Mae Salman Rushdie wedi'u beirniadu'n chwyrn, ac felly hefyd Alex Massie yn The Spectator. Ers hynny mae un o'r chwech, Francine Prose, wedi ceisio egluro'r penderfynaid yn The Guardian. Afraid dweud nad yw'n darbwyllo. Rwyf am ddyfynnu'r cyfan yn ei dro:
When I learned that PEN had decided to award the Freedom of Expression Courage Award to Charlie Hebdo, I was dismayed. I had agreed to serve as a literary table host and I wondered what I would do when the crowd around me rose to its feet to applaud an award being given – in my name – to what I felt was an inappropriate recipient.Rwy'n cael yr argraff bod Prose yn un o'r rheiny sy'n camddeall pwy yw targed cartwnau'r cylchgrawn.
Let me emphasize how strongly I believe in the ideals of PEN; for two years I was president of the PEN American Center. I believe in the indivisibility of the right to free speech, regardless of what – however racist, blasphemous, or in any way disagreeable – is being said. I was horrified by the tragic murders at the Charlie Hebdo office; I have nothing but sympathy for the victims and survivors. I abhor censorship of every kind and I despise the use of violence as a means of enforcing silence. I believe that Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish whatever they wish.Dyna'r ddefod gyfarwydd o glirio llwnc cyn dod at yr hyn y mae wir eisiau'i ddweud:
But that is not the same as feeling that Charlie Hebdo deserves an award. As a friend wrote me: the First Amendment guarantees the right of the neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, but we don’t give them an award. The bestowing of an award suggests to me a certain respect and admiration for the work that has been done, and for the value of that work and though I admire the courage with which Charlie Hebdo has insisted on its right to provoke and challenge the doctrinaire, I don’t feel that their work has the importance – the necessity – that would deserve such an honor.Mae llawer o'i gwrthwynebwyr wedi neidio i'w chyhuddo o 'gymharu' Charlie Hebdo â'r Natsïaid. Fel mae'n digwydd, mae hynny'n annheg. Beirniadaeth wahanol sydd gennyf i - ac mae'n ddadl y bûm yn ei wneud ar y pryd - sef bod safon y gwaith fwy neu lai'n amherthnasol erbyn hyn. Yr unig ffaith bwysig yw bod staff cylchgrawn wedi cael eu llofruddio am feiddio cyhoeddi cartwnau.
Gan fod Prose wedi cyfeirio at Natsïaid, rwyf am wneud yr un peth: mae gwrthwynebu gwobrwyo Charlie Hebdo am resymau esthetaidd fel beirniadu safon dyddiaduron Anne Frank o safbwynt llenyddol. Hynny yw, mae'n methu'r pwynt yn llwyr. Mae'r ffaith bod rhywbeth hunllefus wedi digwydd i'r awdur yn gwneud y gwaith yn deimladwy ac ingol ynddo'i hun, ac mae clodfori'r cynnyrch yn fodd o wneud safiad yn erbyn y cam a wnaed. Mae'n ymateb naturiol; ni fyddai brwydr Malala Yusafzai o blaid hawliau merched i gael addysg wedi cael chwarter y sylw pe na bai'r Taliban wedi'i saethu yn ei phen. Ond gan iddi oroesi ymgais i'w llofruddio, mae hi wedi ennill Gwobr Heddwch Nobel. Er gwell neu er gwaeth, fel hynny mae pethau'n gweithio. Mae gwobrwyo Charlie Hebdo, sydd wedi cario ymlaen fel normal (a chyhoeddi llun o Mohammed ar glawr y rhifyn o'r cylchgrawn a ymddangosodd yn syth wedi'r digwyddiad), yn safiad syml o blaid yr hawl i wneud yr hyn y mae'r cylchgrawn yn ei wneud. Cydnabod eu dewrder yw hyn, nid, o reidrwydd, canmol y cartwnau (nid bod unrhyw beth o gwbl o'i le ar y cartwnau chwaith yn fy marn i). Yn y cyfamser, dadl wag a thruenus Prose yn y frawddeg olaf uchod yw 'rwy'n edmygu dewrder Charlie Hebdo, ond rwy'n gwrthwynebu cydnabod eu dewrder'.
Perhaps my sense of this will be clearer if I mention the sort of writers and whistleblowers whom I think would be appropriate candidates: Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the journalists who have risked (and in some cases lost) their lives to report on the wars in the Middle East. Or the extremely brave Lydia Cacho, who has fearlessly reported on government corruption in Mexico, along with the dozens and dozens of Mexican journalists who have been murdered for reporting on the narco wars.Mae'r diffyg hunanymwybyddiaeth fan hyn yn syfrdanol. Ni ddylid gwobrwyo Charlie Hebdo, meddai, oherwydd dylid ei roi i newyddiadurwyr sy'n peryglu'u bywydau. Oes angen i mi egluro'r broblem fan yna?
I have been deeply shocked to read and hear some critics say that the position I have taken, along with other writers, amounts to an endorsement of terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. But I also don’t feel that it is the mission of PEN to fight the war on terrorism; that is the role of our government. Our job, in presenting an award, is to honor writers and journalists who are saying things that need to be said, who are working actively to tell us the truth about the world in which we live. That is important work that requires perseverance and courage. And this is not quite the same as drawing crude caricatures and mocking religion.Pe na bai mwslemiaid ffwndamentalaidd yn protestio, a'n bygwth a defnyddio trais er mwyn gorfodi pawb arall i ufuddhau i'w hathrawiaethau crefyddol, byddai llawer iawn llai o angen cyhoeddi cartwnau fel rhai Charlie Hebdo. Yr ymateb lloerig yw'r union beth sy'n gwneud eu cyhoeddi'n angenrheidiol.
The bitterness and rage of the criticism that we have received point out how difficult people find it to think with any clarity on these issues and how easy it has been for the media – and our culture – to fan the flames of prejudice against Islam. As a result, many innocent Muslims have been tarred with the brush of Islamic extremism.Mae'r gair 'narrative' fan hyn yn rhyfedd, a dweud y lleiaf. Nid rhyw 'naratif' greadigol mo hynny, ond yr union hyn a ddigwyddodd (er, dylid cofio mai Arabiaid oedd dau o'r rhai a laddwyd).
The narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders – white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists – is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have allowed our government to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East. And the idea that one is either “for us or against us” in such matters not only precludes rational and careful thinking, but also has a chilling effect on the exercise of our right to free expression and free speech that all of us – and all the people at PEN – are working so tirelessly to guarantee.
Yn aml iawn, mae agweddau 'unai gyda ni neu'n ein herbyn' yn niweidiol a gwrth-gynhyrchiol. Ond yn yr achos penodol hwn, mewn difrif calon, onid yw'n wir? Nid yw rhyddid mynegiant yn golygu hawl awtomatig i gael gwobr. Ond pe na bai sefydliad fel PEN yn gallu gwneud safiad o blaid yr hawl i fyw mewn byd lle nad yw llunio cartŵn yn reswm i'ch lladd, beth fyddai'u diben o gwbl?
No comments:
Post a Comment