No Offence...

At the end of April, Subway was in the news and all over the internet by making the decision to to ban ham and bacon from their stores, replacing it with halal meat in an attempt to please Muslim customers. Now before I go any further, I would like to point out I am in no way prejudiced against them or any other group of any kind; this story simply got me thinking about a wider issue around it.

This whole thing got me thinking about how people deal with offending others, or at least trying not to. I really don't agree with what Subway have done, just changing because they don't want to be seen to be ignoring or offending certain people. It's not that they did it specifically for Muslims, but that my thought was, "What gives any one group the right to demand something over another?"

For example, what about animal rights activists who believe that the way animals are slaughtered for halal meat is inhumane? They're a group that has a strong set of beliefs just like any other, so why should Subway have gone for halal meat instead of making sandwiches entirely filled with vegetables? It's all about trying to be sensitive, but I think sometimes the lengths people go to for fear of upsetting others, and sometimes just in order to avoid judgment themselves, are a little bit ridiculous.

I mean, would chinese takeaways have to start serving bangers and mash just because a group of people said they strongly believed the way they cooked duck was inhumane? No, because that happens to be the way one culture does things, and it isn't harming anybody! Anyone who sets up in any type of business is there to cater for the needs of a particular kind of customer, for a particular gap in the market. So if  anyone doesn't like what they're selling, they could simply go elsewhere (or set up your own business if it's bothering you that much!).

It's not as if Subway had to change entirely because Muslims can't go near 'normal' meat either; you see halal right alongside every other cut of meat in the supermarkets. All they had to do was simply give the option of both types of meat. Then muslims could eat there according to Islamic law, anyone else and the animal rights activists could still eat there according to their beliefs, and subsequently they wouldn't have lost customers from either side.

It seems clear that keeping everyone happy can be a delicate subject, and no-one intentionally wants to offend another or be judged because of it. I just believe the way some people avoid the tiniest possibility of a confrontation can be so trivial; just because a particular solution may be quicker or easier right now, it doesn't mean it's the best one in the long run!

Rachael x