.

Bowdlerising Charlie Hebdo …

.

Thomas Bowdler explained in « The Family Shakespeare » :

« Those expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in the family. »
.

« The Family Shakespeare » is an expurgated edition of William Shakespeare's work intended to be more appropriate for 19th century women and children than the original.

Some examples of alterations made by Bowdler's edition :

• In Hamlet, the death of Ophelia was referred to as an accidental drowning, omitting the suggestions that she may have intended suicide.
• In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth's famous cry "Out, damned spot!" was changed to "Out, crimson spot!"
• "God!" as an exclamation is replaced with "Heavens!"
• In Henry IV, Part 2, the prostitute Doll Tearsheet is omitted entirely; the slightly more reputable Mistress Quickly is retained.

Would it be more judicious to consider that those who venerate a god or gods represent a sub-culture, similar to 19th century women and children, and publish an expurgated edition of Charlie Hebdo which they would find acceptable ?

If so, it would not seem unreasonable to expect such propriety to be reciprocated :

http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/51162-propriety-suggests-reciprocity/

Unfortunately, it is evident that no reciprocity is possible between the jihadists and Charlie Hebdo. Who could imagine that the jihadists would reciprocate by recognizing Charlie Hebdo’s right to continue publishing its original version ?

It seems we are left with little alternative but to decide whose side we are on.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

The answer is not as simple as many who have entered this
debate would have us believe.

I've stated in my earlier post - the
response requires a balancing act. We need the co-operation of
well-informed and resilient local Muslim communities and
this necessarily will involve a discussion of free speech and
the need for safety valves.

Foxy,

This might help you,

Excerpt from Islam, Postmodernism, and Political Correctness
By Danusha V. Goska

<Now, when talking heads state simple truths, "Most Muslims are not jihadis. Most Muslims are peaceful. Most Muslims are just like you and I and most Muslims should not be the targets of our rage," many otherwise good people, rendered cynical, dismiss these words.

Free speech is the best friend Muslims have. In the current environment, unspoken suspicions rankle and conspiracy theories proliferate. We must protect innocent Muslims from rancor, every bit as much as we must protect innocent people of all faiths. The best way to protect the vast majority of Muslims who are innocent and who just want to live their lives in peace is to tell the truth about Islam, and to publicly, verbally, fearlessly, and communally hash out solutions to the challenges Islam presents.>
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/08/islam_postmodernism_and_poltiical_correctness.html

Foxy: the response requires a balancing act. We need the co-operation of well-informed and resilient local Muslim communities and
this necessarily will involve a discussion of free speech and the need for safety valves.

A Islamic balancing act requires that, moslems make a demand & we back down to appease them. Then they make another demand & we back down again to appease them to, eventually Australia is a moslem country & YOU have lost all of your feminine rights, even to drive or leave your house without a male relative.

& don't forget that is mandatory to lie to a Kaffa to further the cause of Islam.

Oh, they won't do that, I hear you say. Yair right.

Dear otb,

Thank You for the link.

I've also made a note of her book.
I shall try to get hold of a copy.

Dear Jayb,

I've been very fortunate in my life.

The people that I've encountered thus far
were not always easy to understand at times
but I can honestly say I did try to understand
and learn from them.

Hopefully that shall continue.

Hi Poriot,

Sorry, sooky-babe, what's your point ?

Back to topic: it's surely important for journalists to not only have the right to push the boundaries but for the rest of the population to support them in their important function.

Yes, that includes the right, even the duty, to be obnoxious in their opinions, to provoke, and even to enrage. Otherwise why not just cover weddings, dog shows and eistedfodds ? [Not that there's anything wrong with eistedfodds].

I certainly know some obnoxious people who claim to be journalists. Obnoxious is easy. But I fear that even some journalists don't have the wits to realise the importance for our society of exercising the freedoms of expression, and supporting those who do that. Perhaps there are journalists on OLO who take their historic and sacred duties seriously, who are prepared to go out on a limb and, even, support their assassinated colleagues in Paris by proudly saying "Je suis Charlie".

Or maybe not.

Joe