Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
However, we reserve the right to remove any comment considered inappropriate.
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(352)
-
▼
July
(26)
- Truth in Advertising
- How was selection made?
- Kudos to CHLP
- CDB, World Bank & Cruise Lines Officials open thre...
- Saddened by Dr. Robert Lewis’ comment
- The melodious Roar of the Hess Jet
- We need a break in service and air fares:
- A call to Media Personnel - Discard the Sensationa...
- Decision is final
- Hats Off to our Tourism Minister and the Power of ...
- The Hanging Tree
- A perception of St. Lucia’s Political status
- Issues Needing Answers
- Political Connections?
- Whom Are We Fighting?
- SLP: UWP recklessness costing St. Lucians
- The Budget (Transparency and Accountability)
- Planning for Zimbabwe after Mugabe
- Petition for CDGC rescue
- Is Salman Rushdie an intellectual adolescent?
- Does PM Gonsalves appreciate the difference betwee...
- A commentary on China
- They will never have Cuba
- Where are you safe?
- No Port in a Storm
- NCVWO on Jules Murder
-
▼
July
(26)
2 comments:
Mr. Chastanet,
I'm sorry, but that was complete hogwash what you wrote today.
Mr. Rushdie is a free man in a free society, free to associate with whom he pleases. If you interpret this as the "social climbing of an upstart who does not know his place", then you are as much a representative of a regressive era as are the mullahs who question our right to freedom of expression.
The salient point is that Britain is not being unnecessarily loyal to Rushdie or anyone else. And if you believe that appeasing religious fanatics is the more prudent policy, then - in a free society - you are as entitled to your views as Rushdie is to his.
This is a freedom you should always cherish. And, whether you realise it or not, it is this freedom that Britain promotes when she beknights Mr. Rushdie.
Cosign^^
Post a Comment