From Sir Roger Elliott, President of the Publishers Association, and others
Sir, Yet another attempt has been made on the life of one of the publishers of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses (reports, October 12 and 13). Happily, it seems likely that the victim, the Norwegian publisher Mr William Nygaard, will recover from his injuries.
It remains scandalous that such deeds can be perpetrated against innocent citizens with the overt backing of the government of another country. The international publishing community was pleased that the Prime Minister eventually agreed to listen to Mr Rushdie's appeals himself, and gave him the British Government's support. It is unacceptable that Mr Rushdie and his publishers should go in fear of their lives because he has expressed thoughts and ideas that have offended the authorities in Iran.
Up to now it has been possible to argue that the fatwa would fade in importance and significance with the passage of time. That is clearly not tenable today. It is essential that all governments responsible for the safety of people threatened by the fatwa make it emphatically clear to the a government of Iran that the fatwa is a grave breach of international law and diametrically opposed to the good will that should prevail between the nations of the world; and that, if it is not completely withdrawn, it will be necessary for the countries concerned to break off relations. Otherwise the way is open for the multiplication of curbs on freedom of expression enforced by threats of violence.
The freedom to express thoughts and ideas - whether secular or religious - is one of the fundamental freedoms of mankind.
Yours sincerely, Roger Elliott, President, publishers Association, Clive Bradley (Chief Executive), Giles de la Mare (Chairman, Freedom to Publish Committee), Nicholas Byam Shaw (Macmillan publishers), Nicholas Chapman (BBC Books), Matthew Evans (Faber & Faber), Philippa Harrison (Little, Brown), Tim Healy - Hutchinson (Hodder Headline), Philip Kogan (Kogan Page), John Murray (John Murray publishers), Nigel Newton (Bloomsbury Publishing), Peter Owen (Peter Owen), Gail Rebuck (Random House), Tom Rosenthal (Andre Deutsch), Paul Scherer (Transworld publishers), Nick Webb (Simon & Schuster). The Publishers Association, 19 Bedford Square, London WC1
TRADE WITH IRAN
From Mr Denis Dugdale
Sir, Although a non-member of the Publishers Association, I was interested to read their letter in The Times of 15th November (reported by you on 19th November) and surprised by the total lack of comment provoked by it. The letter expressed impassioned outrage at the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie's Norwegian publisher:
"It remains scandalous that such deeds can be perpetrated against innocent citizens with the overt backing of the government of another country... It is essential that all governments make it emphatically clear... That if the fatwa is not completely withdrawn it will be necessary to break off relations (with Iran)."
With respect I suggest that it is doubly scandalous that such a letter's signatories should have been headed by Sir Roger Elliott, the former chief executive of Oxford University Press, who in 19th April 1989 broke the worldwide embargo of the Tehran Book Fair to the impassioned outrage of the rest of the publishing world: "Such principled publishers!" - New York Times, The Bookseller; "Books for the Mullahs" - International Herald Tribune.
As the Publishers Association and Sir Roger have demonstrated, while freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, so, it seems, is the freedom to contradict oneself, the freedom to trade with regimes which bandy International fatwas and the freedom to bob and weave every which way when the bullets actually start flying. Also, they have confirmed with admirable clarity what I have always suspected: that in the real world of selling books, a publisher's life is rated as infinitely more valuable than an author's.
Yours faithfully, D. Dugdale, AKME Publications, Brighton
TRADE WITH IRAN
From Sir Roger Elliott
Sir, I do not see any illogicality in my views on the two issues concerned with Iran, which are raised so tendentiously by Mr Dugdale's letter of 17th December. Both support of Mr Rushdie and the decision to make books available in Iran via the Tehran Book Fair stem from the belief that it is important to combat censorship in whatever form, and to encourage the free flow of ideas, as expressed through the written word and other media, even to countries whose political regimes have unacceptable policies. The only restrictions on books, which were imposed in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or apartheid South Africa, were by the regimes themselves and not by the outside world. I am sure that Mr Rushdie's situation can only be improved if literature and educational material from the West continue to be available to the people of Iran.
Far from causing outrage in the rest of the publishing world, the two policies being questioned have always enjoyed the support of the overwhelming majority of publishers. Their policy on the Tehran Book Fair was specifically endorsed by an annual general meeting of the Publishers Association. More widely, United Nations sanctions have normally excluded books.
Yours faithfully, Roger Elliott, President Publishers Association, 19 Bedford Square London WC1B 3HJ
TRADE WITH IRAN
From Mr Mark Farrell
Sir, Embargoes, sanctions-busting, international profits, cant, hypocrisy and bureaucratic double-speak - it is rare that our polite world of publishing finds itself tangled up in the same kind of intrigue that's been emerging (more like "oozing") from the Scott inquiry. But The Satanic Verses and its shock waves changed all that.
I read with interest the recent letters of Denis Dugdale (17th December) and Sir Roger Elliott (7th January). When I raised the matter at a meeting of the Committee of the educational writers' group of the Society of Authors, I received overwhelming support. My colleagues and I, as educational writers, stand to lose more than anyone by a book trade embargo against Iran. Yet we retain enough of a sense of solidarity with other writers, and indeed publishers, to renounce our potential income from that source.
We haven't got the type of government that issues death threats to foreign writers. It is only the publishing world that can make an appropriate symbolic response. Can that response be a strongly worded letter to The Times, combined with business-as-usual? Very few in the Iranian government are Times readers. The only clear message we can send is by refusing to sell books.
Is a government that sells missiles and superguns to the enemy in next year's war likely to "break off relations, because the fatwa is a grave breach of international law", as Sir Roger and others urged in their letter to the Times? Get real, Sir Roger. Not as long as the opinion-leaders such as OUP show by their example that making money is more important than taking a stand.
Yours faithfully, Mark Farrell, 4 Rutland Grove, London W6 9DH