h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've just heard this news item on Radio 4. A Muslim councillor in Tayside has objected to the the Police using a picture of an Alsation puppy on their cards advertising a non-emergency phone number because dogs are considered un-clean.

This is the sort of religously correct rubbish that will fuel BNP type criticism and encourage further racial schism within Britain.

I also declare an interest. My dog gave me a big kiss at lunchtime.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030798/Muslims-outraged-police-advert-featuring-cute-puppy-sitting-policemans-hat.html

The variety of things that cause offense these days makes my head swim. I would never have imagined a picture of a puppy causing such a reaction. Now I know not to invite any Muslims to my house. Would they also be offended by my cats?

Hyp, unashamedly hugging her dog

Which is exactly why no government should legislate against "offence" only against "harm".

On the discriminating theme in general - my wife returned to work at the cinema after an illness to find changes had led to a barrage of complaints. All new films shown at peak times now have to be subtitled. People were walking out or saving their anger until the end and complaining that the subtitles were distracting, unnecessary and had ruined the film. Company policy is now that *not* to subtitle the films is to discriminate against deaf people.

I wonder how long this policy will last as takings slump?

Let's cut away from the Daily Hate spin and see what the actual story is.

A Dundee councillor has pointed out to police that Muslim shopkeepers are very unlikely to put up a card displaying the new police non-emergency phone number because it has a picture of a dog, which is regarded by some as 'unclean'. As such, it's a waste of resources producing the card because some sections of the community aren't going to display it. The councillor further says that Dundee police have a diversity advisor who is usually very good at picking up things like this. Police admit that they didn't consult him/her over this, and apologised.

Read the quotes from Mohammed Asif in the article. What he says strikes me as fair, moderate, and reasonable. Certainly nothing in what he says to justify the Hate's claims of "Muslim outrage". All he's saying is that if the police want their information displayed as widely as possible, they need to be a bit more sensitive about what images they use, otherwise it's a waste of money.

Does anyone have a problem with this view?

What will "fuel BNP type criticism and encourage further racial schism within Britain" is not the perfectly reasonable remarks of an elected councillor, but the hysterical, biased, and entirely misleading reporting of sections of our media like the Hate. I'm amazed that people continue to fall for it.

I actually know that Councillor, but I know his son rather better through the off-licence he has off the Constitution Rd. The son is like many Muslims I have met - absolutely terrified of big dogs. This guy is an ex-boxer and runs an off-licence in the middle of a druggie area. He's a hard man and not one to cross. I saw him hiding in the stockroom one day because there was a customer in with an alsation. He was grey with fear.

I think some Muslims may teach their kids to be scared of dogs as a way of reinforcing this "unclean" message.

So the Councillor is right - Muslim shopkeepers won't put this postcard up. For them it's a mixed message - putting a picture of a dog with a helpline. But they're missing the point rather - the postcards are being distributed around shops to be displayed to the public.

So, erm, why the all-caps title?

I like how this article could almost have come straight out of the Daily Mail headline generator. I suppose you'd have to replace alsatians with British Bulldogs though, and possibly gotten the word "slammed" in there somewhere.

Same old same old.

Ask your selves this question.

If for instance a woman protested against a rape helpline poster campaign where a man was seen pursuing menacingly a woman in a tight blouse and short skirt would this story be ran as a problem of women being a problem for complaining? Would the focus be on the issues about dress and the *supposed* idea that it gives some men the feeling of been given the green light to do what they like?

It is sad that thi is once again another distortion and inflation of what might never have happened if the regular procedures were followed. As has been discussed on another thread recently sometimes promotions that miss the mark or that cause mild offence are launched and its down to poor judgement.

Which is the case here, but predictably a paper known for stirring up trouble and causing confusion has done it again.

one love

Question, please. Does this community have a large enough Muslim population that their view of dogs should be common knowledge to the general public and the police? If so and the ad campaign was deliberately provocative, then perhaps there would be a reason for complaint.

I apologize for making the comment about not inviting a Muslim to my home. That was unkind. It's a moot point since there aren't any Muslims where I live. I also admit that I had no idea a photo of a puppy would be considered offensive. It simply wouldn't have occurred to me. But how on earth are we supposed to keep track of it all anymore? There is someone out there who will be offended by about anything.

Why don't they make a second card with the information the police wants the public to have that is acceptable to the Muslim shop owners? Give people a chjoice. Let the people who actually like the one with the puppy use that one. Some people might pay more attention to it because they like dogs.

Probably about 5000 Muslims in Dundee, concentrated around the Hilltown area where around 90% of businesses are Muslim-owned. The overall population of Dundee is about 140,000.

Hypatia Im part of the general public and Ive known that some people have a big thing against "Khutta" or dogs as we call them since I was 8.

The police might not comefrom acosmopolitan multicultural area like miine but then thye do have a recognised advisor for help..who they didnt ask to give this poster a once-over.

"But how on earth are we supposed to keep track of it all anymore? There is someone out there who will be offended by about anything.

Um I dont think anyone is *supposed* to keep track of who's offended by what, butyou know now and that's what matters, well that and how you do things in the future given your new found knowledge.

We used to have a very sweary club song, we've been encouraging more women and children into our club, some of them were offended by our club songs lyrics and others werent. We changed it slightly for the ones who were offended. We still get drunk, play rugby and sing songs just with a few words edited out in favour of others...and the sky did not fall in.

Under the guise of common decency I guess we are *supposed*to be sensitive when we are aware of things that will or may offend others.

The police have someone to help them with that. They dropped a bit of a clanger and someone helpfully pointed it out is one way of looking at it. Or some others may decide to call it complaining or the mad march of political correctness trampling the British way of life under foot.

"I also admit that I had no idea a photo of a puppy would be considered offensive. It simply wouldn't have occurred to me. But how on earth are we supposed to keep track of it all anymore? There is someone out there who will be offended by about anything."

It's not that the photo of a puppy would be considered "offensive", it's that some Muslim business people would not, personally, put it up. That's the only point that Mohammed Asif was trying to make, judging by the quotes that are attributed to him, rather than the surrounding fuss and nonsense.

It's also worth reading this rather more balanced article in the Scotsman. It quotes Osama Saeed, the chief executive of the Scottish-Islamic Foundation, as saying that the issue with dogs is cultural rather than religious. It's *not* offensive to Muslims to put up pictures of dogs. But if you want Muslims to carry out the public service of displaying police posters, don't use dogs in them. *We* don't particularly need to keep track of this, that's why experts are employed such as the diversity advisor who was bypassed this time.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Apology-on-the-cards-as.4243889.jp

"Why don't they make a second card with the information the police wants the public to have that is acceptable to the Muslim shop owners? Give people a choice. Let the people who actually like the one with the puppy use that one. Some people might pay more attention to it because they like dogs."

I'd have no objection to this, and I don't think Councillor Asif would either. All he's saying is that it's a waste of time and money sending out posters to people who'll just bin them. Perhaps SWL could ask him, though.

Seriously, why is this even national news? Why is the opinion of a Dundee councillor about a set of posters for a new phone number *national* news!? The only reason I can see is the very nasty agenda of a very nasty newspaper. I just don't understand why people don't question it more.

These things would be much easier, if there wasn't a degree of hypocrisy always going on.

A few years ago I was involved with an arts organisation. We published a magazine with some surrealist painting on the cover, involving a naked woman. Local Muslims kicked up a fuss, and the pc liberals on the committee apologised profusely, publicly and said it would never happen again. I resigned.

But the thing is you'd get 'up themselves', respectable Daily Mail types thinking the same thing about that painting on display, and a few years ago it would probably have been unacceptable to publish such an image, outside an art gallery, due to British squeamishness about anything to do with sauciness, apart from in Carry On films etc.

So yes I'm all for resisting censorship about anything, from anyone, (so long as it's not abusive or will *literally* hurt), so long as its a level playing field. But it won't be. The hypocrites will never admit that though...Especially not Mail readers.

Apologies for the all caps title. Habit, and not intended to infer outrage or shouting.

The article has just been on Radio 4 news so it's struck a note nationswide. My concern is that increasingly the sensitivities of small, but vocal, minorities are channging the way the majority are allowed to think and act.

Maybe not so extreme in this particular case but even so do we really need 'Diversity Officers' and the rest of the thought police administration. As a society we are getting close to being told how we should think, overtly and covertly. Dangerous.

WA did you not bother reading anyone else's input here? Are you just intending to repeat your own panic, over and over.

> As a society we are getting close to being told how we should think, overtly and covertly. <

As I pointed out, it has always been this way. It's just naivity to think otherwise, or that its so much easier and simple minded to think this is some new phenomenon of the way society operates, and blame the enemy within.

If you're not interested in responding to people who have input here, I won't bother posting again.

WA, why don't you take your soap box to speaker's corner in Hyde Park, if you're not interested in debating other people's points here.

And I also thought the all caps title a pretty strange thing. Habit? How did you acquire such WA?

Simply some people fear change any chany of any kind panics them. This is unfortunate but shouldnt stop us from changing things.

Some people were offended by the idea of the lower classes of people getting the vote, its a no brainer that those offended and who spoke out against the idea werein the wrong as they were denuying liberty to others.

Where in this story is there a single example of ordinary people being told how to thinkin their daily lives?

There is an example of a councillor counselling the police about how to serve the community they are meant to work for...isnt that the way democracy is supposed to work? Muslim traders pay taxes and therefore the police they contribute to should to a reasonable extent take their sensitivitiesinto consideration just as they should for everyone individually or as a group who pay taxes and have a right to be in this country.

What exactly is your *real* problem here because its not being told what to think because having read your last post I dont see any evidence that that's happening.

OK Bye.

If instead of the police and the counsellor we had a company and a marketing advisor, this piece of news wouldn´t have been such.

In many ways, public institutions work as companies. A kind of Marketing or whatever you call it is needed to get your aims.

The fuss about it is the same everywhere about Muslims. We have too many prejudices against them because of their religion.
We forget that not all of them think the same or are fanatical.
You, British, forget that there are quite a few lumps of Christian religion that you have to swallow because your State, like mine, is not secular.

Part of this will end as soon as our proteicus capitalist system find a target in the fact of being Muslim: food halal, clothes...
As it is happening here with homosexuals. They are a succulent trade target. Chueca is the gay quarter of Madrid. The prosperity has increased since they are there. Neighbours are really tolerant. All make money.

***
Hipocresy

A few days ago, I watched a piece of news from UK. The Spanish journalist commented about a commercial which was removed because two men were kissing. A kind of see-you-later kiss.
Sad. I can't see how this can harm any one, no matter their age.
She also reminded the recent removal from the tube of London of a renaissance picture with a naked woman.

A commonplace about anglosaxons is that they are hipocrite puritans. I would say that SOME of you(as happen everywhere) have narrow views about sexual matters. But it seems that this narrowmindedness affects mainly to some who have some kind of power in a community.
The rule is: Sex is wrong, troublesome. The minimun hint of eroticism must be eliminated. However, a children can see lots of violence.

Just to please a minority (probably WHASP)

Oh I appear to have offended WA's sensitivities with a mixture of thoughts and difficult questions.

It's shame he's gone still not long till winterval when it will all start again.

Ho hum

Don't kid yourself, the comment was aimed at Effers.