Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
About a month ago, Chicagoist spoke with Kumail Nanjiani about his then-new one-man show. In Unpronounceable, Nanjiani breaks from his usual stand-up routine and talks about his religious Muslim upbringing in Pakistan, his move to Iowa when he was 18, and his subsequent loss of faith and turn toward atheism.
When he started doing stand-up, Nanjiani told us, he made the decision to not speak about his past onstage, to avoid being labeled as a Muslim comedian or being lumped with the other Middle Eastern comedians who were doing “Muslim” comedy after 9/11. Earlier this year, however, Nanjiani decided that his past deserved a stage treatment, and audiences flocked to see it at the Lakeshore Theater. His July debut of Unpronounceable sold out, Chicagoist readers recommended our interview in droves, and we looked forward to Nanjiani’s repeat performance.
So, we were disappointed but concerned last week when Nanjiani requested that we remove the interview from the archives because he had been receiving threats. He didn’t want to discuss the threats in detail but said, “It’s somewhat ironic that I actually mention in the interview that saying stuff against the Qur’an can have real consequences.”
Nanjiani said he plans to do the show for as long as he can and stands by everything he originally said. “It’s just that the interview is something that the undesirable, kind-of-scary element can point to directly,” he said. “I would rather have them come to the show and see what it is before they make awful threats.”
All this made us wonder if Nanjiani didn't have it right the first time, when he stuck to riffing on horror movies instead of religious fundamentalism. But then again, we thought, screw those jerks! His show is good, and it's an interesting departure from his usual funny, everyday stuff. Want to see what all the fuss is about? Nanjiani’s next show will be Friday, August 24, at the Lakeshore. Show starts at 8, and tickets are $10.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hope he avoids the air and water show this weekend!
Well, at least we know what it takes to halt the lollapalooza coverage next year.
Your philosophy/religion must be "the truth" if you have to intimidate people who speak out against it. Well done, morons.
wow, you actually removed the interview?? that's...well, that's weak. i'm sorry the guy is getting threats, but that's the risk he took when he gave the interview. on top of that i know we all like to make jokes about how if we don't do X, "the terrorists have won!" but in this case they really HAVE won--their goal is to shut up dissenting voices (and they scare and/or kill people to do it), and it's worked for them in this case, just like it worked to a large extent with those stupid muhammad cartoons from that Danish newspaper.
guest 4, thanks for that tip about their goal being to
their goal is to shut up dissenting voices, I allways that they were trying to get the united states out their country
Guest 4, a couple of reasons why your logic is flawed:
1. The interviewee being threatened and requesting the interview be removed is a different situation than Chicagoist being threatened and choosing to remove the story. So whether Chicagoist should have taken it down is not an issue of the right to dissent, but an issue of the authority of the press over their subjects.
2. The people making threats did not shut Kumail up. He is still doing his one-man show. If you read the post, it quotes Kumail as stating that the problem with the interview is that it gives the terrorists something concrete to place their fury on. You say you are sorry he's getting threats, but hey, that's the risk he takes. So are you saying that in order to not have death threats made against him, he should never give interviews? Aren't you now the one shutting up his "dissenting" voice, but for different reasons?
3. You say terrorists shut people up by scaring or killing them. If Chicagoist had left the interview up, then the people making threats might very well have killed Kumail (worst case scenario), also "winning." So you're saying...better for them to win by killing him? I think we have all learned that terrorists don't necessarily stop if their scare tactics don't work. It's a lot easier to stand up behind "dissenting voices" when it's someone else's life on the line. How about making a suggestion about how to leave the interview up and still protect Kumail?
Ultimately, what your post sounds like it's saying is this: "Kumail should say whatever he wants but can never change his mind about having put it out there; Chicagoist shouldn't care about their interview subject and should leave the interview up because, hey, they aren't the ones being threatened; Kumail should just deal with the death threats--it's his fault for being a dissenter and his right to speak up, but if he gets hurt, oh well, let him take one for the USA team.
Sorry, but I can't get behind that mindset at all.
Yes Spook, people that try to shut up some ex-Muslim comedian are obviously trying to get the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan (not just, you know, trying to scare the hell out of him and shut him up). Thanks for the lesson in reading comprehension.
i also can't believe that the stupid post about "taking back your bars!" and goose island and kids got like 60 comments, and this one has hardly any. i hope you people are all out of town on vacation.
Mo,
As regards your last paragraph, no, what I am saying is "Kumail should say what ever he wants and he can change his mind whenever he wants but when he gives an interview to a blog (or a magazine, or a newspaper) he should expect that people are going to read it." What would have happened if he gave the interview to the Economist or something and then got death threats? Would you expect them to destroy all copies of the magazine? I know, I know, I shouldn't be comparing Chicagoist to the Economist...
Should people be threatening him for what he says? Absolutely not! I think it's awful. But your "...it quotes Kumail as stating that the problem with the interview is that it gives the terrorists something concrete to place their fury on. You say you are sorry he's getting threats, but hey, that's the risk he takes. So are you saying that in order to not have death threats made against him, he should never give interviews?" argument is a little strange--I'm not the one shutting him up, he's shutting himself up by having his interview on this site deleted. You know what also gives terrorists "something concrete to place their fury on"--anything that anyone says in print that they don't like. So let's delete it all, right? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
Deleting the interview doesn't protect him--I'm sure we'll be able to find it in google cache for years. A suggestion about leaving the interview up and still protecting him? Absolutely--we should stand up to this crap from terrorists, rather than responding to their every threat. Again, I am truly sorry the guy is getting these threats, but deleting a post does not seem to be like the right response to me.
I am so so sorry to hear about this. I was at that first show, it was amazing. Even at the time though, I was worried about the risk that Kumail was taking by speaking out as he did ... so brave.
I'm British, I guess I hoped that America was less infested with the kind of extremists that issued similar threats to Salman Rushdie. Rushdie seems to have come out the other side, safe (albeit after years in hiding - and I wonder if he really feels safe after all) - I hope that Kumail is able to live his life, speak his truth and one day be able to do so truly without fear.
I wish I had a suggestion: it's really bad news when a performer/comedian is trying to avoid publicity instead of seeking it ...
Guest 4,
Of course I do not believe that everything that would anger a terrorist should be deleted. No way do I believe that. But the distinction I'm making is that it was Kumail himself asking for it to be deleted, because it directly affected him. Plus, I do think a person has the right to "shut himself up," but others don't have the right to shut other people up. (Sorry for the twisty syntax.)
So, yes, if you give an interview, you should expect people to read it, but I do not think that one should also have to expect death threats. (Although, apparently, Kumail himself suspected it might happen-not from the interview per se, but by talking about his former religion at all, so that's another complication to the story.)
As far as the Chicagoist-Economist comparison, it goes back to my point that it's not about the safety of subjects or the upholding of civil rights--it's about whether the press should take an interviewer's wishes into consideration. The fact that Chicagoist did does not make them weak in my viewpoint. But if the Economist refused to, I would also think it was their prerogative to do so.
If I thought the Chicago PD had any power or willingness to help prevent this type of threat, I would agree that deleting the interview would not be the right solution. But I also think that if no alternative exists, then Kumail has every right to request it be deleted, even if it's only a small and probably ineffective effort.
Also, thanks for the discussion. I always appreciate being able to talk maturely on sites even when our opinions differ. Especially when forums are so filled with dumb namecalling and reactionary trolls. I'm surprised and saddened that more people haven't chimed in.
mo: Just because people aren't commenting, doesn't mean that they don't agree.
i would say something, but i'm not sure what. "this sucks?"
(i'm pretty certain i don't want to see a baby in a bar, though. that's an easy conclusion to come to.)
Yes, it would be nice to see more comments in this thread, but I'll bet a ton of people have read the article and all the above posts and saw that their respective viewpoints were already expressed.
I think that Mr. Nanjiani is a courageous person, despite his request that the interview be removed. Perhaps he will inspire other young Muslims to take on the hypocrisy of many mainstream Muslims. I am not talking about the extremists. I am talking about the hypocrisy of mainstream Muslims regarding U.S. policy, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and even the mainstream Muslim approach to sexism and women's rights.
There is much that is wrong with the Muslim community in the U.S. but it is politically incorrect to criticize it. When are we going to hear the Muslim leaders in the U.S. do anything besides complain that Muslims are often being mistreated in the U.S., a claim that is ridiculous but which has been given credence by the mainstream media.
Every movement has to start somewhere. Perhaps Mr. Nanjiani can inspire other Muslims to speak freely when they want to talk about the failings of the U.S. Muslim leadership. Who knows? Maybe one of these young Muslims will one day allow his interview to stay posted on Chicagoist.
The key point here is that Nanjiani requested the interview be taken down, and that he had a reasonable justification for the request. Unlike the Economist, Chicagoist doesn't invest in printing tens of thousands of hard copies, so there is no loss of investment if the site chooses to delete something. Secondarily, as Chicagoist itself admits that it's only playing at journalism, there's no veil of ethics to protect.
Personally, I wish Nanjiani hadn't let himself be frightened, but then again, I'm not the one who has to live with the threats and therefore am not the one who has to make the call. I'm glad Chicagoist had the decency to listen to the guy's wishes, though. It's a tough call, but the site made the right one.