" 'Among the things prohibited in the text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, oanything else which could be perceived as pork. Now, if a respectable publisher, tied to an academic institution, is saying you've got to write a book in which you cannot mention pigs because some people might be offended, it's just ludicrous. It is just a joke'." In "Oxford University Press bans mention of pork and pigs in books to 'avoid offending Muslims or Jews'," by Ewan Palmer, International Business Times, 14 January 2015.
Pigs plus sausages? The equation isn't math. As we read to Oxford's Press, it only serves up wrath. Pigs and their sausages perceived to both be pork? The laughter now is palpable; please pass my knife and fork. When a Muslim thinks it dumb and a Jew notes it's just a word, the Oxford academic press shows thinking turns absurd. [ 1 ]
Avoid offending? Take offense as idiocy springs to view. Then take offence at the piggy tail, cartooned as cork-tight screw. Oxford University Press presses pigs to not be writ, and also presses sausages to pressing idiocy submit. Napoleon, Old Major, Snowball, Squealer in Animal Farm, and dear Piglet in Winnie-the-Pooh, in these where is the harm? Aesop conjured a pig or two. Wilbur oinked Charlotte's Web; and the three of the littlest piggy pigs, should now their tall tale ebb? What of our politicians? Many are pigs in some venal way. Should one submit to not naming them pigs for what they themselves display? Miss Piggy in that Muppet Show, we must never write of her, nor of the Piggly Wiggly stores, for that would press a stir. The Pig and Whistle restaurants? No topic for research, and the Chinese Zodiac's Pig in print must never perch. Such is the touching touchy touch of some editors' deep desire to not offend in anyway, and preach to their shrinking choir. [ 2 ]
Pigs plus sausages? Opinion states it's just a joke, unless your ox fords rhetorical water deep, pressed down into a drowning soak.
[ 1 ] The article easily refutes the assertions of the OUP spokesman. One reads further: "The guidance issue was also condemned as 'ludicrous' by Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood. He added: 'That's absolute, utter nonsense and when people go too far that actually brings the whole discussion into disrepute.' An OUP spokesperson said: 'Our materials are sold in nearly 200 countries, and as such, and without compromising our commitment in any way, we encourage some authors of educational materials respectfully to consider cultural differences and sensitivities. Guidelines for our educational materials differ between geographies and do not cover our academic publishing.' A spokesperson for the Jewish Leadership Council added: 'Jewish law prohibits eating pork, not the mention of the word, or the animal from which it derives'."
To further clarify, Pig can mean quite a number of things.
[ 2 ] If pigs and sausages trigger offence in the eyes of the Oxford University Press, would they then more openly Celebrate Diversity? .