular book and the person who wrote it. They had a point – it was a badly written, dreadful book.

This was, however, a mistaken reading on at least two counts: firstly, there is no equivalence between mass book burnings organised by a powerful state and a street demonstration by marginalised working-class ethnic minority communities desperate to draw attention to their grievance when all previous attempts had failed (notwithstanding the role of Islamist organisations in stoking them up).

Ah, right, so it was a minority group desperate to draw attention to their grievances, eh? Well, in that case, surely a minority Christian church drawing attention to their grievances is no different? Sauce for the goose and all that.

Oh, no, it appears not.

I notice that there has been an outpouring of condemnation from politicians who talk of respect and similar drivel in the wake of Terry Jones’ announcement of his plans for a 9/11 celebration. If celebration is the right word.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the church’s plan was “disrespectful and disgraceful”.

…

And the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, called the idea “idiotic and dangerous”.

Today on the BBC news there was talk of disrespect and sacred texts as if this makes a difference, somehow. There is no obligation on any of us to respect someone else’s belief system. They can believe what they like, but to expect others to respect it is an ask too far. Although the idiotic and dangerous comment is probably not too far from the truth.

What we have here is one rather silly man about to poke a stick into a very large hornet’s nest full of very, very pissed off hornets with a massive inferiority complex and everyone else can see what he is about to do. The rank hypocrisy going on is that if someone was to burn a pile of bibles, there would be some tut-tutting in the half-empty pews, but no fatwas, no jihad, no beheadings, no suicide bombings; indeed no violent response, merely some pursed lips and frowns of disapproval. So let’s be open and honest about this; Terry Jones is going to deliberately provoke the religion of peace and the apologists are trying to distance themselves because they can see the shit-storm that will follow. If it was the other way around, I suspect we would hear nothing, not a peep.

A little bit of me almost admires this latest contender for the Darwin awards – although I suspect he wouldn’t approve…

————————————-

The Nameless Libertarian takes a slightly less facetious position.

Vladimir comments on yesterday’s story about the HMRC plans to nationalise pay packets. His gist being, don’t panic, it’s a leak to gauge the likely reaction. They ran it up the flagpole and watched to see who saluted as the old cliché goes.

Well, I guess the reaction has been well and truly gauged…