I was reading an article in one of the papers yesterday about a woman in a smallish village who has been visited by police and ordered to remove a sign which is offensive and causing distress. It’s a potential hate crime.
The newspaper took the position that this was all a big fuss over nothing since the woman’s husband put the sign up 30 years ago and meant it as a ‘joke’. The village, reportedly, thought it was a big joke as well, in the main. In fact the newspaper claimed that the sign showed the woman has a sense of humour. We were treated to a few comments from the good people of the village just to add some spice.
What was the sign? Well, here’s the thing: I think it was an offensive sign for a number of reasons. The sign actually reads “our dogs are fed on Jehovah’s Witnesses”. Clearly put on the property to deter Jehovah’s Witnesses from calling, it seems to have worked ever since Christmas Day 30 years ago when the poor family at the centre of this article were visited by some Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m not surprised – I don’t think I’d have set foot in that place either if I were one.
The newspaper goes on to show a lovely picture of a Jack Russell pup – very cute – which is the current pet of the woman. Hardly a menace, is the implication. But then, over the last 30 years, this family has had an assortment of alsatians and other dogs. Alsatians used to be the breed of choice for a certain sector of society and were not known for being cuddly to strangers although, as this woman points out, her lot wouldn’t touch a fly because they were so friendly. I’ve paraphrased that, but you get the point. The same comment people make about a dog after it’s mauled someone, opining that they can’t understand why it turned. Yes, I think I’d have kept clear of that place for 30 years.
The paper seem to feel that this woman is being hard done to in being ordered to remove the sign and although it isn’t clear whether she intends to she has said she’ll remove it if someone complains to her directly. I wonder whether the paper would have had the same attitude if the sign had been something equally ‘humorous’ about Jews? What about if the sign had something about black people? Homosexuals? White, Anglo-Saxons? Or what about if a Jehovah’s Witness had put a sign up saying “Christians are fed to the lions here”? I believe the paper might have had something different to say then. Although most of us don’t agree with the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses – me included – that surely doesn’t mean we can treat them with contempt – does it?
Please understand, I am not a Jehovah’s Witness and of the ones I’ve met and spoken to most have been very nice people. but a couple have been a right pain in the arse – just like the rest of us. I don’t want them knocking on my door when I’m watching my favourite film and door-stepping me for several hours to believe in their way. But I have found a simple way of dealing with that: thank them for their interest in my soul and tell them that I’m not really interested in a discussion with them. I’ve found that normally works and actually they don’t keep coming back after that. I’ve never found the need to put up a threatening sign (despite what the paper say that’s how it reads to me – it certainly doesn’t sound like a joke).
So, what of the other villagers? Well, they have some interesting views. The only one I’ll quote from the paper is one chap who thinks whoever complained should be lynched.
Thank God I don’t live in that village!