I'm really not sure what you're trying to defend, Rick. Sure, there are other considerations, (a consideration I could have some respect for would be a direct threat to the safety of his family - but there isn't even a direct threat) but it's a question of what one values most, and that publisher has shown where his values lie.

As for this:

"The single biggest fact in your thought is Islamic terror so all data must inherit meaning from that"

What twaddle. The biggest fact in my thought is the value of freedom of speech, which is something I would have expected a publisher, of all people, to value highly. But that seems to not be so. As I said, so be it.

is the road to heaven, and to not give them what they want, is the road to hell.

No, that's your type of thinking. The single biggest fact in your thought is Islamic terror so all data must inherit meaning from that. But there are very few issues in the world that fit within that one-dimentional point of view of the universe. What we've got here is more complex than that.

Surely you can admit there are other considerations to individuals and to corporations than how their decisions bare on Islamism? I thought we'd already agreed that profit was one of them and that it was a higher consideration?

to bow down to Islamists, thus emboldening them onward to ever greater things, is the road to heaven, and to not give them what they want, is the road to hell. I can see that. I can see the consequences of publishing that book would have been to send the publishers, perhaps all of us, to hell.

Well, if anyone follows you at all, Richard, they'll follow you into hell.

and it's hardly an unreasonable request.

It's simply about keeping what is rightfully yours.

You make freedom-fighting sound as easy as a smile and as trouble-free as palm tree stranded alone on a tropical island.

It's no wonder you think Scholastic are yellow for not pressing their erogenous zones into hungry hornet hives.

on one of his buildings in order to appease Islamists, would not be craven, or suicidal, it would simply be a "good business move".

No ones suggested "crusading" here, Rick. It's simply about keeping what is rightfully yours.

but not at the expense of your own way of life

If you, and perhaps the publisher, consider making money to be more important than defending liberty, then fine, that's your perogative

Thankyou. That is the first perogative; it's what business is for. Not for cruisading. And if a business can do both, that's extrodinary.

That publisher has just strengthened the Islamists hand, and that is suicidal.

A tough call for the guy, no doubt. But he has a business to think of and investers to serve. The business's top priority is making money, as Dagney Taggart and you must agree. It's a cruel choice to have to pick between a good business choice (as this was) and initiating a supportive measure for the free world, but the priority dictates.

In the current climate, speaking out against Islamic terrorists- particularly taking the issue into multicultural junior schools- is not a normal effort. It's a valient effort.

Failure to be valient does not make us sucidal boot-lickers, it just makes us normal like everyone else. It's normal for us not to compromise our business interests.

Surely a soldier who leaps out of the safe trenches in extraordinary bravery deserves praise; surely the same soldier who instead deserts has done a base act and deserves blame. But a soldier who simply keeps his post doesn't deserve what you heap on him.

his way of life is under attack, yet he submits to it. That publisher has shown himself to be a bootlicker, like many other publishers, bookstore owners, and newspaper editors around the world. They're telling the Islamists "we'll lick your boots". That's the bottom line. If you, and perhaps the publisher, consider making money to be more important than defending liberty, then fine, that's your perogative, but don't bother with all kinds of convoluted arguments to show that it's not suicidal. That publisher has just strengthened the Islamists hand, and that is suicidal.

Can I just confirm this? A publisher's role in our society is to defend the Western Way of life, and secondarily (for the former is to be expended afore the latter) to make money.

I want to understand your position before I make you pay for it.

but not at the expense of your own way of life. Phil is right, it's suicidal cowardice.

I'd be interested, Richard, in your conception of what a publisher's role in society is.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark: to make money!

It is indeed, "Suicidal cowardice".

...that Australia's schools are a powderkeg waiting for a spark?

Nah. More like a dungeon waiting for a powderkeg.

And this isn't the particular one I had in mind for them.

Yes, what you say makes sense.

I must have missed those two books
--
http://blog.mariodiana.com

that Australia's schools are a powderkeg waiting for a spark?

"This decision is at odds with the recent publication of Richard Flanagan's bestselling The Unknown Terrorist and Andrew McGahan's Underground in which terrorists are portrayed as victims driven to extreme acts by the failings of the West."

Something about that first title being the tale of a racist 26yo Sydney pole-dancer makes me think that these weren't published by the Lucky Book Club either, Mario.

I agree that the decisions of a private business do not represent censorship, but I do think this story points to something of cultural significance. For me, the money quote is as follows:

"This decision is at odds with the recent publication of Richard Flanagan's bestselling The Unknown Terrorist and Andrew McGahan's Underground in which terrorists are portrayed as victims driven to extreme acts by the failings of the West."

So there you have it in a nutshell. Self-loathing in Western culture is all well and good, but heaven forbid we so much as wrinkle our noses when it comes to anything even tangentially related to any other culture.

--
http://blog.mariodiana.com

There was no worry about playground abuse or Cronulla-style powderkegs when those books came out.

...Which is why they were able to be published.

Muslim terrorism, on the other hand, is a hot issue at the moment and it's a brave publisher that risks singing his money from that heat in the children's book market.

Christian fundamentalists, on the other hand, make for a safe target and we've been mocking them for decades.

Self-censorship to appease the cowardice of booksellers and librarians, is what I mean.

Not so much in New Zealand, but here in Australia, there are Islamic kids in classrooms. When this book starts getting passed 'round the playground it's a powderkeg waiting for a spark. Instead of playing cowboys and indians it'll be Aussies vs Muslims. It'll be Cronulla race riot tag. Parents and teachers are going to go nuclear. Dealing with a book like this is a challange they're not likely to invite and the heat will go on Lucky the Cat's bookclub and Scholastic for putting it on the table.

Please. A book about Muslim terrorists can't be such a big deal. Muslim terrorists are the bad guys in a hell of a lot of thrillers, and I am including TV and film as well as novels. Kids hear about real life Muslim terrorism fairly frequently, too.

Also, I have seen quite a few kids or young-adult books that feature fundamentalist Christian bad guys, and there are many more Christian than Islamic schoolkids in NZ and Australia. There was no worry about playground abuse or Cronulla-style powderkegs when those books came out.

-- "Hey Kids, read with Lucky about the bad Muslims"

You're just not going to see that, Phil. It's hard enough for we adults, in all our maturity (hah..), to get our heads around these issues.

ps Don't you think 'censorship' as you and this article use it is improperly used in this context? Scholastic, by not publishing the book, is not stopping it from being published.

How unbelievably gutless. The booksellers didn’t even receive any threats.

It's a business, not a crusade. How are they supposed to back a thing like this? You and I both had Scholastic's "Lucky Book Club" at primary school with periodical glossy catalogues full of the latest childrens fiction to order if we wanted.

Not so much in New Zealand, but here in Australia, there are Islamic kids in classrooms. When this book starts getting passed 'round the playground it's a powderkeg waiting for a spark. Instead of playing cowboys and indians it'll be Aussies vs Muslims. It'll be Cronulla race riot tag. Parents and teachers are going to go nuclear. Dealing with a book like this is a challange they're not likely to invite and the heat will go on Lucky the Cat's bookclub and Scholastic for putting it on the table.

If I were a publisher I'd do it, because I'd be looking for a fight. But Scholastic, like any good capitalist qua business, are looking to please their customers. So, I don't think they're unbelievably gutless. It's dissapointing, and indeed if they were to back a book potraying this theme it would be a very brave thing to do and not at all ordinary.