Another example – as if it were needed – of how touchy-feely do-gooders want to bow to the strange beliefs (and at taxpayers’ expense) of deluded people comes to us in Britain’s Telegraph.
It describes how Home Office staff were told not to eat in front of Muslims during Ramadan, which ends this week. During this so-called “holy” month, Muslims believe, for whatever reason, that they are forbidden to eat or drink between sunrise and sunset.
The Home Office has spent our money on a five-page document that “tells civil servants that eating lunch near a colleague who is fasting can make them feel hungry”.
In a story that, willy-nilly and with no logic or even a nod to the rules of punctuation, mixes single and double quotation marks (my hobbyhorse – don’t argue!), the Telegraph says the document was produced by something called the Home Office Islamic Network, which also is paid for out of taxpayers’ money.
But the odd thing is that the Muslim Public Affairs Committee says this is a load of cobblers. “It is designed to create more hatred in the hearts of non-Muslims,” it says. “We don’t care how much non-Muslims eat in front of us.
“It’s never been an issue and never will be and we have never asked for any special treatment or sensitivity from non-Muslims whilst fasting.”
There you have it, straight from the horse’s unfed mouth.
How do these woolly minded do-gooders think Muslims cope when they’re walking the streets and passing the many food shops – especially those that cook food on the premises? Do they have to hold their breath so as not to sniff the aromas?
The point of fasting is to make a sacrifice, isn’t it? One assumes Muslims don’t want it to be easy. What would be the point?
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.