" '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.
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
[ 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,
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