Well then, lets carry the allegories a bit further.
Maybe we should prevent Rushdie’s presence in any building over two stories high.
In fact when we assess the risk, why should any country allow him within their borders. If a militant is prepared to destroy an entire plane full of innocents for revenge against an author, what is to stop them from taking out any building he happens to be visiting.
Maybe it would be safer for us to kill Rushdie ourselves to prevent any other “collateral damage”.
Which is certainly your right, but your fear of being hurt by terrorists targetting Rushdie doesn’t give you the right to restrict his freedoms.
**
But, in this case, you’re not deciding not to drive yourself, you’re preventing someone else from driving. It’s like taking away someone’s driver’s liscense for being hit by a drunk driver.
**
Rational, maybe. But hardly fair, and hopefully not legal.
**
As I recall, I was in the “not-a-high-enough” camp in that debate, too.
First, I wouldn’t call you an unprincipled chicken-shit, but then again, you didn’t start your post off by calling me a suckass. And as for the money Rushdie has made his publishers, it’s probably a lot less than you think. Although the controversy over The Satanic Verses might have increased it’s sales at the time*, the book is almost a decade old, and none of his later works have had anything like that level of notoriety. And Rushdie isn’t like Stephen King or Danielle Steele. I doubt that a lot of the people who picked up Verses because they heard about it on 60 Minutes bothered to read his next, non-fatwa-causing, novel. There are not a lot of jobs out there that pay worse than writing, especially if your novels don’t get orgasmic over the missile payload of Apache helicopters or feature young lawyers having hot sex every other page.
[sub]*Which I doubt: many bookstores refused to carry it out of fear of being attacked themselves. Apparently the people who used to run B. Dalton are now running Air Canada.[/sub]
While I like to think that I’d have the guts to board a plane with Mr. Rushdie, it is of course hard to know in advance whether I’d chicken out at the last minute.
But I hope I’d at least be ashamed about it, not laud it as a rational and well-thought-out choice.
And I’d certainly prefer to be given the choice, not have some think-about-the-lawsuits management chowderhead make the choice for me. If Rushdie takes prudent precautions (and I’m sure he does), I say let’s go take a flight.
Salman Rushdie has been made to suffer because he availed himself of a very basic freedom. Can we, who live a safe and comfortable life, feel justified in ostracizing him further because we can’t be bothered to share his 24/7/365 risk for a few pesky hours ?
If that’s the case, perhaps we ought to ask ourself just whose agenda we’re furthering. Make the decision the way you see fit, but be careful not to play for the wrong team, gentlemen.
Now wouldn’t this be great: “Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Yes, the gentlemen who just boarded is in fact Salman Rushdie. Anyone who has a problem with that is invited to leave this plane right now.” I know, can’t be done. But if the decision to chicken out involved standing up and saying “Not for me”, perhaps a few people would find it a little easier to muster some backbone.
(Btw. “The ground beneath her feet” is a brillant novel. And “The Sea of Stories” is a great fairytale, too…)
You are correct sir. According to The Globe and Mail Air Canada has indeed changed its position.
But would Rushdie be willing to get on a flight with me? (The last flight I took as part of a fly-in court in northern Ontario had to wait a while at the end of the runway while the people in the woods waiting to take pot shots at the planes were chased away.)
Anyway, I’m delighted that our national air carrier has come to its senses and is no longer banning Rushdie.
How would I know if I was boarding a plane with Mr Rushdie on it?
Despite having read Midnights Children I have no idea what he looks like. Thus the problem for me a least is solved I’d just get on the plane and not know any different 
Mind you I was once shared a plane with the Australian Cricket Team and didn’t realise either :rolleyes:
Now you do
Defeated by yojimbo’s taking the vow to fight ignorance seriously :), I now have no excuse not to knowingly get on a flight with Mr Rushdie on it - other than sheer cowardice.
So I think about it - does Mr Rushdie fit my “I must run screaming like a mad woman out of this room right now” cowardice criteria 
As he don’t fit the cowardice criteria I will just have to get on the plane with him.
Guys, I think one point has been missed over this.
Does Rushdie have the right to fly?
Yes, without a doubt if he can purchase a ticket that is.
However given the current situation, the chance to bomb a plane w/ both Rushdie and Americans in it must look pretty damn good to some of the Islamic terrorist groups.
So the question here is, is it ‘RIGHT’ for the responsible authority (FAA) to allow for an action (Rushdie on a plane) which would cause an INCREASE in the change of subsequent terrorist attacks?
Now, factor into account the current state of Airport security…
Don’t forget Rushdie is a BIG name. Even … 6 years ago in England (damn thats a long time ago now) for a week before he gave a talk there were rumors all over the place in Oxford that he was going to give a free public talk. I overheard this is a fast food restraunt the first time… There is no way you can move both quietly and securely at the same time…
Hell, if people were talking about it in Burger King and this was just for a 3 hour talk he was giving think about what sort of rumors would be flying around if he was flying overseas… there would be a lot more talk.
What I’m trying to get at, in a very odd way is that we aren’t just talking about Rushdie’s rights to be allowed to fly and not having those denyied by having a religious decree demanding for his death.
What also must be taken into account here is everyone else on that plane. Neither the airline used nor the airport(s) will tell their passengers that Rushdie is flying on their plane or will be in their airport. Combine who he is with the current view many Islamic terrorist organizations of the US and our actions w/ the Taliban… the chance to kill both Rushdie and inflict more damage to the US would be a nice target… So if the passengers aren’t/can’t be warned (due to obvious security concerns [like the passengers who are warned will keep quiet or stay on the flight]) does the FAA have the RIGHT to place their lives in more danger than those people on other flights?
That’s a better question to debate and think about here.
Now to me, the answer is obvious. There is clearly, to me that is, an increased risk of having Rushdie on a commercial airliner. Also, there is the additional requirement of security to ensure his safety and the safety of those around him. Simplest solution: LET THE GOVERNMENT FLY HIM. Stick him on a diplomatic jet, guarded and staffed by senior military and give him the 4 star head of state treatment. He flies over here, he’s safe, we don’t need to even let the FAA get into matters.
Lets face it, even with the current security measures we’re trying to incorperate we still have shitty shitty airport security in this country.
Anyhoo, thats how I’m viewing the whole thang.
Okay, so my e-mails were sent too late.
But I still feel better for having sent them. 
Talk about an inability to assess risk. People are worried about flying on a plane with Salman Rushdie but not worried about driving to the airport in a car, which is much more likely to get them killed.
Why should Joe six-pack have to foot the bill? I have a big problem seeing one cent of US funds go toward flying the infamous Mr. Verses all over the globe. You want e-mails? just let the American taxpayer get word of this (admittedly tiny) expenditure and e-mail servers throughout DC will be crashing.
Unless you were referring to the British government, who’s tax base I don’t contribute to.
I still think my proposal was fair:
Let his publisher (you know, the corporation that benefits from freedom of speech laws and can afford to dole-out outrageous advances to nearly illiterate, ghost-written backed, pop-culture authors) charter his flights for him on the company’s Lear jet.
Talk about inability to assess risk. People are worried about vacationing on a Beruit beach for fear of being taken hostage by Hezzbullah, but not worried about flying to Lebanon’s airport, which is much more likely to get them killed.
Oddly enough, Air Canada is neither American nor British.
grienspace, I’m curious about your allegation that our tax dollars “support” Air Canada. Are you suggesting that a public company gets money from the government? Reading their annual report (that’s a PDF file, btw), I find no mention of funds from any source other than financing and operations.
It seems like an airplane would be the safest place for Salman Rushdie.
If someone was going to kill him, why do on a plane, with a bomb? Why not at a book signing, with a gun?
It doesn’t realy make sense.
Why, exactly, do they hate this man so much? Because of a book? I mean, yes, he’s an insult, but do they really consider him THAT much a threat to Islam? (Your terrorist-Islamic Fundies)
Perhaps I mispoke. Certainly in the past, prior to privatization, Air Canada was sustained by subsidies.
Just for the record, subsidies to Air Canada ended prior to 1979 (which almost shut it down in 1982 when it posted a loss of $15 million), and it was privatized in 1987.
If they want to hunt down people who slam Islam, take out Anne Coulter and Billy Graham. Oh wait! That would be doing us a favor…