Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

[edesignuk]

A story based on the Three Little Pigs has been turned down from a government agency's annual awards because the subject matter could offend Muslims.

The digital book, re-telling the classic fairy tale, was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues". Oh great, that's just peachy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7204635.stm).

Where will it end?

[Eraserhead]

:rolleyes:


These stories are a really important part of our culture, and they are one way of passing information about life through the generations, given our governments inability to teach social education at all, they really are our only hope.

[edesignuk]

Well that's too bad, because other peoples culture is more important than our native one. Obviously :rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

Well that's too bad, because other peoples culture is more important than our native one. Obviously :rolleyes:

Well their culture is important too, but so is ours, I'm not offended by Koreans eating Dog or the French eating Horse. Therefore they shouldn't be offended about a story about pigs.

EDIT: Seriously though the Muslim council of Britain will probably come out condemning this move shortly.

[scotthayes]

I'm totally gob smacked. what ever next, Cinderella banned because it upsets ugly women

Oh and edesignuk - You seem to spend as much time on the BBC News site as me. ta for redirecting my thread on this :)

[edesignuk]

EDIT: Seriously though the Muslim council of Britain will probably come out condemning this move shortly.I hope so. I was wondering to myself if any Muslim had actually had any input in this decision, or if it was just a bunch of suited nitwits being seriously overly 'cautious'.

[Eraserhead]

I'm totally gob smacked. what ever next, Cinderella banned because it upsets ugly women

And that when translated from the original German it can refer to a fur slipper rather than a glass one, think of the children :eek:.

[imac/cheese]

I figured this thread was going to have something to do with all the blowing the big bad wolf does. :o

[Thomas Veil]

I figured this thread was going to have something to do with all the blowing the big bad wolf does. :oAaaaand I'm not even gonna go there. :D

Lucy van Pelt once said, "If you go around watching every word you say all the time, you'll never get much said." I think something like that applies here. Cultural sensitivity is one thing, but if you're gonna censor everything that offends someone, somewhere...you're gonna be literally speechless.

[freebooter]

Ban "Princess and the Pea" as it may offend a few, hypersensitive gardeners. :rolleyes:

Who are the people who think of these things?

[imac/cheese]

Since the big bad wolf is the bad guy in this story and he wants to eat the pigs, doesn't that mean the moral of the story is that bad guys eat pork? How could that offend Muslims?

[AndyR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7204635.stm

:eek: OMG why don't people in this country get a spine and stop worrying about offending people. Its freaking ridiculas now!

Maybe if more British people started screaming everything is racist and then a small minority decide to run around blowing themselves up we wouldn't have this problem.

Sorry just venting....

[solvs]

How could that offend Muslims?

It doesn't, but some overly sensitive or overly cautious people are worried it might. I might also offend builders and construction workers apparently. Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing.

[MikeTheC]

You know, I always thought England had a spine and a rather large (and arguably highly ornate) pair of balls. Guess maybe I was wrong. Bunch of liberal knee-jerk reactionary crap.

Good thing Field Marshal Montgomery and PM Churchill aren't around to see what a mess is being made of their native soil.

Of course, we're not doing too much better over on this side of the pond.

Of all the things we had to export, why the h*ll did it have to be Political Correctness?!?

[Queso]

Since the big bad wolf is the bad guy in this story and he wants to eat the pigs, doesn't that mean the moral of the story is that bad guys eat pork? How could that offend Muslims?
<Wahabist extremism>
Because it makes out that Jews aren't evil!!! :mad::mad::mad:
</Wahabist extremism>

[Osarkon]

I hope so. I was wondering to myself if any Muslim had actually had any input in this decision, or if it was just a bunch of suited nitwits being seriously overly 'cautious'.

More than likely it was government think-tanks overthinking. I remember the last time something similar happened a Muslim wrote an article saying she wasn't in the least offended by what they were worried about, what she was offended by was them making the assumption that she would be offended by it.

Mind you, now that it's actually been brought to light, it wouldn't surprise me to hear a few going 'yes actually that does offend us'.

[Blue Velvet]

More than likely it was government think-tanks overthinking.

Which shows how policy teams seem remarkably free of the minorities they want to champion, speaking from personal experience. All full of white middle-class people from university backgrounds.

[::Lisa::]

Oh great, that's just peachy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7204635.stm).

Where will it end?

:rolleyes:


These stories are a really important part of our culture, and they are one way of passing information about life through the generations, given our governments inability to teach social education at all, they really are our only hope.

Well that's too bad, because other peoples culture is more important than our native one. Obviously :rolleyes:I agree with the 2 following posts.

---

OMG you have to be ******** me?! (pardon my language!)
I mean c'mon. Not to sound racist here, because I'm not but they're allowed to have all their festivals and such and we don't get offended but little things like a nursery rhyme, we're not allowed because they'll get offended. It's just silly! Whatever next?!

[scotthayes]

I agree with the 2 following posts.

---

OMG you have to be ******** me?! (pardon my language!)
I mean c'mon. Not to sound racist here, because I'm not but they're allowed to have all their festivals and such and we don't get offended but little things like a nursery rhyme, we're not allowed because they'll get offended. It's just silly! Whatever next?!

That's the point, it's not Muslims who have banned it's it white men in suits.

My best friend is a Muslim and he is offended by them banning it, he's not offended by the little pigs story.

[.Andy]

More than likely it was government think-tanks overthinking.
Or not;
"Becta with its partners is responsible for the judging criteria against which the 70 independent judges, mostly practising teachers, comment. All the partners stick by the judging criteria," said a Becta spokesman.

The reason that this product was not shortlisted was because "it failed to reach the required standard across a number of criteria", said the spokesman.


That's the point, it's not Muslims who have banned it's it white men in suits.

My best friend is a Muslim and he is offended by them banning it, he's not offended by the little pigs story.
Read. The. Article. Nothing has been banned. You are fanning your own outrage.

[::Lisa::]

That's the point, it's not Muslims who have banned it's it white men in suits.

My best friend is a Muslim and he is offended by them banning it, he's not offended by the little pigs story.Yeah, I suppose your right. :o

Thing is they always seem to think about them and not us in this sort of thing, it's getting silly now! I don't think anyone was that offended in the first place really. We're here too and we obviously need to co-exist. Didn't they change the "Bar bar Black sheep" to "Bar Bar Woolly sheep"? That's what my sister in law says and she was a Nursery Nurse but don't know if she made that up or not.

They need to spend government money researching stuff more worthwhile.

[MacBoobsPro]

Yeah, I suppose your right. :o

Thing is they always seem to think about them and not us in this sort of thing, it's getting silly now! I don't think anyone was that offended in the first place really. We're here too and we obviously need to co-exist. Didn't they change the "Bar bar Black sheep" to "Bar Bar Woolly sheep"? That's what my sister in law says and she was a Nursery Nurse but don't know if she made that up or not.

They need to spend government money researching stuff more worthwhile.

I thought it ended up being rainbow sheep? You know because there are a lot of multicoloured sheep out there.

[scotthayes]

Or not;




Read. The. Article. Nothing has been banned. You are fanning your own outrage.

I'll. Restate. Shall. I. It was rejected from the awards because "the use of pigs raises cultural issues". That in my eyes is pretty much banning it from the awards.

[::Lisa::]

I thought it ended up being rainbow sheep? You know because there are a lot of multicoloured sheep out there.I suppose there could quite possibly be.............. if you've been taking those darn mushrooms again :p

[MacBoobsPro]

I suppose there could quite possibly be.............. if you've been taking those darn mushrooms again :p

Don't look at me, look at the idiots that think calling a black sheep black is offensive. :D

"We have decided that the colour black is offensive to black people. We have decided to call it Rainbow"

So now a black hole is called a Rainbow Hole and the Care Bears are REALLY pissed!

*thinks maybe he has been at the mushrooms* :p

[Abstract]

It doesn't, but some overly sensitive or overly cautious people are worried it might. I might also offend builders and construction workers apparently. Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing.

And they think builders are the target market for a children's book? How insulting!!

[.Andy]

I'll. Restate. Shall. I. It was rejected from the awards because "the use of pigs raises cultural issues". That in my eyes is pretty much banning it from the awards.
No it wasn't banned or rejected from the awards. It was judged for a prize like all the other books against a list of criteria, and the independent judging panel decided it didn't cut the mustard. Not banned or rejected form the awards, just judged unsatisfactory to win an award.

Also why hasn't anyone in this thread mentioned Asians?
"concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

[MacBoobsPro]

Also why hasn't anyone in this thread mentioned Asians?

I dont think we are allowed to anymore. :rolleyes:

[Osarkon]

And they think builders are the target market for a children's book? How insulting!!

That's a very good point actually!

Dug themselves a nice little hole there. :rolleyes:

[scotthayes]

No it wasn't banned or rejected from the awards. It was judged for a prize like all the other books against a list of criteria, and the independent judging panel decided it didn't cut the mustard. Not banned or rejected form the awards, just judged unsatisfactory to win an award.

Also why hasn't anyone in this thread mentioned Asians?

The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-Rom highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

[.Andy]

The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-Rom highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".
I know, I read the article. In context that quote means;
The reason that this product was not shortlisted was because "it failed to reach the required standard across a number of criteria", said the spokesman.
It wasn't singled out as offending muslims and rejected or banned from consideration for an award. It just wasn't up to par as determined by 70 independent judges based on a standardised list of judging criteria. It appears one of those criteria was offending cultural sensitivities, be them muslim, buddhist, christian, asian, greek, american, australian, etc.

[KJmoon117]

The judges mentions that it could offend the Asian Community and gave no reason why. So my question is, does any one know how this could offend the Asian Community?

[scotthayes]

I know, I read the article. In context that quote means;

It wasn't singled out as offending muslims and rejected or banned from consideration for an award. It just wasn't up to par as determined by 70 independent judges based on a standardised list of judging criteria. It appears one of those criteria was offending cultural sensitivities, be them muslim, buddhist, christian, asian, greek, american, australian, etc.

But a Becta review thought it was up to standard.

The 3 Little Cowboy Builders is a fantastic resource that could be recommended to any Primary School. With The 3 Little Cowboy Builders, Shoo fly have produced an exciting and innovative resource that would enhance any Primary curriculum!




The Becta feedback included these comments:


“Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"

"The subject matter is questionable for certain groups within the UK."

"The idea of taking a traditional tale and retelling a story is fine, but it should not alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)."

"Developers should make role models positive."

"Although this may not be intended, it feels cynical and tongue in cheek."

"Judges would not recommend this product to the Muslim community in particular."

"Only an exceedingly creative teacher could find this innovative."


So becta thought it fantastic, the judges felt amongst other things it would offend Muslims.

[.Andy]

The judges mentions that it could offend the Asian Community and gave no reason why. So my question is, does any one know how this could offend the Asian Community?
I'm guessing it's the UK definition of Asian which also means people from the subcontinent (which of course includes a large muslim population).

[themadchemist]

People need to chill out. I'm Hindu and the killing of cows is a terrible offense in my religion, but I'm not telling anyone to stop serving hamburgers at lunch. My hope is that people of all faiths have a certain level of respect for each other and for our country's secularism and at the same time, a heaping hunk of understanding that not every random possibly offensive thing is actually offensive or intended to be so.

We all need to chill.

[Brianstorm91]

It's beyond a joke isn't it.
And don't even get me started about that mosque in Oxford..

[themadchemist]

I'm guessing it's the UK definition of Asian which also means people from the subcontinent (which of course includes a large muslim population).

While that is undoubtedly what they meant, on a purely technical basis...There is a large population of Muslims in Indonesia, as well. I believe Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims of any country in the world. That honor would go to India if not for partition, but that's a whole different question.

[Stampyhead]

I thought it ended up being rainbow sheep? You know because there are a lot of multicoloured sheep out there.

But wouldn't that offend homosexuals? :) Or maybe they'd like it more, I don't know. This is all making my head hurt...

[Osarkon]

But wouldn't that offend homosexuals? :) Or maybe they'd like it more, I don't know. This is all making my head hurt...

That's exactly what I was thinking. Although I don't think they'd be as bothered really. You don't hear people being worried about offending homosexuals these days.

[.Andy]

And don't even get me started about that mosque in Oxford..
Ok we won't get you started on those muslims!!!!!!

That's exactly what I was thinking. Although I don't think they'd be as bothered really. You don't hear people being worried about offending homosexuals these days.
Unfortunately heterosexuals still get uppity at the depiction of homosexual couples as normal. Especially when it comes to kids. In 2004 there was a massive uproar in Australia when one of our children's show depicted a girl with two mothers (oh the horror) taking her to the park to play (the depravity).

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203566949.html

[Don't panic]

Yeah, I suppose your right. :o

Thing is they always seem to think about them and not us in this sort of thing, it's getting silly now! I don't think anyone was that offended in the first place really. We're here too and we obviously need to co-exist. Didn't they change the "Bar bar Black sheep" to "Bar Bar Woolly sheep"? That's what my sister in law says and she was a Nursery Nurse but don't know if she made that up or not.

They need to spend government money researching stuff more worthwhile.

in my kids school it is still Bah Bah Black Sheep.

as far as the 3 pigs variant story, to penalize it because it might offend 'asians' it's plainly stupid. Not to mention that the vast majority of asians are not muslims, and happily eat pork. By the same metric, they should penalize any story about cows or with beef in it.

[Gelfin]

So now a black hole is called a Rainbow Hole and the Care Bears are REALLY pissed!

I'm thinking if there isn't a bar with that name here somewhere I'm going to be positively shocked.

[MikeTheC]

Well, ultimately, based on past actions (such as how the Muslim community reacted to a political cartoon) maybe it would be better if these books weren't published. Sounds like Islam might actually wipe itself off the face of the Earth, and leave all that middle-eastern land vacant.

And you'd know what would happen then...

[Iscariot]

It failed to pass the mustard on more than one criteria evaluated by a panel of 70 judges. This is just picking and choosing the criteria so that we can all play "outraged".

[Lixivial]

Merlin John, author of an educational technology website which highlighted the story, warns that such rulings can undermine the credibility of the awards.

Ah. It begins to come clear who and why this story was broke. It's based off a blog (http://www.merlinjohnonline.net/). OK, we get more details (http://merlinjohnonline.com/news.php?extend.266). So after reading that, I get the idea that this story amounts to little more than this:

According to those who have been excluded, the award and judgment process has long been viewed as unfair. The exclusion this year was, apparently, the last straw -- one so shocking and appalling that they decide to go "public" with this. In doing so, they immorally decide to pick and choose judge's comments and begin to spin the story as being related to racism and social issues rather than actually addressing all points of criticism leveled at CD-ROM.

The story is submitted to the BBC by the writer of the blog, and the BBC puts their own spin on top of an already blown-out-of-proportion story. The BBC sees a money grabbing headline in it, and begins to tie in larger social commentary. And as a result of some people being sore losers we get things like this:

Sounds like Islam might actually wipe itself off the face of the Earth, and leave all that middle-eastern land vacant.

And I'm left with the sinking feeling that the state of journalism sucks. I'm also left with the question: "Wanting a fairer process is nice, but at what cost?"

[.Andy]

Ah. It begins to come clear who and why this story was broke. It's based off a blog (http://www.merlinjohnonline.net/). OK, we get more details (http://merlinjohnonline.com/news.php?extend.266). So after reading that, I get the idea that this story amounts to little more than this:

According to those who have been excluded, the award and judgment process has long been viewed as unfair. The exclusion this year was, apparently, the last straw -- one so shocking and appalling that they decide to go "public" with this. In doing so, they immorally decide to pick and choose judge's comments and begin to spin the story as being related to racism and social issues rather than actually addressing all points of criticism leveled at CD-ROM.

The story is submitted to the BBC by the writer of the blog, and the BBC puts their own spin on top of an already blown-out-of-proportion story. The BBC sees a money grabbing headline in it, and begins to tie in larger social commentary. And as a result of some people being sore losers we get things like this:



And I'm left with the sinking feeling that the state of journalism sucks. I'm also left with the question: "Wanting a fairer process is nice, but at what cost?"
This post sums up the situation perfectly. Please post in PRSI more Lixivial :).

[Gelfin]

It failed to pass the mustard on more than one criteria evaluated by a panel of 70 judges. This is just picking and choosing the criteria so that we can all play "outraged".

It's
1. Cut the mustard
or
2. Pass muster

I normally won't get too picky about malapropisms, but nobody should be subjected to the mental image this one evokes.