freepiglet.jpgHonley Church of England Junior School in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England has decided that it must rename “The Three Little Pigs” to “The Three Little Puppies.” The children were to do a performance of the story, including songs, and the school decided that the name, characters and lyrics must be changed “because of the multi-cultural nature of the youngsters involved and their parents in the audience.”

Considering the things that were happening pig wise in England in late 2005 and 2006 this is just another step.

A few examples:

  • banning anything pig from the Dudley Council offices in the West Midlands because the ceramic pigs, calendar pigs and even the Piglet tissue box cover could offend Muslims. The ban was supported by practicing Muslim Councillor Mahbubur Rahman, saying “It’s a tolerance of people’?s beliefs.”
  • British banks were banning free piggy banks
  • Another school, Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley, banned the entire story of “The Three Little Pigs” from being read to children seven and under because it might offend Muslims.

Back to the Junior school – in response to the “multi-culti inclusion, no exclusion, no offense” move that the school made:

But Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain branded the move ‘bizarre’.

He said: “The vast majority of Muslims have no problem whatsoever with the Three Little Pigs. It’s always been the traditional way of telling the story and I don’t see why that should be changed.

“There’s an issue about the eating of pork, which is forbidden, but there is no prohibition about reading stories about pigs. This is an unnecessary step.”

Other recent rows have involved ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ being changed to ‘Baa Baa rainbow sheep’ and Christmas events called ‘winter’ festivities.

Mr Mogra said: “How far are we going to go? Are we going to change the seven dwarves because it’s discriminatory towards people who are physically less able? Where do you draw the line?

“Every time we get these stories Muslims are seen more and more as misfits. We have to accept there’s a predominant culture here.”

A voice of reason! Thank you Mr. Mogra.

Now we go to Minneapolis and discuss Target and Flying Imams…

From a StarTribune article on March 14th we find that a clerk at Target refused to run a package of bacon over the scanner. The clerk was wearing a Muslim headscarf and she made the customer run the plastic package of bacon over the scanner. The clerk said it was against her religion to handle pork.

Why on earth did she take a position at a store that sells pork products? If handling pork products is against her religion then she should work somewhere where it isn’t sold. No plastic wrapped packages of pork rinds, not boxed packages of frozen No Name pork chops. No plastic wrapped packages of pork from the butcher shop. No sealed plastic packages of bacon. No cans of Spam. No sausages. No hot dogs. How many of these items may she have inadvertently run over the scanner? A little can of Vienna Sausages may not scream PORK PRODUCT!!!! If she wants to sell food, but doesn’t want to handle pork products, perhaps she ought to work at a halal shop or even a kosher deli…

Target is now transferring employees who don’t want to handle pork to other areas of the stores or to other stores altogether. How far do we need to go to accommodate anyone?If we look at the statement made above my Mr. Mogra, we see that he says the prohibition on pork is on consuming pork. Jews aren’t supposed to consume pork either, but I haven’t seen any Jewish clerks refuse to ring it up in a grocery store.

This is America and many Americans eat pork. Generally when we purchase pork it is packaged. We don’t throw a raw slab of pig meat down on the conveyor belt at the check out station. Moving a package across a scanner and putting it in a bag doesn’t seem to me to be “handling” pork. It’s handling a closed package that may happen to hold pork. Handling pork would be butchering and packaging it. The package is handling groceries.

Then there are the Flying Imams who are suing U.S. Airways because of the flap they generated at the Minneapolis Airport. They also wish to sue the passengers on the plane who complained about the Imams behavior. Via SeeDubya at JYB we find that

Now the moderate American Islamic Forum for Democracy has stepped forward with a pledge to raise money for whatever “Does” get named in the suit:

“It’s so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel,” said Dr. Jasser. “But I hope it doesn’t get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears.”

More voices of reason.

SeeDubya adds this:

P.P.S.: From the AIFD press release, linked above:

4. While the six imams’ handlers, CAIR, and their lawyers may have some kind of obscure basis for their lawsuit, it is our belief that the fallout and publicity from such litigation is wrong for American Muslims, wrong for American security, and wrong for American freedoms. The greatest guarantor of our rights as American Muslims is the tenor of our relationship with the greater majority of American society. This type of litigiousness is divisive and achieves nothing but resentment and actually causes far more harm than good to the overall image of the Muslim community in the eyes of non-Muslim America.

Advertisements