Malik takes issue with some of the British left’s handling of the Salman Rushdie (wikipedia) affair:
“It has now become widely accepted that we live in a multicultural world, and that in such a world it is important not to cause offence to other peoples and cultures.”
There is an important difference between having problems with the Muslim world, and having problems with your own society’s conflicted views of the Muslim/outside world (I think Malik means the intellectually adrift, culturally relativistic, identity politicking left).
He argues that 3 myths persist:
“The first myth is that the controversy over Rushdie’s novel was driven by religion. It wasn’t. It was a political conflict.”
“The second myth is that all Muslims were offended by The Satanic Verses.”
“The third myth lies in the perception of the anti-Rushdie campaigners as male, middle-aged, poorly educated, badly integrated…”many, equally, were young, left-wing, articulate, educated, integrated.”
and his main conclusion:
“So why were these people drawn to the anti-Rushdie campaign? Largely because of disenchantment with the secular left, on the one hand, and the institutionalisation of multicultural policies on the other.”
Is it the current excesses of the left and British society (classical liberalism lost in the shuffle?) or something deeper? There’s no better way to keep people apart than slowing the economy, and making diversity the highest thing around.
See Also On This Site: Theodore Dalrymple Still Attacking Multi-Culturalism In Britain…Martha Nussbaum In Dissent–Violence On The Left: Nandigram And The Communists Of West Bengal…From The American Conservative: Going Off The Rawls–David Gordon On John Rawls
chr1
