So this is a UK thing, I guess. I hope. Unfortunately, the Sunday Times article underlying this (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1615171.ece) is mostly behind a firewall, as the Yahoo summary seems a bit too summary. But …
An organization called CoExist House (http://www.coexisthouse.org.uk/), which seeks inter-faith harmony, seems to be behind some proposals for promoting religious harmony in the workplace. Which is fine, until "harmony" is read as "compliance with the Least Offensive Denominator". To wit, no ham sandwiches stored in the office fridge because some people are "offended" by pork products.
Now, the suggestion that you might not want to stock an office lunch platter with kosher, hallal, and "ordinary" food next to each other makes a certain measure of sense. People with religious dietary restrictions might find that a bit much (ditto, I would suppose for religious-style Vegans and their alternate foods). That would seem simple politeness.
But that strikes me as different from saying, "Hey, because we have an observant Jew / Muslim / Hindu /Jain / Vegan working here, you can no longer keep bacon / ham / beef / flesh / animal products in the office fridge because it's disrespectful."
No. Insisting on everyone abiding by your dietary rules is disrespectful. I won't insist on you consuming what I choose to; you should not insist on restricting me to consuming what you choose to.
The irony here is that the guidelines will also call for workspaces to be tolerant of religious emblems and garb amongst workers. Never mind that some religious folk might claim offense at the religious insignia of other faiths. In this instance, everyone is being called to tolerate each other's practices; in the fridge instance, everyone is being told they must conform with the practices of others.
The guideline suggest that "alcohol should not be served at corporate events in case it upsets members of certain faiths." I can see arguing against alcohol because it opens up a company for liability in case of intoxication and subsequent unfortunate events. But because some might be "upset"? As long as there are what my college used to call EANABs (Equally Attractive Non-Alcoholic Beverages) available, your moral disdain for my drinking should not trump my desire to do so.
A number of years ago, when I was still an observant Catholic, I happened to travel to visit a friend during Lent. It was a Friday night, and the friend and me and bunch of others went out to a nice Middle Eastern restaurant. They all had shish-kebab and lamb and this and that. I had chickpeas, because there was no fish and I was eschewing meat on Fridays for religious reasons.
I was very jealous — the lamb looked great — but I would never have dreamed of insisting that we go to someplace where only fish and vegetarian dishes were available, or suggesting that people ordering beef skewers at the same table as I was at were disrespecting me and my faith. That would be absurd.
If I'm serving you a meal, I'll try and ask about dietary restrictions (religious or otherwise) and respect those. If I'm eating at your house, I'll be happy to abide by the house rules. That all polite and respectful. Dictating what food can or should be stored in the office fridge based on your or others' beliefs about what food is proper — is not.
(h/t +Marty Shaw)
Ham Sandwiches And Sausage Rolls May Be Banned From Office Kitchens For Being ‘Offensive’
Kitchens that are shared between office workers may soon be banned from storing pork products like sausage rolls over fears that they are “offensive”. Andy Dinham, professor of faith and public policy at Goldsmiths, University of London, is writing up the guidelines that will be put forward to employers this week.
At least be consistent, then. Follow the actual least common denominator: Only LENTILS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYHEACE-v0k
Wow, really?
I would want to see the guidelines themselves before passing judgment, because there's an obvious push by the article to hype it up and divide people into poo-throwing. But I pretty much agree with what you said.
If true its silly. However I’d want to see the original document and authors comments, because never underestimate (you CAN’T underestimate) the power of the press to filter stuff for their own ends, and report and filter on other articles that have already filtered
This was doing the rounds a few weeks ago after Jeremy Corbin was elected, and the (mostly right wing) press went after him. This is from satirical magazine Private Eye.
http://i.imgur.com/UZlDEuP.jpg
+Daniel Swensen Oh, I agree. I tried to caveat it that I hadn't been able to get to the Sunday Times source, and the CoExist House site doesn't have anything about it. That was the extent of my backchecking. I'd like to see more info, to be sure.
Unfortunately, searching on some key names from the article only gives me some very, um, reactionary commentary.
As a vegetarian (albeit by choice, not religion), I find such a proposal rather ridiculous… Completely agree with you.
I don't like the way the article tried to make it seem like those foods would actually be "banned." It seems to me like an independent institution is making a recommendation, well within their right. It's also the company's right to tell the coexist house to go pound sand.
It's just like when people try to tell me that it's illegal to say "Merry Christmas." No, someone requested that you say "Happy Hollidays," and you have the right not to heed that request.
+JD McCay I agree — to a point. That folk feel that it's legit to make such a request indicates a shift in the Overton Window that needs some counter-pressure.
So, no, it's not a dictate — but it's the sort of request that can turn into a guideline that can turn into a dictate, if not countered by reasonable argument at the outset.
That said, yes, the headline is clickbait.
There are people who are offended by the sight of a woman dressed in anything more revealing than a burka. Are we going to accommodate them?
+Dave Hill I think you just waded through a veritable shit-ton of counter-pressure, in the form of that reactionary commentary.
The main danger here is that silly proposals can help reactionaries seem more sensible to more susceptible people.