This article first appeared in New English Review.
In the northern Italian city of Padua (Padova), some Muslim leaders are upset over a new food shop that specializes in pork. As an advertisement, the proprietor placed a plastic figure of a pig in the front shop window. One of the leaders in the local Muslim community has asked the city administrators to force the owner to remove the display since pigs and pork are considered offensive to Muslims.
In response, supporters of the shop point out that the pig itself is not offensive in any way, and besides, Italians have been eating pork for centuries. Why should they change what is an accepted part of their culture? In addition, the shop has Muslim employees who see nothing wrong with the display. The debate has spread from Padua all over Italy.
If I may jump in here, obviously, I support the shop, and I find it arrogant and offensive that a recent immigrant community (or at least certain members of that community) would demand that Italians remove something that has been accepted and innocuous in their nation and in their culture for centuries.
But the case does merit a discussion of the balance between cultural sensitivities and personal freedom. For example, I have previously written a couple of articles on the annual Fasching celebrations in Aalst, a small town in Belgium. For the last few years, the Jewish community has complained about floats that show age-old caricatures of Jews that refer to stereotypes, such as Jews being money-hoarders, etc. The caricatures bring to mind the images from Der Stuermer, the old Nazi weekly operated by Julius Streicher, who was also Gauleiter of Nuremberg. Streicher was one of the major Nazi leaders in the initial war crimes trial in Nuremberg, and he was convicted and hanged for inciting hate against Jews. It was deemed that his writing and his speeches were a factor that eventually contributed to the Final Solution. I would also add that during the Nazi years, Cologne's carnival season (Germany's most famous) also featured large negative caricatures of Jews similar to those of Aalst.
In the Belgian case, I take the side of the Jewish community since the images were deliberately and undeniably insulting to Jews as a people. While Muslims may abstain from eating pork, which is their right, and may have an aversion to the sight of a pig or a picture of a pig, the representation of a pig or advertising pork products is in no way meant to be directed at Muslims.
And yes. They have chosen to immigrate to a nation where pork is regularly consumed. Nobody is saying they have to eat it, but they have no right to demand the removal of an image that they may consider in bad taste, when that image is normal in Italian society.
On the other hand, if the shop window were displaying images of Muslims or the Prophet Mohammad that were deliberately insulting, such as those displayed in Aalst against Jews, I would support the Muslim side. That is not the case here.
It should be noted here that in many European countries with large Muslim communities, some local schools are removing pork from their school menus. I disagree with that since Muslim children are under no compulsion to eat pork in school.
In addition, a few years ago, a local imam in Munich actually asked the city to eliminate Oktoberfest since alcohol is supposedly forbidden under Islam. I say supposedly because in Turkey, they are very fond of their potent raki liquor and also produce great beer.
Of course, the Italian pork shop is just a small part of the overall issue of public discourse about Islam, terrorism, anti-Semitism, and our rights to publicly discuss these issues without painting every Muslim on the planet as a terrorist. But if a shop owner cannot even place a caricature of a pig in his front window, how can we enjoy the freedom to talk about all these other issues pertaining to Islam?
No comments:
Post a Comment