Oxford University Press bans use of pig, sausage or pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1
Let's be clear.

This banning the word "pig" stupidity has nothing to do with Muslims or Jews.

It's the idiotic politically correct white liberals at Oxford Press that made this decision. I will go out on the proverbial limb and bet that it wasn't a Jew or a Muslim that decided this.

It was probably money. As most things are.

With a growing population of Muslims. There is probably a very lucrative market for appropriate books for Muslim children.

I'm very sure Muslims are ok with reading the word "pig." How else would they know not to eat it?

a reply to: Jamie1

It is mentioned in the Quran. But banned by OUP.

answers.yahoo.com...

Yes. White liberals are the PC idiots responsible. The Jews and Muslims think it's stupid too:

"Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood said: ‘I absolutely agree. That’s absolute utter nonsense. And when people go too far, that brings the whole discussion into disrepute.’ "

Jewish law prohibits eating pork, not the mention of the word, or the animal from which it derives

Jewish Leadership Council spokesman



Sou rce

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I like how Oxford threw Jews in there. When was the last time anyone saw a Jewish protest over any words referencing something nonkosher? Hell, the best chipped ham sandwich I ever had was from Goldberg's Deli in Issaquah, WA. I also have to say I find it dubious that the average Muslim would take offense to any of those words. If I'm wrong on that assumption, then whoopty-damn-doo, someone takes offense simply shouldn't read the offending book. I miss the old days when someone being personally offended ranked right up there alongside "so?" and "I should give a flip because?"

FFS - " sausage " the fecking retards want to ban " sausage "

there is a halal butcher near me who sells sausage - currently offereing :

vegan
vegitarian
lamb
venison [ subject to arguments over the halal credentials of his venison supplier ]

moslems have no problems woth the english language [ at least the sane ones dont ]

is just PHYSICAL CONTACT with porcine livestock or any product derived from such

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1
Let's be clear.

This banning the word "pig" stupidity has nothing to do with Muslims or Jews.

It's the idiotic politically correct white liberals at Oxford Press that made this decision. I will go out on the proverbial limb and bet that it wasn't a Jew or a Muslim that decided this.

It was probably money. As most things are.

With a growing population of Muslims. There is probably a very lucrative market for appropriate books for Muslim children.

I'm very sure Muslims are ok with reading the word "pig." How else would they know not to eat it?

You shall never eat "That Which Shall Never Be Named". Doing so damns you to Hell with no virgins. That would be kind of funny.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1
Let's be clear.

This banning the word "pig" stupidity has nothing to do with Muslims or Jews.

It's the idiotic politically correct white liberals at Oxford Press that made this decision. I will go out on the proverbial limb and bet that it wasn't a Jew or a Muslim that decided this.

It was probably money. As most things are.

With a growing population of Muslims. There is probably a very lucrative market for appropriate books for Muslim children.

I'm very sure Muslims are ok with reading the word "pig." How else would they know not to eat it?

You shall never eat "That Which Shall Never Be Named". Doing so damns you to Hell with no virgins. That would be kind of funny.

Oh oh.... did you read the exact wording of the guidelines???

"Among the things prohibited in the text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork."

Not just pigs that are banned.

Anything that "can be perceived as pork"????

WTF....

a reply to: Jamie1

I would like an example of a non pork item that is perceived as pork. I bet even Muslims are laughing at this.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Jamie1

I would like an example of a non pork item that is perceived as pork. I bet even Muslims are laughing at this.

Mary Landrieu?

Maybe that's why she got crushed last election. She didn't carry the Muslim and Jewish vote because she was an item that could be perceived as pork.

a reply to: Jamie1
A bit mean-spirited, maybe, but she is deserving of it.
Even if she can't be considered pork, she was a purveyor of it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Jamie1

I would like an example of a non pork item that is perceived as pork. I bet even Muslims are laughing at this.

A great question would be.... Why did they word it this way, if there are no examples of 'not pork, but perceived as pork'?
They were really being extra careful, eh?

Well, i sent an email to the US division of Oxford Press and they must be hearing from all corners on the issue. Below is the text of the reply to my email.

Thank you for your email. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views.

You may have read coverage that suggests that Oxford University Press (OUP) has changed its policies regarding the content of our books, or has specifically 'banned' mentions of pigs in its UK titles. I would like to assure you that our author guidelines have not recently changed, and there is no such 'ban'.

We do, however, ask that authors of educational materials respectfully consider cultural differences and sensitivities of our audiences according to the regions and markets our titles are published for. This is because OUP titles are sold in 200 countries around the world, and we feel it is important that content that could be considered offensive does not prevent our titles from reaching the widest possible audience.

As such, we provide guidance to authors on a range of areas that might cause offence in specific markets. This does, amongst other things, include advice around the use of images of pigs. However, I would like to assure you that we do include pictures of pigs in our dictionaries and textbooks where appropriate.

Our key concern with all our publishing is that we uphold the excellence that we strive for, whilst ensuring our titles do not cause unnecessary offence. Our commitment to educational and academic excellence is absolute, and any consideration of cultural sensitivities does not compromise our commitment to the highest standards we set ourselves.

I hope this helps to clarify OUP's position on this important topic. We take feedback from our customers extremely seriously and I would like to thank you once again for sharing your views and would encourage you to check out these articles that will help explain the issue in further detail.

www.theguardian.com...

www.theguardian.com...


Director of Publicity, OUP USA


I can understand that cultural differences being considered depending on where the book is published but seems to me this would have been done automatically as some books are not for everyone but instead usually targeted to a specific audience, especially in the case of text books. So no changes to their policies recently but a remainder on the general guidance they provide all authors regarding submissions.

>>>
>>
>
The Prophet Mu***mad

Ah hell I don't trust nor like anyone who doesn't eat bacon.

Second verse same as the third verse saying.

Where's my bacon!

originally posted by: Metallicus
I came to this thread thinking there would be a joke and a punch line. Sadly, this is a true story. There is madness afoot in the world right now.

I guess oxford wont be discussing politic's, and it spending bills with all the pork in them.

I am so glad i am not in school anymore.

a reply to: DJMSN

Thanks for that.

Their reply is considered and valid to a point, perhaps they should just allow countries that do not like images of pigs to choose. Like ''contains milk'' on food labels ''contains images of pigs'' instead of the censorship outlined, as most authors will translate that as ''to publish via OUP don't use images of pigs''.

oxford press is just another example of moronic behavior to appease a group because you fear them. they recently tied to get duke university to start having a call to pray broadcast over campus pa systems like they do in lots of muslim cities. luckily duke university decided against it if rgewy had not i would have felt the need to get toghter wwith my friends and line up our rides to drown it out with hiphop ,rap ,and heavy metal

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

This is ridiculous! The world's gone nuts.

rebel 5

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm actually tempted to contact them and claim I'm offended at their assumptions that I would find it offensive...

That the Pig is still one of Allahs creations & they are insulting my Lords work by writing it out of the pages of history...


Really f# with their heads...

Please do!! and record it! That would be priceless. heh heh

As an English teacher I must confess my complete and utter bewilderment at Oxford University Press forbidding the use of "pork" related words to avoid members of religous groups such as Jews and Muslims feeling offended.

Now,speaking as a human and not a teacher..This is complete and utter mind numbing bollocks.

Why oh why must we bow, doth our cap and bite our tongue to avoid offending everyone else over a subject so petty and insignificant such as "pig" related terms in educational text books.

I am a christian although I dont go to church.
I love, and I mean love PORK, YES THATS RIGHT..PIG.
I love ham, bacon, pork scratchings and I've seen the film "BABE" TWICE.

If all the above offends non christians.. I don't appologise.