Book banning

[Marty_d]

Don't know if anyone's been following this in the news, but a local council in NSW passed a motion to ban the library from keeping a copy of a kid's book.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/103836256

 

Interested what people think about this.

 

My opinion will come as no surprise,  if religious conservatives want to ban a book because it describes how some families have 2 mummies or 2 daddies, then I think it's only fair to remove another book that promotes incest, killing children, slavery and lots of other horrors - the bible. 

 

Seriously - that entire council should be sacked for anti democratic behaviour,  exceeding their remit and stupidity. 

 

Arguments in support of the council?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Quite Frankly, it's a f*king disgrace.

 

Really.. every time I get close to moving to Aus they show me why I left in the first place

 

 

[nomadpete]

You stole my thunder Marty.

 

To be fair if we are going down the book ban path, we ought to start with

The bible, the Tanakh (torah) and the quran.

 

That would stop a bunch of immoral behaviours worldwide.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Quite Frankly, it's a f*king disgrace.

 

Really.. every time I get close to moving to Aus they show me why I left in the first place

 

 

Settle down Jerry, we aren't all like that. Besides, it's only one local council in NSW and you aren't going to settle there anyway.

 

And you have Clarkson types where you are now. People who live in glass houses.....

Edited May 14 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

This is the title of the article referred to: The Cumberland City Council book ban threatens to erase queer families. It’s a threat that deserves a serious response. It's sensationalist.

 

The book, published in 2018, is part of a series which tackles topics and situations that can be challenging for children, including step parenting, death and bullying. It is recommended for children aged five to seven. The book explains that there are "many different types of family" and canvasses topics including how some children in the book refer to their parents and surrogacy in general terms.

 

Families in our society range from the extended family where there is daily interaction between three or more generations, to the nuclear family of Mum, Dad and the kids, through to the single parent family. Families that are Mum, Mum and the kids, or Dad, Dad and the kids also exist. There are also families in which the parents are ten to twenty years older than the parents of other families. Children begin to encounter these family types from the time their social awareness begins to develop and they start to question differences they notice in their worlds. Family types become more obvious to them in their first years of schooling as they begin to visit the homes of their school friends. 

 

The proponent of the Motion, Cr Christou, said "A parent is a parent, why do we have to ingrain that?", which seems to be the aim of the book. However, he, and those who supported the Motion have stiched their religious beliefs to it. "This community is a very religious community, a very family-orientated community," he said.

 

He also said, "Our kids shouldn't be sexualised, it's that simple." Who would disagree with that? Not me. But it is a completely different topic than the one dealt with in this book. In my opinion, the topic covered in the book is not as worrying to me as those books for children and Young People dealing with gender identity.  For the purposes of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (s 3), administered by the Children's Court, a distinction is made between a “child” — a person under 16 and a “young person” — a person who is aged 16 or 17. In my opinion, the only gender differentiation pre-teens need to know is that boys go to the boys' toilets and girls go to the girls'.

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

It's pretty simple, really.  If you go to a library and see a book you don't want to read, don't read it.  

 

By the way, his use of the word "sexualised" is way out of context for this book.  All it does is present some facts which may be uncomfortable for conservative religious parents, but which in this country are legal.  Two men or two women can raise a child just as well as any other family.  Pretty sure the councillor wouldn't have a problem with a book about being raised by a mummy and a daddy, isn't that equally "sexualised"?

 

[willedoo]

Australia has some previous form with book bans. I don't remember the exact case details as it was a few years back, but we've had books banned that are legal in every other part of the world. I also don't remember the exact state or book title but there was a case a few years ago where a book was state banned and legal to buy in every other state and territory.

[Marty_d]

I like that in this case, the publisher has put a free PDF copy of the book online for whoever wants to download it.  

If the intention behind the ban is to limit readership of the book, they've kicked an own goal.

[willedoo]

Now that it's banned, everyone will want to access it to see what the fuss was all about.

[old man emu]

Inclement weather and china drinking vessels come to mind.

[pmccarthy]

Lady Chatterley and Portnoy come to mind. 

[nomadpete]

I recall attending a meeting of 'concerned parents' at our primary school, back around 1980. I was shocked by the behaviour of these people. The audience was up in arms, trying to whip up hysteria to ban a education programme that might be seen by rational people as real life education. The audience was seeded with vocal (hysterical) Festival of Light religious nutters.

Sadly, the programme was axed.

 

Does anyone recall Rev. the Hon Fred Nile, National President of the Christian Democratic Party?

 

Fortunately we don't get a lot of this kind of stuff happening.  But any is too much.

[old man emu]

Last night the Council rescinded the motion on a vote of 12 to 2. And a Motion to moe the book to the adult section was lost.

[Marty_d]

Good, common sense prevails.

 

I know it's not a big deal in and of itself, but more a symptom of attempts to de-liberalise our democracy.

We REALLY don't want to go the way of the USA in this regard.

[facthunter]

A 180 with Pike and Tuck.  Nev

[old man emu]

The proponent has been quoted as saying something of the style of "Some of my best friends are LGBTQ+ etc"

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

The proponent has been quoted as saying something of the style of "Some of my best friends are LGBTQ+ etc"

Ah, one of those sentences, usually followed by a "but" - where the statement following the comma completely reverses the first part of the sentence.

 

Some other examples are:

 

"I'm not a racist, but..."

"No offence, but..."

"With all due respect, ..."

"I've got nothing against <insert ethnic/cultural/sexual group here>, but..."

Edited May 16 by Marty_d

[spacesailor]

SO ,

We're , do we put that " BUT " . when not entirely agreeing with the subject ! .

My nephew is a great " guy " . even  though he is gay .

 spacesailor

[red750]

Spacey, you are mixing up "we're" and "where" again.  "we're" is short for "we are".

[old man emu]

6 hours ago, spacesailor said:

SO , We're , do we put that " BUT " . when not entirely agreeing with the subject ! . My nephew is a great " guy " . even  though he is gay .  spacesailor

If he's a great guy, there's no BUTs abut it.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Good try, OME,but thee is no comma after his BUT

 

[facthunter]

You could be quite intelligent , for a dill. Nev

[old man emu]

On 16/05/2024 at 11:43 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

Good try, OME,but thee is no comma after his BUT

 

Who's comin' after his butt?