generalspeaking

First known use of PUSILLANIMITY 14th century  Synonyms: cowardliness, cravenness, dastardliness, gutlessness, poltroonery, cowardice, spinelessness.

Get the picture? Picture this, animals known for their cutesy-appeal when young, animals known to be quite intelligent, animals with which we share a fairly close genetic link as fellow animals, and to which we link as well especial table treats, are now verbotten. Any new children's books authored by clever writers hoping to appeal to children's sense of humour, compassion and child-centric sensibilities of any kind will henceforth not see publication by Oxford University Press of Britain.

That's the venerable Oxford University Press, bowing in surrender to cultural-religious sensitivities of a kind known to melt steel at a glancing threat, and bowing as well, to Mammon. Neither does the Press any credit whatever. To bend like a pretzel, that traditional pasty in rigor mortis to the potential of offending forbidden Islamic culinary values transcends absurdity. True, Jews also are forbidden from eating pork products, but Jews don't really care all that much that others eat pork.

Nor do Jews rush manically about brandishing offended feelings along with scimitars to punish those who dare to disregard the tenets of Islam. Not that we yet live in a universe dictated by Sharia law, quivering with fear that our casual cultural and culinary tastes of long standing will create an uproar from the Muslim community that has migrated to take advantage of the freedoms -- of religion, choice, thought, expression and ideology - offered them as citizens.

They are not yet in a majority position throughout the world, although there is no question the ummah is on an inexorable growth cycle, and will eventually accomplish by sheer numbers what terrorism and violent intimidation is unable to bring to full realization. But we aren't there yet, and why make such a prodigious effort to accommodate the faithful of Islam while discommoding the faithful of Western democracies in such an incredible bow-out?

Yet, it's official. Britain's Oxford University Press has seen fit to warn authors to avoid any mention whatever of "pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork" should they wish the Press to deign to publish their work. BBC Radio host James Naughtie was just that when he revealed this situation; his wife reputed to be in consultation with the Press for the production of an education series of books.

"We provide this guidance to our U.K. authors for books that will be used for an international audience", explained Oxford University Press. Indeed.

Lydia Moed, an agent with the Canadian literary agency The Rights Factory, well known in the U.K. children's publishing industry cautions one should understand the context. It is "incorrect to ascribe this to self-censorship -- it's more a case of global market forces at work. If there's a choice between having a pig or, say, a bunny, as a minor character in a particular children's book, publishers are aware that choosing the pig character will severely limit the book's potential international market."

Really? If one looks at the world population of some seven billion souls, and the Muslim population of well under two billion, that leaves quite a number of potential readers of books featuring piggies in stories for children wanting to be entertained and finding piggish things more than a trifle entertaining.

Would books focusing instead on the life of the Prophet Mohammad for tykes be more appealing to Oxford Press? If so, that fits right in with its statement that its "guidelines are intended to ensure that we don't have to update books for international use", as they look toward the future of an Islamic majority within universal society.

That's foresight! That's haram!