Why are there some groups out there which are deemed so sensitive, so delicate that anything which might offend them is a no-no?
It’s one thing, out of common courtesy, to refrain from using ethnic slurs such as the ‘N’ word. Yes, that’s still ‘free speech’, and I’ll support someone’s right to use such slurs, even though I can’t say it’s right to do so.
But common courtesy devolves to sheer idiocy when words or phrases like ‘niggardly’ or ‘a chink in the armor’ could be deemed offensive. The idiocy continued in Dudley Council, West Midlands (UK), when images of pigs, including the Winnie the Pooh character ‘Piglet’ were banned from town council offices on the grounds that a Muslim was offended. A member of the council backed the ban saying “It’s tolerance of people’s beliefs” Now, if a lunch was served with only pork products, and no allowance was made for people who don’t eat pork, I could buy into that statement. But I doubt that it’s forbidden for you to even view a pig. By that standard, the next step would be banning of all dogs within city limits.
Jews are forbidden from consuming pork as well, and you’d hardly invite a Hindu over for a steak dinner. Perfectly reasonable. But do we hear screams from the Jewish community about Piglet or Maxwell, the little pig in the Geico commercials? Are members of the Hindu community up in arms over Elsie, the Borden Cow or ‘Elmer’ the bull from the Elmer’s Glue bottle? Do Pastafarians throw a fit when they see a plate of spaghetti on TV?
It’s one thing if a community is upset over something they deem offensive. Peaceful protests? Boycotts? Writing letters to a company or the media expressing your feelings? Sure! Absolutely, 100%. But there’s no excuse for violence, and there needs to be a reasonable level of offense. Christians would be just as ‘over the top’ demanding that everyone be forced to give something up for Lent as these particular Muslims were in demanding Piglet be banned.