Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Adam's Notes's avatar

"Luckily, the Canadian government has asked them to explain themselves…" I think it's slightly more complicated than that. This began with the right wing government of Alberta stirring up a moral panic over an alleged pornographic comicbook in school libraries.

The school board went ahead and prepared to remove absolutely everything with sex in it from school libraries (either as "vicious compliance," an epic troll, or because they themselves are lickspittles, all depending on who you ask). The leader of the right wing government is extremely online, and sensitive to the charge of book banning (she likes to champion far right 'free speech issues' which generally aren't, and one of the banned books was by her favourite author, Ayn Rand), so she has accused the school board of going beyond their remit, even though they were doing what her education minister told them to do.

So the government has reversed course for now, but they're still very actively trying to whip up a moral panic based on the idea that children might have access to a diversity of books.

John Leman Riley's avatar

The “Canadian” book-banning story is labyrinthine due to the various layers of government. The federal/provincial split is more strongly effective (or ineffective? Or maleffective?) than in the UK. The federal government doesn’t have much to do with the day-to-day education (or health) stuff beyond providing funding and setting a baseline standard.

The Alberta provincial government is in charge of actual policy detail and is currently pandering to a mini-MAGA minority (itching for separation and, in the most extreme cases some sort of Alberta-US connection.

The local authority (in this case, Edmonton) is then responsible for putting the provincial government edicts into effect. Edmonton (sometimes known as “Redmonton” as it’s an island of mild leftism in a sea of conservatism) did that, but after the blowback the provincial government is crying foul, describing what they did as “vicious [sic] compliance”, though they haven’t explained why these books, many of which depict sexual activity, shouldn’t be banned under a provincial law that bans books that depict sexual activity. One might almost suspect that they meant to ban only those books that depict *particular forms* of sexual activity, but who am I to say?

21 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?