Discusión de resultados Pago de Impuesto a la Renta

The controversy surrounding Rushdie’s novel eventually spilled over from the literary circles and entered the public realm when it became a matter of blasphemy versus freedom of speech. It all started in October 1988, when the Indian government, bowing to pressure from Muslim groups and politicians Khurshid Alam Khan, MP and Syed Shahabuddin, MP, banned the publication of the Satanic Verses in India. 467 The implication of this decision was that the book was banned in several other countries, including South Africa, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The prospect of an even more widespread ban and legal proceedings was reinforced when in November Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Gad el-Haq Ali Gad el-Haq called on all Islamic organisations based in Britain to join in legal steps to prevent continuing distribution there. He ruled that the novel contained “lies and figments of the 465_{Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, Distorted Imagination – Lessons from the Rushdie Affair,}

(London, Grey Seal, 1990), pp.150-151

466

seeAamir Mufti, “Reading the Rushdie Affair: An Essay on Islam and Politics”, Social Text, No.29 (1991), pp. 102-103

imagination about Islam which were passed off as facts” and demanded that the Islamic Conference Organisation (OIC) should take concerted action against what he described as “a distortion of Islamic history”. 468 Whilst this ruling carried considerable weight, particularly for Britain’s Sunni community, protests there had already been organised. Frustrated by the fact that the British government remained largely oblivious to the blasphemous nature of the book, Faiyazuddin Ahmad, Public Relations Director of the Islamic Foundation in Leicester photocopied the offending passages of the Satanic Verses and sent them to numerous Islamic organisations in Britain. Copies were also dispatched to the 45 embassies in London of the member countries of the OIC, including Iran. Having received a copy containing the offending passages, Dr Syed Pasha, Secretary of the Union of Muslim organisations, an umbrella organisation for Muslims community groups in Britain, summoned the union’s 19 council members to a crisis meeting on October 15. It was decided to launch a country wide campaign to get the novel banned. 469

Reiterating that Muslims groups in Britain did not object to accounts, which are critical or irreverent about Islam or Muslims, numerous letters, such as that of the Islamic Defence Council to Penguin Publishers emphasised “that no individual much less a whole world community can accept to be abused and insulted in the filthy way this “novel” has sought to do.” 470Such petitions and lobbying efforts to the publishing house to refrain from any further distribution of the novel were unsuccessful. Penguin maintained that to withdraw the novel “would be wholly inconsistent with our position as a serious publisher who believes in freedom of expression” and reminded critics that perception of its blasphemous nature was based on “failure to read it in its entirety, what is after all a work of fiction.” 471 Pressure on the British government remained equally futile. On behalf of the Union of Muslim Organisations, Pasha and two Members of Parliament sought initially to prosecute Rushdie and Penguin under the Public Order Act (1986) and the Race Relations Act (1976) for the incitement to racial hatred. 472However, failing to

468

The Times, 22 November, 1988

469_{Sunday Times, 19 February, 1989}

470_{“Memorandum of Request from the Muslim Community in Britain to Penguin Books Ltd”, cited in}

Jørgen S. Nielson (ed.), The Rushdie Affair: a Documentation, Birmingham, (Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Selly Oak Colleges, 1989), pp.6-7

471

ibid, p. 6

472_{Sunday Times, 19 February 1989; alsoseeHouse of Commons, Hansard , 5 December, 1988, Column}

realize the changed dynamics and sensitivities of Britain’s multicultural society, the government made it clear that these were no grounds on which the government would consider banning the book. Prime minister Thatcher further stated that “It is an essential part of our democratic system that people who act within the law should be able to express their opinions freely.” 473 The government’s only concession was to refer the matter to the Attorney General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, who decided that the novel constituted no criminal offence.474Demands to have the book banned under the common law of blasphemy, which was supported by various MPs, such as David Young and Peter Thurnman, were rejected on the grounds that the ambit of the offence of blasphemy did not extend to non-Christian religions. The government further reminded MPs that in its “Report on Offences against Religion and Public Worship” published in 1985, the Law Commission recommended by a majority that the existing common law offence of blasphemy should be abolished and only a minority took the stance that the existing offence would be repealed and replaced with a criminal offence which applied to all religions. 475 Evidently, this statement by the British government failed to address the wider picture of the common law and thus ultimately failed to give the issue the attention Muslim constituents expected. Frustrated by the fact that the democratic and legal process proved unsuccessful for their demands to have the book banned in the United Kingdom, Muslim Community leaders followed the advice of a solicitor in the North of England who suggested that publicity was the key to get their message across. He advised that they could always try burning the book in public, as there was, he pointed out, no law against that. 476 Bradford with a community of 50 000 Muslims became the centre of protest in Britain and members of Bradford mosque ritually burned the book after Friday prayers. The irony of these campaigns was that it did not necessarily convey to the public that the novel polemically distorted facts about Islam and offended religious feelings. Rather, many commentators interpreted the demonstrations as the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Britain and feared a crusade against the liberal democratic value system. With regards to exerting pressure on the government, these demonstrations in

473_{Sunday Times, 19 February, 1989} 474

House of Commons, Hansard, 5 December, 1988, Column 19

475_{seeHouse of Commons, Hansard, 20 December, 1988, Column 181} 476_{The Observer, 19 February, 1989}

fact proved counterproductive and even allowed Rushdie himself to comment that “Unable to accept the unarguables of religion, I have tried to fill up the hole with literature. The art of the novel is a thing I cherish as dearly as the bookburners of Bradford value their brand of militant Islam.” 477 It is against this background that one has to understand the events that followed.