The NLB has come out to defend its decision to ban the two children's storybooks following a major public outcry.
Unfortunately for the Board, this defense is making it look incredibly stupid:
1. First, it says that it “excludes materials that are critical of any racial or religious groups, that contain derogatory stereotypes, promote intolerance, violence and any other insensitive material that is excessive”.
So did any of the three books fit into any of the above description?
Does the NLB know that "And Tango Makes Three" is in fact a true story about three penguins in Central Park zoo?
2. Then the NLB tries to hide behind the oft-used excuse of "public feedback". It said:
"The two copies of And Tango Makes Three, for instance, came in a few months ago. Not long after they came, they surfaced during our regular reviews by the librarians ... the parent’s feedback on these books was in line with our own concerns.”
Would the NLB care to make public who expressed these concerns? The religious far right? The homophobic conspiracy theorist who thinks that the LGBT segment are perpetually planning to subvert society by turning everyone gay?
This begs the question: do you ban a book just because a small group of users ask you to do so?
3. Next, the NLB says: “We take a cautious approach ... NLB’s understanding of family is consistent with that of the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Education.”
The NLB should realize it is on a slippery slope on this one. If every book has to fit into some ministry's understanding of what society should be like, then many books would be banned, from "50 Shades of Grey" (tawdry sex) to "The Hunger Games" (violence) to "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" (drugs, homosexuality).
4. Finally the NLB tries to rationalize its move by citing precedence. It says that it receives about 20 requests a year to withdraw titles of which only a third are followed through.
An example which it acceded to was: "The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There" on basis of feedback from the book’s publisher that it contains “inconsistent accounts of events of the 2012 Benghazi Consulate attack”.
NLB, NLB, but that's a request from the publisher, not some self-appointed crackpot defender of "family values"!
So as this latest development shows, we have a Board that appears:
1. To have - as some commentators noted - committed an ultra vires act by removing the books without going through a proper consultation process.
2. To be unable to defend its decision in a sound and rational manner.
To make matters worse, the NLB has now said that the books will be destroyed and turned into pulp. What kind of people do we have running our Statutory Boards nowadays?
The Alternative View
Source: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Alternative-View/358759327518739