Oxford University Press bans pigs and pork from children's books

Oxford University Press (OUP) is the largest university press in the world. Founded in 1480, OUP is the second-oldest university press, after that of Cambridge University Press. A department of the University of Oxford, OUP is governed by the Delegates of the Press — a group of 15 academics appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.
Given Oxford University Press’ prestige, it is all the more significant that the Press has seen fit to muzzle itself by banning all mention of pigs and pork from its children’s and school books, so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of Muslims.
Porky Pig
Katie Strick and Ben Wilkinson report for The Daily Mail that during a discussion about free speech and censorship following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, on the BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program on Jan. 12, 2015, the program’s presenter James Naughtie – whose writer wife Eleanor Updale is in talks with OUP over an educational book series – said:

“I’ve got a letter here that was sent out by OUP to an author doing something for young people. Among the things prohibited in the text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork. Now, if a respectable publisher, tied to an academic institution, is saying you’ve got to write a book in which you cannot mention pigs because some people might be offended, it’s just ludicrous. It is just a joke.”

Of course, we know that the religious groups that ban the eating of pork are Judaism and Islam. However, since OUP’s policy banning pigs and pork is only recently instituted, one can assume that Muslims, not Jews, are the people whom the politically-correct spineless OUP Delegates of the Press fear offending. Indeed, a spokesman for the Jewish Leadership Council said: “Jewish law prohibits eating pork, not the mention of the word, or the animal from which it derives.”

Ironically, OUP’s asinine policy has already earned a denunciation from a prominent Muslim, UK Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, who calls the policy “absolute utter nonsense.”

There is no mention of the non-pig/pork policy on Oxford University Press’ writers’ guidelines web page.

The Daily Mail claims OUP says its guidelines exist because it needs to make its educational material available to as many people as possible. A spokesman said: “Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities. Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.”

But Global News‘ Nicole Mortillaro reports that following media reports on OUP’s pig/pork banning, the Press issued a statement denying the allegations in a comment piece for The Guardian, titled “No, we haven’t banned books on pigs — but sensitivity is key in global publishing.” OUP’s primary publishing director Jane Harley wrote:

“In the UK, we take it for granted that we would not include references to sex, violence, or alcohol in our textbooks; to do so would be considered inappropriate and offensive to many. In order to make an impact around the world, there are other sensitivities that, although not necessarily obvious to some of us, are nonetheless extremely important to others.”

Harley’s statement is an artful effort at double-speak. No where did she explicitly deny that OUP bans pig and pork from its children’s books.

Westerners like the pusillanimous Oxford University Press imagine that they can purchase peace by appeasing Muslims. On the contrary, simpering cowardice has never stopped bullies. They just get emboldened and even more grandiose and bellicose.


Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Notify of

Wow – these ferrets MUST get a life….
Thanks for our laugh for the day, Dr.Eowyn!!


This is like a rolling snowball that has the possibility of growing larger and larger as it goes. Where on earth does all this stupid PC crap end? Offense can be taken by anybody to anything; do we quit writing books so as not to offend somebody, anybody or everybody. LOL!! How ridiculous. As for the Muslims and their “delicate sensibilities” it doesn’t seem to bother them to see the blood guts and gore their people create around the world with their heinous executions so I’m not buying that Porky the Pig or breakfast sausages are giving them strokes either.


Hey, Jane doesn’t want herself, her family, or her organization to be put on the hit list and eventually slaughtered.
And she doesn’t want to be blamed for hurting sales.


Damn muzzies are a bunch of stone age savages. I wondered why so many negroes I have encountered gravitated to Islam. It seems to appeal to primitives and leftist liberals.
Hmmm, I wonder if pResident Lucifer forbids any pork products from being served in the former White House.


They best modify these books they publish so as not to offend anyone’s “sensitivities”:
Racism: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, The Jungle Book
Misogyny: The Oxford Treasury of Nursery Rhymes (Jack & Jill, Old Mother Hubbard, Little Women,
Religion (Christianity): The Thirteen Days of Christmas, A Christmas Story with Nativity Set
Witchcraft: Winnie the Witch
Income Inequality: Treasure Island
You get the idea…


SENSIBLE Americans need to declare WAR on PC-it’s done nothing but cause problems. It wasn’t long ago that when someone said something that offended a person,that person GOT OVER IT. Now,though,that person is more inclined to just force people to NOT say whatever offended someone. These anti-free speech “victims” are a whole new crop of wimps who can’t stand to be “offended”. They’ve never learned that there’s nothing anyone can say to them that can cause them any harm unless they LET it. Of course the Liberals,being the VICTIM PARTY,has pushed this to a ridiculous excess. NO MORE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

Army Vet 4444 (@ArmyVet4444)

Oxford has become a Liberal Cesspool of Dung trying to be born into a free world with communist ideology.


Good Grief!