What I say may offend you. Well, get over it

Toleration of people’s right to be intolerant remains a cornerstone of civilised democracy, writes DONALD CLARKE

YOU COULD argue that Innocence of Muslims, the film that has caused (or been used as an excuse for) so much mayhem, offers the perfect platform for a discussion of free speech and standing up to the militantly offended. Heck, I am arguing that.

Consider the Lady Chatterley’s Lover trial. In late 1960, over a 10-day period, literary figures such as Richard Hoggart, EM Forster and Rebecca West turned up at the Old Bailey to argue that DH Lawrence’s ludicrous panty-ripper was some sort of transcendental masterpiece.

It is fair to assume that a few rather exaggerated the novel’s worth. No matter. Simply by appearing, the experts offered tacit support for the notion – supported in UK law at the time – that literary merit was a fair defence against accusations of obscenity. Similar arguments were dragged up at hearings concerning such diverse works as Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, James Joyce’s Ulysses and Hubert Selby’s Last Exit to Brooklyn.

When scandals arise concerning works of art, arguments about the relevant pieces’ merit continue to trigger unnecessary distractions. Hillary Clinton recently described Innocence of Muslims as “disgusting and reprehensible”. On the evidence of the trailer – which is all most of us have seen – the picture is certainly that. It is also abysmally acted, atrociously written and incompetently shot. Online advertisements for dubious tarmac suppliers tend to exhibit higher production values.

By coincidence, the scandal kicked off in the same week that Salman Rushdie published a sly memoir, written in the third person, largely concerned with his efforts to cope with the death sentence imposed upon him for writing The Satanic Verses.

In Joseph Anton (his alias at the time), Rushdie calls up a troubling parallel with a famous scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. His 1989 fatwa was the first bird that, initially unnoticed, settled ominously upon the climbing frame behind Tippi Hedren. He compares the flock that subsequently amassed in Hitchcock’s film to the stream of religiously inspired atrocities that peaked (or did it?) with the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Not every critic liked The Satanic Verses. The consensus at the time was that it lacked the drive and lucidity of earlier works by Rushdie. But nobody doubted the seriousness of his intent. Rushdie has, moreover, made it clear that there was no conscious effort to offend Muslims. A careful reading of the book confirms the sincerity of that argument.