First Piglet, Now Banks

British banks are banning piggy banks because they may offend some Muslims.

Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here.

Muslims do not eat pork, as Islamic culture deems the pig to be an impure animal.

Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, backed the bank move.

“This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers,” he said.

However, the move brought accusations of political correctness gone mad from critics.
the age

I trust they will soon be banning interest as it too is offensive to Muslim sensibilities.

Written by jay on October 25th, 2005 with 3 comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and law.

Related articles

3 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Sean
#1. October 25th, 2005, at 9:58 AM.

I was going to buy shares in a copy that prints Korans on recycled pork rinds, but in light of your post I’m guessing this won’t be the financial grand slam I’m looking for.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Robert McClelland
#2. October 25th, 2005, at 10:47 AM.

Hey, this is nothing. The halfwitted Christians are upset because Belgium will no longer be capitalizing the c in christ.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com jay
#3. October 26th, 2005, at 12:50 AM.

That would be christians Robert.

Here’s the thing, Belgium historically has been a Christian nation. Leaving aside any question of belief, Christian custom and culture permeate the country. So the question arises, why change it from C to c? And the answer is likely a combination of a desire to pander to non-Christian immigrants and to militant atheists.

My libertarian side could not care less as I don’t think the state should be in the business of determining how to capitalize or otherwise punctuate. My conservative side suggests that if the state is to intervene it should always be on the side of preservation rather than change for its own sake.

The real test will be whether or not Mohamed and Buddha become mohamed and buddha. Want to bet?

Leave your comment...

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:




You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .