Unimagined

Sydney Writers’ Festival: The Governor and the Canapé

I have just returned from Australia, where I had the most wonderful time as a guest of the Sydney Writers’ Festival.  If you read this blog, you may recall that I met a beautiful woman one rainy night in the Writers’ Tent of the Edinburgh International Book Festival last August and – when she turned out to be the Director of the Sydney Writers’ Festival – I immediately gave her a sales pitch on what a great book I had written.  (She looked bored – this must happen to her all the time.)  However, six months later, when Wendy Were had had a chance to read Unimagined, she actually invited me and I leapt out of my chair at the office when the e-mail came in.

 

I had a packed schedule in Australia.  On arrival in Sydney, I flew straight to Melbourne to appear in an episode of Salam Café (which you can view here – I appear after 11 minutes).  Then, returning to Sydney, I had three events at the Festival (including one with Australian comedienne Judith Lucy – 'Not Another Misery Memoir'), plus other media appearances and a talk in Canberra. 

 

My main event was on Sunday afternoon: 'An Unimagined Journey' – a combination of my addressing the audience and Bruce Elder interviewing me.  The cabaret style location, with round tables, had a capacity of 250 and was absolutely packed.  You won't believe me if I tell you how brilliantly it went – please find an independent witness.

 

When it was all over, I left the sunny blue sky of Sydney’s autumn for the damp greyness of London’s spring – no, that doesn’t make any sense.

 

It was a very memorable trip, but the most memorable event was for a less-than-satisfactory reason …  (See account below.)

 

 

 

Venue filling up for my event

My signing queue!

Who's the attractive blonde woman?  Is she an official?  Where's her SWF ID?

 

My crowd waiting.

 

Venue filling up nicely

 

Yep, I was really here

 

Judith Lucy and me

 

"Not Another Misery Memoir ..."

 

She's got two copies of my book!

 

Nice jumper

 

"Thank you, I really appreciate you buying my book ... Thank you, I really appreciate you buying my book ... Thank you, ..."

 

"I'm having a great time."

 

"Excuse me, where can I get the ferry to New Zealand?"

A magic moment on Sydney Harbour Bridge early one morning

 

A big rock

 

The best airport pick-up ever

 

With Anton Enus - SBS newsreader

Vibrant Festival location

Bruce Elder interviewing me: "An Unimagined Journey"

 Aggressive action against global warming

What an amazing place

Wonderful Wendy Were, who very kindly invited me.

 

 

 

 

On Saturday evening, I was invited to a reception for the international writers at Government House, hosted by the Governor of New South Wales – Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir.

  

As we walked in, we were each greeted by the Governor herself, who kindly spent a moment welcoming each of us individually. I presented the Governor with an inscribed and signed copy of my book, which she seemed to greatly appreciate.  She thanked me generously for the gift.

  

I appeared to be the only writer who gave a copy of his/her book to the Governor, but I don’t think this is the main reason I made an unforgettable impression on Her Excellency.  That was to come later …

  

I was standing with the Governor and her Chief of Staff, Brian Davies Esq LVO, as Her Excellency kindly recounted a fascinating story about the First Fleet.  The Governor was on my right and the Chief of Staff was opposite me – we were huddled quite close together.  I sipped nonchalantly from my glass of orange juice.

   

A tray of canapés came by …

  

[Note to self for future reference: Never, ever, eat a canapé whilst standing in distinguished company.]

   

To show how at ease and relaxed I was standing in the company of the Governor (I do this sort of thing all the time, you see, keep the company of Captains and Kings), I reached for a canapé.  I noticed it was topped with a creamy white blob of sauce.

   

This was a substantial two-bite canapé, so I took the primary bite.  The magic of this dignified private moment with the Governor seemed to suddenly evaporate as I felt the blob of white creamy sauce miss my mouth, and slide down the side of my chin, and fall into oblivion.

   

The Governor stopped talking.

    

The Governor, the Chief of Staff and I all looked down to the floor.   The large creamy white blob had landed on top of my right shoe.  I had the orange juice in my left hand, the other half of the canapé in my right hand, and it seemed a long way down to my right shoe.  There was silence. Time stood still.

   

I had a vague awareness of Her Excellency’s voice: “Brian …”

    

Suddenly, the Chief of Staff was addressing me: “Don’t worry Imran, we’ll take care of this” and simultaneously he was crouching in front of me, wiping the creamy blob off my shoe with a paper napkin.

   

I apologised profusely to the Chief of Staff, but he dismissed it as nothing to worry about. 

   

Words cannot express the embarrassment I felt.  Idiot, idiot, idiot!  Never, ever eat a complex canapé in front of distinguished company. 

   

Her Excellency finished her story, but somehow I felt that the dignity had gone from my private audience.  She moved on.

   

When something really embarrassing happens, I believe that the best way to overcome the pain of the humiliation is to recount the incident as a funny anecdote, as many times as possible. The pain is then anaesthetised by humour. 

   

A little later, I was chatting with an officer of the Australian Airforce.  He was a Squadron Leader, his blue uniform emblazoned with medals – a very distinguished gentleman indeed. So, I thought I would begin the self-healing process, by telling him the anecdote.

   

“Something really embarrassing happened to me this evening,” I said, by way of introduction.

   

His reply was swift.

   

“You mean with the Governor and the canapé?  I already heard about that.”

  

 

[Update: The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Unimagined ranked 11th in the Festival sales.]

 

Unimagined in Australia:  http://www.unimagined.co.uk/Australia.htm

     

Unimagined:  http://www.unimagined.co.uk/

The Sharia Hysteria

Let’s establish some baseline principles, before I get to the matter in hand.

 

There is no such thing as ‘Sharia’ law – as a body of unambiguous, Quran-based legislation which provides a clear code by which we might live, arbitrate, judge and punish.  ‘Sharia’ law is just the local law which has built up over time in various places, based on various interpretations, traditions, rulings, prejudices, good intentions, bigotry and spite.  It varies from place to place and there is nothing particularly Islamic about it, other than that this term ‘Sharia’ (which is not in the Quran) has been adopted wherever the society is predominantly Muslim.

 

Now, a lot of Muslims don’t know this, especially the uneducated ones who come from the most barbaric places, but even some who should know better.  They think that ‘Sharia’ is some uniform code of justice which is sourced from the Quran – but it isn’t.  It varies from tribe to tribe, region to region, so it can’t be sacred and authentic – it is very much of this world and deeply tainted by local cultural beliefs and prejudices.

   

For example, many people believe that the Islamic punishment for adultery is stoning to death.  If non-Muslims believe this, I don’t blame them – it’s what they see taking place in so-called Islamic countries: Iran, Afghanistan (under the Taliban), parts of Nigeria. 

   

But so-called Muslims who believe this – and practise it – have absolutely no excuse.  Nowhere in the Quran is stoning to death authorised as a punishment for anything.  For the record, the Quranic punishment for adultery is 100 lashes.  The Biblical punishment for adultery is stoning to death (also for being a drunkard, or gathering firewood on the Sabbath).  In the 8^th and 9^th centuries, some bigoted men riding on the wave of the new Islam movement decided that the Quran was actually too liberal and too progressive and too lenient towards women (who are inherently wayward), and that even though Allah said clearly and unambiguously that the punishment for adultery was 100 lashes, what He really meant was stoning to death. 

 

Any Muslim who maintains that stoning to death is a legitimate Islamic punishment should be required to show where this is written in the Quran and, if they can’t demonstrate it, they should be … um … stoned to death … I think, why not?

 

The Quran actually says something along the lines of: “Woe unto them who make things up, and then say: ‘This is from God’.’”

   

As I said, ‘Sharia’ law is just a body of traditional law which has built up in various places, and it differs from place to place.  But, if ‘Sharia’ is the local law, then the ‘Common Law’ which we have in this country is, in effect, our ‘Sharia’.  And the ‘law of the land’ is the law we should all live by.  Some Muslims seem to think that anything which originates from a hot, dusty place is somehow authentically Islamic, and that which is formulated in a cold, damp place cannot be compatible with Islam.  Well, it’s an old cliché, but if they prefer hot, dusty places, they are free to return there.

   

So, to make it absolutely clear, I certainly wouldn’t want inconsistent, barbaric traditional law from some primitive, hot, dusty place imposed on anyone in this country.

   

Now, this is where I change tack and defend the Archbishop.

   

He never said that which he has been accusing of saying, that which has generated all this hysteria. He never advocated that there should be parallel systems of law in this country, and that Muslims could opt out of the ‘law of the land’ and have their own system. 

 

What he was referring to was the arbitration of disputes and the giving of advice in personal matters – where all parties involved are willing to follow the advice of a mutually agreed ‘authority’, without having to engage the legal machinery of the state. 

 

Everyone already has this right. 

   

If you have a dispute with someone, and you agree that you will have someone arbitrate the dispute, and everyone involved is happy with this process, then you are free to do so without engaging lawyers and courts.  It only works if everyone agrees, and the proposed decision is not illegal – not against the ‘law of the land’. If just one party doesn’t agree, or they aren’t happy with the proposed resolution, then that individual can drag the legal system into the matter and everyone gets sucked in, whether they like it or not. 

   

Similarly, you might have a moral dilemma, and you might seek the advice of your priest.  Perhaps you have children from different marriages, and you want advice on how you should divide your estate – on what arrangement would be most ethical and fair.  The State does not interfere in this advice, but it does recognise the Will which you subsequently make based upon the advice – as long as it’s not illegal.

   

The Jewish community already has a system of courts which arbitrate disputes and give advice in personal matters according to Jewish law.  This is private arbitration and advice, and it’s voluntary.  No Jewish person is obliged to follow this route, and the State can be engaged if necessary.  But if, as a matter of personal conscience, they are willing to follow the judgements or advice handed out by such an authority, they are free to do so.

   

Anyone can go to a friend or mentor for advice, or have a third party arbitrate a dispute, without having to drag lawyers into it, if the other party agrees to this process.

   

So, if Muslims wants to go to a medieval mullah for advice on what God would do, they actually currently have that right. 

 

The Archbishop was suggesting that Muslims might want to establish more formal ‘authorities’, like the Jewish ones, which arbitrate and give advice in such personal matters.  But they would be purely voluntary and cannot supersede the ‘law of the land’.

   

A few idiot Muslims have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, and excitedly believe that the Archbishop was endorsing their perceived right to live under their primitive home country traditions, and completely opt out of the UK’s system of justice (whilst enjoying all the other rights and privileges of being here).  I can understand they might think this, because they are not well educated and don’t understand English very well, and the parts of their brains controlling rationality have seized up through lack of activity.

   

But the media and others have no excuse.

   

The Archbishop never suggested that there should be parallel systems of justice, that ‘Sharia’ law – with all of its inconsistency and barbarity – should be introduced in Britain, and that Muslims could opt out of the ‘law of the land’.  He was referring only to private arbitration of personal matters, on an entirely voluntary and consensual basis, and within the framework of the common law.

   

Much more worrying is how this issue – not a particularly complex one – has been so distorted in this media feeding frenzy. 

   

The Archbishop has been completely stunned by the response to his comments.  He underestimated how vicious and deceitful the media can be, and how quickly people can become hysterical and irrational if the right hot buttons are pushed. 

 

‘ARCHBISHOP SUPPORTS SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN'  pushes all the hottest buttons.

 

Think about it.  The Archbishop is not a stupid man.  He was good at everything in school except sport.  Really it was more like:

   

'ARCHBISHOP RECOGNISES PERSONAL ARBITRATION LIKE WE ALREADY HAVE.'

 

'MUSLIMS WANT OPTIONS THEY (AND EVERYONE ELSE) ALREADY HAVE.' 

   

   

Woe unto them who make things up, and say: “This came from the Archbishop.”

   

They should be … um… stoned to death?

   

 

,

 

Imran Ahmad (who?) at the Cambridge Union Society

Last Thursday evening, I addressed the Cambridge Union Society.  To receive this invitation was a tremendous honour – I could never have imagined it a year ago. 

 

I finally bought a dinner suit, from Savoy Tailor’s Guild on Strand, right by my office.  The one I chose had a perfect lapel shape, was made of pure, light wool and had a very smart cut. The only issue is that it did not have double vents.  I actually hate a single vent; I think a double looks much smarter, but to get a double I would have had to upgrade to a Hugo Boss for an additional £200, and that’s a lot to pay for a cut in the fabric.

 

At my hotel in Cambridge, I shaved, showered and dressed, critically eyeing myself in the mirror – in my black dinner suit and black bow tie. (If you have read Unimagined, you will know what kind of excited feelings this evoked.) 

 

I thought the dinner before the debate would be a sombre affair, with stuffy old men, but it was remarkably relaxed.  It gradually dawned on me that students are actually rather young, and the stuffy old man would be me.

   

In the Chamber of the Cambridge Union, I received a wonderful and very warm reception, which put me into a state of almost surreal joy. 

   

The motion was, “This House would keep God separate from the State” and I was the primary speaker in favour of the motion.  (Originally, the motion had been “This House would not let religion control the State” – which I thought would be a walkover – but in the morning I heard it had been changed at the insistence of the main opposing speaker.)

 

I used two examples of religions, some of whose adherents seek to drag God into the machinery of the state: Islam and Christianity.

   

For Islam, I pointed out that our evidence is contemporary, using the examples of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban.  These are three different examples of people interpreting the will of God and acting on His behalf, but all resulting in dark societies where the human spirit is stifled.

   

For Christianity, I argued that we are fortunate that our strongest evidence is historical – that European history is actually a journey towards Enlightenment, and that many people had suffered over many centuries (the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of heretics, the drowning of witches etc), that we might have Liberty today.  I said that freedom of thought and freedom of expression were precious rights – which we took for granted at our own peril.

   

I emphasised that I have nothing against people holding religious views and values, but that the machinery of the State should be based solely on reason, equality and justice, and that it should be transparent and accessible to all.

 

My closing remarks went like this (reproduced from my notes):

 

“I once again refer to those who died for our freedom.  We cannot throw away their courage, their suffering, their sacrifice – that we might live in the Light of Reason and Liberty. To those who would have us live once again in ignorance, darkness, bigotry and fear, I say only this: ‘I hope and pray that, one day, ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free!’”

    

The main speaker opposing the motion was Stephen Green, the head of Christian Voice.  One of his arguments was that if we kept ‘God’ out of the State, then ‘Allah’ would soon take over. 

 

During his speech, several members of the audience asked him to focus on the actual motion.

 

We won the debate by 109 votes to 15. 

   

Afterwards, as I strode out of the Cambridge Union Society building, I had to walk by a group of students milling about.  One commented, “He has the right lapels on his dinner jacket.”  Bolstered by this, I swaggered past them, only to hear from behind, “But the single vent does rather spoil it.”

   

I sulked back to my hotel. 

   

   

       

YoungMinds Book Award 2007

   

YoungMinds is a charity devoted to the mental health of children and young people - an issue critical to the longterm health and well-being of society.

   

http://www.youngminds.org.uk/

       

The charity has an annual book award.

         

    

The 2007 Short List   

             

http://www.youngminds.org.uk/about-ym/youngminds-book-award/youngminds-book-award-2007

   

 

   

My Preparation

   

I've been practising my two possible responses for the YoungMinds Book Award ceremony, so that I look natural and unrehearsed. 

   

("And the winner is ...")

   

Scenario One:

- Nod head several times in wise, assenting manner, clap hands in a measured way, and exclaim: "Bravo!  Well deserved!"  (Mutter: "'Book Thief'? Bloody 'prize thief', more like.")

      

Scenario Two:

- Look shocked, prod chest with fingers of both hands, shake head in disbelief and mouth the words, "Who? Me?", in exaggerated fashion. Wipe tear from eye. (Mutter: "Ha! Losers!")

 

    

    

   

The Event

         

At the New Players Theatre in London, on the evening of 15 November 2007…

         

At the VIP Reception, Barbara Herts, the Chief Executive of the charity, shook my hand very firmly – gripping it tightly for an extended period – looked me in the eye and said; "I really, really enjoyed your book."  (“Yes! I've definitely won!”)

          

I was then taken to meet renowned writer Phillip Pullman – the sponsor of the award and donor of the prize cheque.  I shook his hand firmly, looked him in the eye and said: "How do you do? I'm Imran Ahmad."  I articulated my name very clearly, but not a flicker of recognition crossed his face.  (“No! I've definitely lost!”)

            

The others books were about: death of family members in the Holocaust; murder of childhood friends by a serial killer; imprisonment and torture in Iran; teenage prostitution, drugs and gang culture in LA; a collection of interviews with children who had been traumatised by the death of a parent. 

            

The writers, or their representatives, each read an extract from their books.  We had been instructed in advance that each reading was to last about three minutes.  I had rehearsed mine earlier in the day, and my initial selection was 3 minutes and 45 seconds, so I had cut that further to get it down to 3 minutes. 

            

When the readings kicked off, it was obvious they weren't keeping to 3 minutes.  (“'The Book Thief'?  The bloody 'Time Thief', more like.”) 

            

I was the fifth to read and – after having heard four long, sad and traumatic extracts – the audience was ready for a change. I announced that my reading would last 3 minutes and 45 seconds and they all laughed.  They continued to laugh very loudly throughout my selection of extracts, so I was very pleased with that. I would have read for longer, but I didn't have my book – I had printed my extracts on sheets of paper (like a business professional giving a presentation – oh yeah, that’s my day job) and I had no more material.

            

Will Self gave an excellent, very droll talk about the judging process – the final meeting had taken place in a private room in a restaurant.  He explained that, on this occasion, the judges were prevented from throwing each other out of the window – because the room was in a basement.  The YoungMinds Book Award is for a book which gives the reader an insight into the mental trauma and emotional pain which can be experienced by children.  Will Self explained that the prize did not necessarily go to the book with the most literary merit, but to the one which the judges felt best gave that specific insight. (“Dammit – what is he saying?  Have I won, or haven’t I?”)

      

They called the writers, and representatives, back up on stage (I was the only man) and gave each of us a big bunch of flowers (“Hey, I'm a guy!”).  We lined up in a row and had to face the audience in the glare of the spotlights, so that they could see our faces perfectly, as Phillip Pullman announced the winner...

                  

“… And the winner of the YoungMinds 2007 Book Award is … ‘Still Here With Me’, by Suzanne Sjoqvist … “  (The non-fiction book of interviews with orphaned children.) 

                         

I did my best forced-smile, locking my face muscles into an entirely natural and relaxed-looking stone façade, looked over at Suzanne and gave her a generous, congratulatory, vigorous nodding of the head.

             

Actually, I had chatted with Suzanne extensively earlier, and her book really is heartrending. My personal traumas (such as being cheated out of First Place in the Karachi Bonny Baby contest) are just not in the same league.  She is a well-deserved winner.   

               

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Still-Here-Me-Teenagers-Children/dp/1843105012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195205481&sr=8-1

                  

Afterwards, they nearly sold out of copies of my book, apparently, and countless people sought me out in the canapé reception to get it signed, saying how much they had enjoyed my readings.  I promised the Chief Executive that I would do some kind of reading event for YoungMinds.    

            

Phillip Pullman took me aside to tell me that he had really enjoyed my book, so he must have been doing his ‘I’m not giving anything away’ look earlier.

            

So, overall, I had a wonderful time and I was very grateful to have been short-listed.

 

(Double-click to view full size photos)

     

      

         

 

      

 

'Hey Phillip, just wink if I'm the winner.'

       

               

             

 

          

          

   

         

'You wouldn't be laughing if it had happened to you!'

   

    

               

            

    

    

   

      

                        

'I have a very natural, gracious smile.'

               

             

 

Photos credit: Many thanks to Ian Cundell 

                  

                  

                  

                  

                     

                  

    

            

         

 

 

 

   

      

      

Photos credit: Many thanks to Nigel Scott

An open letter to Sir Ian Blair

         

Dear Sir Ian,

               

I've always believed that yours is the most difficult job and this has never been more true. 

            

I am not much of a politician, but I do recognise that people have ulterior motives when they demand your resignation, or they simply don't understand the pressures under which you must work. Some have no concept of how difficult your job is and that we don't live in a perfect world in which everyone is 100% safe and no-one is inconvenienced in any way at any time.

                  

This much I know for sure.  Whatever mistakes were made on the day that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed, none of your officers set out with the intention of killing an innocent man.  Their overriding intention was to prevent another terrorist atrocity and, in that context, any other outcome was preferable.  They showed enormous courage in the face of grave potential danger, when self-preservation would dictate running in the opposite direction.

   

Had they indeed prevented a suicide bombing that day, no-one would be complaining about how they dealt with it.

                

In the UK we do not have significant experience of dealing with suicide bombers, and therefore this is a learning process for everyone. We are in a strange, treacherous new world, with limited resources and no margin for error.

                   

If anyone is to be blamed for the death of Jean Charles, it is the July 7 bombers, who have made all of us in our relatively easy-going society afraid, tense and suspicious. 

      

Whether this was deliberate on their part, I do not know (I hesitate to attribute this success to them, because they were not very bright), but it is a consequence which we must all come to terms with. 

               

Therefore, I urge you to not even contemplate resigning, but to push on with the most difficult (and sadly, thankless) job of keeping us all safe. 

               

Best regards,

                  

Imran Ahmad

      

   

The VERY BEST Possible Outcome (from some perspectives)

The penthouse office of The Daily Stunpress, high in the clouds, is full of cigarette smoke, because the Editor considers that he is far above the laws which govern ordinary people.  Up here, no-one can touch him.  From up here, he looks upon the world of ordinary folk with an arrogant disdain.

   

“Ok Bob, what have you got for me.”

   

“Sir, you asked me to project the best possible outcome of the Madeleine McCann case.”

   

“ Ah yes, Maddy, bless her.  She’s been so good to us.  Aren’t we about done now?”

   

“Actually, no sir.  According to our projections, we have only just started.  If the best possible scenario plays out, this would be bigger than Diana.”

   

“Really? … Okay, what is the best possible scenario?”

   

“It goes like this, sir.  ‘THEY DUNNIT!