22 1 min 8 yrs

Dhimmfication continues effortlessly. It’s not so much #jesuischarlie but more #jesuiscowards.

Schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offence.  Guidance from leading educational publisher the Oxford University Press prohibits authors from including anything that could be perceived as pork-related in their books.  The bizarre clampdown, apparently aimed at avoiding offence among Jews and Muslims, emerged yesterday during a discussion about free speech on Radio 4’s Today programme.

Mmm…”offending Muslims and Jews”. Yes. Those pesky Jews are always going off on one, aren’t they, rioting and killing. I love the way these cowards hide behind “Jews and Muslims” when we ALL know there is only ONE group that they run scared from.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

22 thoughts on “TELLING PORKIES….

  1. not sure if this has been discussed

    Starting this Friday, Duke University plans to have a regular Muslim call to prayer on campus. Most students support religious diversity, but off-campus critics are concerned by what it symbolizes.

  2. Muslims and Jews should actually feel more insulted by this patronising and incorrect nonsense than they would be by seeing the words ‘pork’ ‘pig’ etc. How many times does it have to be said that there is absolutely nothing insulting or derogatory about Muslims and Jews seeing or reading about pigs and pig meat, they are just not permitted to EAT pigs that’s all.

  3. I love the way these cowards hide behind “Jews and Muslims” when we ALL know there is only ONE group that they run scared from.

    Totally agree. But don’t you find it interesting that the only UK newspapers who published the Charlie front page cartoon this week were the liberal Guardian and Independent, who are often attacked hereabouts (sometimes rightly) for their political correctness? Even the BBC showed the cartoon on news bulletins.

    But the right-wing press totally shied away.
    Makes you think?

  4. Good point Peter – perhaps a bit of praise from David on this matter for the liberal MSM and the ‘commie’ Beeb would be in order.

  5. Speaking of which, I hear that after those comments on Fox a few days ago about Muslim Birmingham, the city had now decided to rename itself “Birming”.

  6. And this is the group that all journalists run scared from:


    Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of “inciting racial hatred” for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.

    “L’affaire Sine” followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president’s son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: “He’ll go a long way in life, that little lad.”

    A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo’s editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: “I’d rather cut my balls off.”

    Mr Val’s decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech.

    Ah – free speech, but that has its limits.

  7. Allan, that story is known. Just because they were victims doesn’t mean they were heroes or even principled. They weren’t.

  8. Jewish friends of ours aren’t offended by the mention of port, pigs or sausages. Indeed, when my wife was poorly, the lady had no problem with purchasing pork sausages for my wife. It’s just that they won’t eat them, unlike Muslims who take offence at the mention of them and refuse to touch them.

  9. For Muslims eating dead pigs is for us like eating dead dogs or cockroaches – there are people that do it and from a medical pov it is without objection, but it the beasts are generally considered so dirty that Muslims will keep away from their meat, even if they have lapsed from their religion and drink alcohol etc.

  10. Oxford University Press releases books in just about every country on the planet. When a book is being sold primarily in either Muslim countries, or Israel for that matter, it would be sensible to include cultural references that make sense in that country and avoid things that may be deemed offensive in that country. That is what this is about. There is no blanket ban on mentioning pork in books and no reason to suggest that any book being released to a local audience would have these things removed.

  11. Seamus

    The article does not refer to books that are being distributed in Muslim/Jewish countries, it refers to the actual authors being asked to not even mention pig meat in their original texts regardless of where the books are being sold. There is not the remotest logical or ethical defence of this nonsense. Are Muslim and Jewish children supposed to not even know that Pigs exist or that people of other faiths and none can and do eat the meat of a pig ?

  12. I know the article doesn’t refer to it. Imagine that. The Daily Mail not being entirely accurate.

    OUP released a statement saying, outright, that it is not true. That they encourage authors of books to be distributed in other countries to be mindful of the sensitivities in those countries. There is absolutely no indicated that the author who was sent that letter was writing a book that was to be issued in the UK.

    Part of the OUP statement:

    “Our materials are sold in nearly 200 countries, and as such, and without compromising our commitment to educational excellence in any way, we encourage some authors of educational materials respectfully to consider cultural differences and sensitivities”.

  13. why are all of Noels comments on this post in moderation?

    Noel did you hit the contact David button and ask him?

  14. Seamus

    But the salient point is the guidelines are unjustified in any context. Mentioning the existence of pigs as animals or food is not insensitive to anybody’s religious beliefs or customs. The guidelines are a patronising misguided idiocy.

  15. No but these are kids educational books. It will be like “Billy has 3 apples. If he takes away 2 apples how many apples will he have?”. By making it something the kids can relate to it helps learning. Similarly by making it something the kids can’t relate to it hinders learning.

  16. Seamus

    What child anywhere on earth could not relate to say the ‘three little pigs’ story. Children don’t have to be bacon butty munchers to understand that story. Muslims and Jews are as familiar with the existence of pigs as any other people. There is no merit whatsoever to the idea that simply MENTIONING these animals is ‘insensitive’ or irrelative.

  17. They are familiar with it but if it isn’t something they do in their everyday lives then they are not going to relate to it. And that can hinder their learning.

    The point being is that there isn’t a blanket ban on anything. It is just the published advising an author that they need to be sensitive to the cultures of their audience.

  18. Colm, in Saudi Arabia all mention of pigs and pork etc are censored. All pictures of pigs from books and magazines are cut out. I once saw an issue of Time magazine with an article about the French president opening a new experimental piggery in France. In the photo, he was holding one of the piglets in his arms, which in the Saudi edition was completely blacked out, so it looked like the President had his own black hole in his hands.

    On the other hand, this Jewish group likes to <ignore the existence of women.

    There’s something about the Middle East and parts of Ireland that makes people religious mad.

Comments are closed.