Atwood accuses Dubai book festival of censorship
Gay characters offended ‘certain cultural sensitivities’ say organisers
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
DAVID SANDISON
The novelist Margaret Atwood attacked the decision to drop Geraldine Bedell's book from the festival in Dubai
enlarge
An international book festival in Dubai is facing the possibility of a mass walkout in its inaugural year with authors queuing up to protest against the censorship of a book that discusses homosexuality.
The Canadian novelist and former Booker Prize winner Margaret Atwood sparked the controversy by pulling out of the Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature after a fellow writer was blacklisted for offending “cultural sensitivities”.
The book at the centre of the latest storm is The Gulf Between Us, a romantic comedy by the English writer Geraldine Bedell which is set in a fictional Gulf emirate. It was due to be formally launched at the festival but has been withdrawn by the festival at the last minute because it features a gay relationship. Bedell commented: “Can you have a literary festival and ban books because they feature gay characters? Is that what being part of the contemporary literary scene means? The organisers claim to be looking for an exchange of ideas – but not, apparently, about sex or faith. That doesn’t leave literature an awful lot of scope.”
The festival director, Isobel Abulhoul, issued a statement in which she said: “I knew that her work could offend certain cultural sensitivities. I did not believe that it was in the festival’s long term interests to acquiesce to her publisher’s request to launch the book at the first festival of this nature in the Middle East.”
Atwood, a vice-president of the writers’ group International PEN, has infuriated organisers of the literary festival by posting a letter of protest on her website. “I was greatly looking forward to the festival”, the letter reads, “and to the chance to meet readers there; but, as an international vice-president of PEN – an organisation concerned with the censorship of writers – I cannot be part of the festival this year.”
Atwood goes on to express dismay at the “regrettable turn of events”. Just how regrettable, however, may not be clear until the full roll-call of dropouts is complete. Her boycott was reinforced with protests from other writers threatening to pull out. The children’s author Anthony Horowitz has written to festival organisers expressing “deep concern”. In an email to Abulhoul, seen by The Independent, Horowitz writes: “As both a children’s author and a member of PEN, I cannot be associated with a literary festival that opposes freedom of speech and which attempts to censor other writers … It doesn’t help that my name is being used constantly to promote the festival... in truth, I should have known about this earlier”.
Other writers may be emboldened to join Atwood in boycotting the event by the words of Jonathan Heawood, the director of English PEN.
“The idea of a literary festival is cultural exchange through literature”, Heawood said. “A festival that shuts its doors to anything mildly controversial isn’t really worthy of the name. Ultimately it is up to individual writers, but I applaud any others who follow Atwood’s example.”
Sixty-six authors from 20 countries, including Kate Adie, Jung Chang, and Louis de Berniéres, still plan to attend the festival.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Judge bans further reporting on 13 year old father
But, as much as this age of multicultrualism involves trying to endorse putting on cultural projects, like book festivals, any person in the limelight musn't be expected to stand still while the host nation obliterates access to certain authors, based on the subject of that book.
When societies are juxtaposed alongside new challenging literary works, surely this situ. should only provide strength to convictions of values and faiths
Why do some countries prefer to censor their populations access to these works? The obvious answer is fear of their readers exploring, examining and discussing new points of view.
Highly unhealthy.
Afterthought - if an Israeli arab tennis player turned up...
You also seem to argue that enclaves of sharia law should be permitted in the UK. Really? So you would be similarly happy to see enclaves of apartheid for people who liked South Africa as it was before Mandela was released? If not, why not? What's the difference?
"Tolerance" in so much of the West now seems to entail an abandonment of judgement - can we really not discriminate between right and wrong? Of course, we can - but "tolerance" now typically means tolerating those opinions we approve of, and silencing those we don't (e.g. Wilders).
Any writer with even a smidgeon of decency will boycott this event.
If these people cannot tolerate the customs of other cultures then they should stay in their countries even if that meant they would loose some hefty price money.
Or, is it that in your 'moral' system, tolerance trumps all other values? Does your tolerance extend to the Klan? You might want to stop and think about what your really believe to be important.
The U.S. has banned many people for nothing more than what they've said or written. The list is long, but off the top of my head, there's Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) and Tariq Ramadan. There are also laws about not identifying minors convicted of crimes. The press voluntarily censors itself in cases where there are victims of sexual abuse and sometimes gives in when the government asks them not to publish information that might be sensitive. Anti-semitic novels wouldn't be published, and if they were, we all know rhat the literary organizations wouldn't be supporting them.
In Denmark, they told Muslims that they just had to get used to freedom of speech, because even when it hurts, it's the most important principle ever know to humankind... then they sent a Danish intelligence officer to jail for leaking information showing that Prime Minister Rasmussen had exaggerated about the existence of WMD in Iraq. The Prime Minister kept explaining that freedom of speech couldn't be compromised when it came to insulting 1-1/2 billion people; then he sent someone to jail for embarrassing him...
As has been mentioned, some European countries have bans on anything that questions the Holocaust. In Turkey, you go to jail for insulting secularism; in Thailand, you go to jail for insulting the king.
Of course, there are many more examples. The point is that every country restricts freedom of speech, in some cases, it's a good idea, and ion some cases, it's not. Those of you who claim to be advocating pure freedom of speech should just be more honest and say that you're advocating freedom for - or actually dominance of - a certain "Western, liberal" kind of mindset.
I think this author was definitely looking for publicity. Other articles mentioned that she was told about this in September, but it's making news 5 months later. And anyone who's lived in the Gulf knows that one thing the royal families don't like is having their members embarrassed, so she not only included gay characters, but she made one a prince. That probably bothers them more than the homosexuality itself. (Because as anyone who's actually been to Dubai can tell you, it's not Saudi Arabia. The British sex-on-the-beach couple were just deported - hardly stoned - and the guy, at least, wanted to go back.)
Judges in the UK frequently block media coverage, and the newspapers agree to censor their coverage of, for example, the princes
Britain took a giant step backwards when it barred Wilders. Anyone who doubts this should listen to the shamefulyy ignorant posturing of the cowards on Question Time, defending the decision. None had seen Fitna: but you can. It is easily available on the web - please, go and watch it, in the name of free speech, and in resistance to repressive ideologies, especially those emanating from the Middle East.
(If advocating violence was enough to get someone banned, then no government official of any country that's bombing or fighting anyone else - not to mention their own people - should be allowed in. But really, it's the same issue; if they're advocating violence for a cause that you think is justified, then they're welcome, and if they're advocating violence for a cause that you diasgree with - like resisting an occupation, I guess, in the case of Qaradawi - then you don't want them. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, as they say.)
Further to recent media reports regarding the reputed banning of Geraldine Bedell's novel from the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai and the subsequent withdrawal of International PEN Vice President Margaret Atwood from the programme; International PEN will stage an event in partnership with the festival exploring the issue of censorship at the festival on Saturday 28th February.
Whilst International PEN greatly regrets the festival's decision not to include Geraldine Bedell on the basis of the content of her novel, it is important to clarify that Geraldine Bedell and her book have not been banned in the region as some reports have suggested and that, whilst the book was submitted for consideration, it was never included in the festival programme. Therefore it was never withdrawn. It could not have been present at the festival in published form, as its publication date is April 2nd.
The event will include a panel of international writers and will explore the issue of censorship and the cultural pre-conceptions which we hold regarding the acceptable limits of freedom of expression.
Why is it always that is we that need to extend tolerance towards these intolerant faiths? All we need to do is pick up our history books to see that hatred and war has been instigated by these institutions to further their agenda. Islam like Christianity have been colonialist and greedy insitutions.
Multiculturalism and tolerance of differences, of religious choice/heritage or sexual orientation, are the hallmarks of a free and just country. The persecution of minority groups can never be justified, regardless of cultural conventions or religious "rules". To insulate people from seeing the positive reality of the differences between cultures, to actively prevent any chance of enlightenment by censorship, is simply immoral. Let people read what they want so they can form their own opinions, rather than simply perpetuating an offensive, restrictive fallacy just because it's the current status-quo. Atwood has traded in her integrity. Cut the Liberal guilt, culture is no excuse for intolerance and prejudice.