to think that DD1 should be allowed to read whatever book she likes while on her break at work?

[wongadotmom]

DD1 (21) has just told me she was asked into the office at work today as a complaint had been made against her.

She initially assumed that it had been to do with her work but learned that two women had actually complained that they were offended by the book she had been seen reading while on her lunch break.

The book was 'Porno' by Irvine Welsh - I have not read the book myself therefore cannot judge whether it is offensive or not.

DD said that she was really into the book at the moment and offered to put a cover over the book so that no one could see what she was reading.

She was told no and must show more sensitivity to the womens' religion and must not bring the book into work again.

She is a little shaken up by this incident as nothing like this has ever happened to anyone else and people actually read The Sun and The Mail during their breaks with no problem.

I have told her that she should be allowed to read whatever she wants on her unpaid break but AIBU?

[wongadotmom]

Exactly, coolcadbury. Why mention the religion at all?

The religion was given by dd's employer as the reason she should not bring the book into work.

But it still doesn't make any sense does it?

[MarmaladeShatkins]

Probably because it was Tue offendees religious sensibilities that were offended?

It is relevant.

[wongadotmom]

I have just seen the offending book cover!
AIBU to have laughed out loud at it?

[BelleOfTheBorstal]

I third the suggestion of The Satanic Verses being her next book. It is quite heavy but an excellent piece of literature.

[Thumbwitch]

I don't see any point in trying to inflame the situation - the girl has been effectively given a verbal warning, so taking in a deliberately-attempting-to-offend book would be a bad idea.

However, her offer to put a cover on the book was eminently reasonable and should have been accepted, since the offendees would then have not been able to see the cover, word or picture, and would no longer be able to be offended by it.

I agree though that she should be able to read what she likes within reason - so anything that is obviously anti-Islamic would now be seen as NOT within reason and she should avoid it.

[BranchingOut]

Corus Kate - maybe Martin Luther?

[Kittymalinky]

I would make a separate complaint about the reading of the Daily Mail and The Sun as both are offensive to women.

But then I'm petty and would be so angry about being told what I can and can't read in my own time.

I read and discussed The God Delusion whilst working in a CofE school, no one was offended because they were comfortable in their faith and were happy to work with an atheist as long as I was good at my job.

[TinyTear]

I enjoyed reading the same book on a train up to Scotland quite a few years ago... loved seeing the offended looks

i was younger and more of a rebel then...

[halfwildlingwoman]

This pisses me off. If something offends me in my workplace I talk to the person that has offended me about it. If I had been reading Irving Welsh and a colleague said, what are you reading, it's got an offensive cover, I would have explained to them and offered to cover it if they wanted. Perhaps led into a discussion about their religion and why they didn't object to the boobs in The Sun.
Why go to the manager and create an issue around it? Why can't we just talk?

BTW, I lived in East London for 15 years, worked with, hung out with, slept with Muslim people and I never knew anyone complain about anything like this. The only complaint I was involved with was when a Muslim pupil ate a sandwich labelled as chicken that was actually ham and that was absolutely fair enough. If she'd been from a pushier more confident family we could have gone to town on that one.

[nennypops]

Just saw the cover. Totally inappropriate for a workplace. I would be uncomfortable seeing that at work.

But you don't have a right to insist on never for one moment feeling "uncomfortable" at work. Think how many jobs would be impossible if that were a legal requirement.

I must say, this does seem hypocritical given the amount of overt soft porn there is in the Mail and Sun.

[OwlCapone]

I would put a plain cover on it and continue to read it.

[ComposHat]

I agree though that she should be able to read what she likes within reason - so anything that is obviously anti-Islamic would now be seen as NOT within reason and she should avoid it.

The Satanic Verses isn't gratuitously offensive and doesn't incite hatred towards Muslims, it is merely a stark illustration that religious bigots (be they Jesus or Abraham or Muhammed freaks) feel as Stephen Fry illustrated in his statement that the mere fact that they are offended by the idea of a book, one they've probably never read, is sufficient to have it excluded from the workplace.

[sashh]

The offer of a cover is perfectly reasonable.

I read somewhere that people with ereaders are buying more books that people might think twice about reading in public with a cover on, mein kampf is one.

I would be tempted to buy a bible and swap the covers so start reading the bible, be told it is offensive and then either ask why the bible is offensive or swap for 'porno' with a bible cover.

Assuming they had only seen the cover and not actually read any of it I don't really see how they can be offended if she changes the cover.

In fact if she swapped the cover how would they even know?

[Trapper]

One of my colleagues is offended by swearing and anything that could be construed as negative about God and Christianity (even things like 'for Gods sake!).
Because I know it offends him, I don't do it. Isn't that what grown ups do at work and in polite society in general?
It is a shame that it ended up being a formal issue as it could probably have been dealt with perfectly informally. I would be more cross with the management team who appear to have made a mountain out of a molehill rather than dealing with the issue informally and discreetly. I do not believe it is the organisation's place to ban reading the book. I do believe the organisation should have helped the complainant understand that the book is not actually porn (dispute the title and cover) and ask your daughter if she would mind being more sensitive and tactful with her colleagues.

[Jinsei]

She should have exercised better judgement and put a cover on before taking the book into work. Given the title and the cover, I don't think it's surprising that some of her colleagues were a bit . Regardless of their religion.

I don't understand why her boss felt the need to bring their religion into it. Perhaps he/she is islamophobic. Having said that, I don't really know why the OP felt the need to slip this in either. And then managed to slip it into her next post that they weren't just religious, they were muslim.

Buy her a kindle.

[whossauhnafuffafwayay]

In two minds. Totally understand it isn't necessarily sending out the right message, but a little outraged by the message that other people would be expected to adhere to one's own faith.

Pornography is offensive to my religion, too - I just don't go around commanding other people to do things because failing to obey my religion is some sort of honorary racism or something.

If it offends you fine, I can see why it would and think it is legitimate in the interests of a professional workplace to say "could you keep that on the down-low please" about personal leisure activities with sexual references but ffs... don't tell other people what your religious rules are as part of it as if everyone should be ashamed of not submitting to your faith.

[whossauhnafuffafwayay]

^ ffs I've just seen the ensuing posts which have hammered home that it's a muslim thing. I thought it was Christians or something.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

She should go in with a copy of 50 Shades of shite Grey.

[vvviola]

Totally off on a tangent....

When I lived in Japan, all the bookshops offered to cover your book when you bought it, with a kind of brown paper with the bookshop logo on it. Almost everyone seemed to accept.

I used to feel like such a rebel when I read my extremely innocent books on the train without any cover.

[RiverTam]

sorry, only just come back to this, but Giraffes they could have googled the author and they would have found out it isn't porn. Or, =guess what, they could have actually spoken to their colleague. But no. They sound like trouble makers and the manager sounds rubbish - she could easily have checked the book out and gone back to the complainers and said 'it isn't porn, and she (OP's DD) has said she'll cover the book so that's the end of it'. She sounds very spineless and they sound like people who use their religion to get what they want.

Honestly, I think I'd start looking for a new job!

[Heathcliff27]

Helluva good book that I need to read again. Oh and she should read whatever she wants. I suggest a copy of the joy of sex next time, love to see the reaction then.

[Pigeonhouse]

When it seemed like the entire Piccadilly line was reading The Da Vinci Code on their commute, I used to fantasise about standing up, saying their perusal of such rubbish was offensive to me, and running up and down the carriage plucking the offending tome from their hands and replacing it with a copy of an actual novel.

But I didn't.

I fully grasp the compromises and general mutual politeness necessary for workplaces to function, but it irks me slightly that a young woman is complained about for reading a novel (you may not like the cover or the title, but it is obviously a novel, not a porn magazine) whereas other colleagues (might they perchance be men?) are not censured for regularly reading newspapers with Page Three images that objectify women's semi-naked bodies.

[Pigeonhouse]

Vviola, I was a bit taken aback at Japanese commuters casually reading sexually graphic manga involving rape, bestiality etc - presumably that is part of why covers are offered by book shops?