Thread: India protests Aussie lamb advert

Is that a sly dig at Mo at the end?

The Indian government has intervened on behalf of the Hindu community in Australia, lodging a diplomatic protest over a television advertisement featuring the god Ganesha enjoying lamb.

In the advertisement, produced by a meat industry lobby group, Ganesha is one of a dozen religious figures seated at a raucous barbecue lunch.

The depiction of elephant-headed Ganesha, who is widely considered to be vegetarian, was met with anger in Australia's Hindu community.

The Indian High Commission in Canberra protested to three Australian Federal government departments over the advertisement, which was launched last week by marketing body Meat and Livestock Australia.

Elephant-headed Ganesha is shown sharing a lamb lunch and red wine with figures including Jesus, Zeus, Aphrodite, L. Ron Hubbard and a man wearing what appears to be Jedi robes.

When the founder of Scientology is ticked off for mentioning religion over dinner he protests: “I gave up dinner with Tom Cruise for this!”

Both Aphrodite and Zeus are shown using their internet dating apps on their smartphones during the meal.

At one point a guest jokes about “the elephant in the room”, drawing laughter from all but Ganesha.

Members of Australia’s Hindu community complained about the ad almost immediately, but the Indian High Commission only became involved on Monday, releasing a statement saying the “offensive” ad “hurt the religious sentiments of the Indian community”.

The statement also said: “The consulate general of India in Sydney has taken up the matter directly with Meat and Livestock Australia and urged them to withdraw the advertisement.”

Rajan Zed, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism said if the ad was not removed that “Hindus might think of a worldwide boycott of Australian lamb meat”.

Ganesha should not be used in "selling lamb meat for mercantile greed", Zed added.

Mohit Kumar, president of the Council of Indian Australians, accepted the ad contained a message of inclusiveness but told The Age that “the execution was very poor”.

“It's not we don't have a sense of humour, we're all Australians at the end of the day. The issue is it's a matter of respect and this is a very disrespectful and insensitive depiction."

Mr Kumar said there was a risk the ad could feed perceptions that Australians are racist.

In 2009 there was widespread coverage in Australia and India of several race-related attacks on Indian students in Melbourne.

The advertisement generated plenty of debate on Meat and Livestock Australia’s Facebook page, with comments equally split between those expressing offence – from Hindus and other religions - and support for its clumsy message of unity.

Mohammed is not depicted in the advertisement, although he does make an appearance via a phone call to the host, who announces he can’t make it because he has a “day-care pick-up”.

India complains to Australia over 'offensive' meat lobby advert featuring Ganesha eating lamb

Bloody religion rearing its ugly head, again.

Here is the commercial.

Well-done, IMO.

Mutton doing,
move along ewes

So why aren't the other religions in the advert complaining?
Scientologists must be offended by the reference to Tom Cruise.

It's the new God that supersedes the old gods. ^

I didn't see a Wiccan in there.

Originally Posted by Grampa

I didn't see a Wiccan in there.

The over-looked and much maligned religion.

Why were they afraid to represent Islam?

On a related note (^ and also afraid to represent Islam, heh)....
Fight of God game;
Thai Buddhist organisation asks video game firm to cease sales of 'Fight of God' game

Originally Posted by Cujo

Why were they afraid to represent Islam?

Trollish question Cujo. You know as well as I that despite global Islam being generally peace-loving, the fringe nutters are so bloody nutty they're deadly dangerous.

But they had their dig at Muhammad at the end. It might have gone over a few heads but it was there. Think about the word 'daycare' and what that would be referring to.

Think about the word 'daycare' and what that would be referring to

Collecting his wife?

Originally Posted by Cujo

Why were they afraid to represent Islam?

That's what I thought.

"Oh, Mohammed called and could not make it."

Originally Posted by Neverna

But they had their dig at Muhammad at the end. It might have gone over a few heads but it was there. Think about the word 'daycare' and what that would be referring to.

Yeah, I suspected there was something there but it still eludes me. You get it, I don't but I'm sure you're right. Please elucidate, even if by PM.
As I said, I suspect there are a few digs at all religions that are not obvious.

All religious figures represented are myths, so no harm, no foul.

Mohamed called in with a bluff because his acolytes had a already planted several indiscriminate I.E.D,s

Suddenly struck me.

No false images of Mohamed. There would be riots and beheading!

Originally Posted by Simon43

Think about the word 'daycare' and what that would be referring to

Collecting his wife?

Got it now, thanks to Neverna explaining.
Yes, too subtle for my naive mind.
Thanks Nev.

^ THAT, I got immediately.

Although it's a clever advert, the ad company must be daft if they didn't think that someone would complain about it. That's maybe their strategy ==> any publicity is good publicity.

Yes, it was inclusive, no, the execution was good.

It was fucking awful. Lame, predictable, tedious, badly paced. Utter shite.

It has achieved it's desired notoriety even if the pedo was offscreen.

Enjoy your rack Agnes Day