Clayton Cramer comments on an interesting cultural phenomenon: female Muslim police officers who refuse to touch men:

In addition to refusing a traditional congratulatory handshake from Sir Ian, the WPC - who wore a traditional Muslim hijab headscarf - also declined to be photographed with him as she did not want the picture used for 'propaganda purposes'.

The woman had earlier insisted that it was contrary to her religious teaching for her to touch a man.

Now The Mail on Sunday has learned that her gesture has sparked top-level discussions at Scotland Yard.

Some officers argue that her attitude towards men might impede her ability to detain offenders.

However, it is clear that she is happy to come into contact with men, just not shake their hand or kiss them.

An inquiry has now been launched and the unidentified WPC - described as 'a non-Asian Muslim' - could face the sack if it is considered that her strict religious beliefs prevent her performing as an effective police officer.

However, senior commanders are worried that dismissing her would deepen the atmosphere of mistrust between the police and the Muslim community.

"Sir, you will have to handcuff yourself--my religious beliefs prevent me from touching you." I believe, from reading Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran, a memoir of teaching literature while wearing a veil, that Muslim women are only allowed to touch father, brother, and husband. It sounds like this police officer is going to have a rather limited set of potential offenders that she can handcuff!

What also intrigued me about the British incident was this little tidbit at the end:

In June 2005 Sir Ian was judged to have 'hung out to dry' three white detectives - who were accused of rudely mispronouncing "Shi'ites' - to prove his anti-racist credentials.

An employment tribunal said that while he was deputy commissioner in charge of discipline and diversity he had prejudiced disciplinary proceedings against the men because he wanted to make an example of them.

One of the advantages of blogging is that mispronunciations aren't usually a problem. Still, I suppose I can always run into trouble by creating the appearance of a comparison, and with a word like "Shi'ite," the opportunities abound!

While I don't know whether these cops were Cockneys, I see a possible problem with the Cockney pronunciation of "Shi'ite" because Cockneys tend to drop their "t"s anyway, replacing them with a back-of-the-throat borderline vowel sound that resembles the "uh" sound only harder.

Precisely the sound which the apostrophe in "Shi'ite" would seem to invite!

Thus, if the "t" in "Shi'ite" is dropped in the normal Cockney way, then the apostrophe in "Shi'ite" would come to sound like the "t" in "Shi'ite" -- and this might cause to a court reporter or linguist familiar with intepreting Cockney pronunciations to believe that a "t" is meant to go where the apostrophe appears!

That's not very nice result for Shi'ite sensititivities, is it?

I believe in being fair and logical, so it strikes me as just as likely to believe that there are two apostrophes as two "t"s.

Therefore, it is just as reasonable to assume the Cockney officers might have intended to say "Shi'i'e" as they would the very wrong "Shitite."

I worry about these things because Coco's best friend happens to be a ShihTzu, and were he and Coco to mate with each other, the hybrid result would either be a "ShihT Bull," or a "BullShihT."

Sigh.

I can get into enough trouble as it is from merely staring at words. At least I don't have to worry about mispronouncements.

(Unless I make a pronouncement that turns out to be wrong.)

UPDATE: Commenter geekWithA45 advises that in the UK, "shit" is pronounced "shite".

No bull?