When ‘politically correct’ goes too far
"It is difficult to imagine any context in which images of everyday objects – like pigs – or the word itself should be banned from being used in a children’s book."
In a recent article by the Mail Online, it has been reported that Oxford University Press has placed a ban on the use of anything pertaining to sausages and pigs in children’s books in a bizarre effort ‘to avoid offense’ to Muslim and Jewish readers.
In a move which has been branded as nonsensical political correctness, schoolbook authors have been told not to write about sausages or pigs for fear of causing offence. Publishers are now prohibited from mentioning anything that may be perceived as pork, urging authors to consider “cultural differences and sensitivities” in their publications.
The Oxford University Press says its guidelines exist because it needs to make its educational material available to as many people as possible.
“Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries,” says an Oxford University Press spokesman, “and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities. Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.”
According to authors, the guidelines are well-known and widely used by educational publishers, with several taboo topics generally avoided. The acronym, PARSNIP, which stands for: politics; alcohol; religion; sex; narcotics; ‘isms’ (communism for example) and pork, exists to remind authors of these politically correct restrictions within their publications.
However, considering the massive global outcry with regard to freedom of speech following the recent attack in Paris where the staff of French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, were brutally massacred by militant, radical Muslim extremists and self-proclaimed “avengers of the prophet”, in a brazen response to mocking depictions of the prophet Muhammad by the magazine, is it rationally feasible to censor the mere mention of a farm animal and its [tasty] byproducts, thereby slapping a muzzle on scribes and wordsmiths, in the next breath, in an utterly absurd attempt to spare the feelings of those who would object to the idea of a bacon and egg breakfast, perhaps?
“It is difficult to imagine any context in which images of everyday objects – like pigs – or the word itself should be banned from being used in a children’s book,” says Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, which defends the rights to free expression worldwide. A spokesman for the Jewish Leadership Council added: “Jewish law prohibits eating pork, not the mention of the word, or the animal from which it derives.”
Muslim Labour MP, Khalid Mahmood, called the ban on pork-related content ‘absolute utter nonsense’.
