Koranized for your protection

Koranized for your protection
: Fleet Street Blogger sends us to an absurd story in the Guardian about the Guardian:

A newsagent cut pictures out of the Guardians he sold this week because it offended him. The picture was of a sword over the Koran.

As FleetStreet points out, what’s even more disturbing is that the customers who bought that paper and the paper itself didn’t complain but instead tripped over themselves to be PC about it:

In a letter published in the paper yesterday, a human rights lawyer, John Rowe QC, described buying his Guardian “in this most tolerant of cities” and finding that it had a front page hole.

He said yesterday: “I bought my Guardian, went to Starbuck’s, got my tall latte, settled down, opened the paper – and found I could see Deansgate through it.

“I raced back to the shop and asked ‘What have you done here?’ and was told ‘I have done it to all of them’.”

In his letter, Mr Rowe said: “We parted amicably and I quite enjoyed being tolerant.”

Well, yes, that’s where the media world is going: Why not go to a newsstand that matches your sensibilities: We take out all stories Republican [or Democrats] wouldn’t like as an addes service for our customers.

Arrrrgh. [Thanks, Nick]

  • On the other end of the scale, several years ago, Viz (viz.co.uk) had a Cut-out-and-keep apology to its Romani readers after having (supposedly) offended them in a prior issue. Unfortunately, their archives are only available in book form.

  • billg

    Come baseball season, I’m usually offended by the Yankees. Guess I need to buy some scissors and sneak into a printing plant.

  • John Anderson

    Firstly, if the shopkeeper thinks it irreligious to picture anything religious, he should be cutting ALL pictures since they are against the rules. Twit.
    As to the “I’m so tolerant” types, how many would be so if he had cut out all pictures of women (p0rn0graphy) and sports (same, half-nude men)? How different is it, really, from destroying all copies of a paper with an editorial you disagree with, as has happened on some university campuses (campii?) here?
    I consider myself fairly tolerant, but in this situation I would have asked for my money back and bought a complete paper elsewhere. Whether I would have made some rather pointed remarks I am not sure, I am not into avoidable confrontation.

  • Cosmo

    We’ve reached a strange place, where intolerance toward disagreeable items in a newspaper is accepted by others eager to demonstrate their tolerance of the intolerance.
    But as John above points out, the newsagent’s behavior would have been denounced as book-burning zealotry had he belonged to a less politically-favorable ‘group.’
    Those not so favored are fair game for intentional offense – nativity scenes in the public square are ruled ‘offensive’ while crucifixes in urine deemed ‘art’ worthy of public funding. Those who object are — unlike our newsagent who has been unintentionally offended — treated as thin-skinned cranks.