51吃瓜

As long as there have been books, there have been people who didn鈥檛 want anyone to read them, and no shortage of people who wanted to . As a tool of war in ancient times, book burning was commonplace鈥� the of the library at Alexandra being perhaps the most famous example.

conducted highly organized book burnings in 1933. D.H. Lawrence published privately in Italy and France in 1928, but people in Britain were prevented from reading it until 1960 because it had been banned under the Obscene Publications Act. More recently, Valentina Gomez, running for secretary of state in Missouri in 2024, set a pile of books dealing with LGBTQ issues with a flamethrower and promised that she would ban such books if she were elected (she lost). On and on it goes.聽

The government of Alberta has joined these dubious ranks by issuing new sweeping guidelines regarding the type of material that will be allowed on public school library shelves. Like many such undertakings, it is ostensibly well-intended. However, under the guise of wanting to protect tender young minds from what it considers inappropriate material of a sexual nature, the Alberta government may actually be encouraging intolerance of diversity.

Experiencing censorship firsthand

My own personal experience of censorship happened in my late 20s. I was happily browsing the stacks at my neighborhood library when I saw a title that piqued my interest. I don鈥檛 remember what the book was about, but as I opened it to a random page, I was shocked to find that huge swathes of the text had been blacked out with felt-tip pen. I thumbed through the rest of the pages and saw that most of the book had received the same treatment, in some cases leaving only a random sentence or two legible on the page. After the initial shock subsided, real anger set in. I was stunned that a random stranger thought they had the right to determine what I was allowed to read, not to mention to desecrate a book in this way. 

I have never really understood this desire to control what other people read. I have always been an avid bibliophile, and reading is, without question, my favorite pastime. Actually, the term pastime doesn鈥檛 begin to do justice to how essential reading has been in my life. Over and above the pure enjoyment they afford, books and reading have undoubtedly seen me through some of the most difficult times in my life, affirming and validating my experience when, for instance, a character in a book or the author of an essay described a thought or feeling or reaction I had experienced myself in similar circumstances.

Reading has enriched my journey through life and added immeasurably to my happiness. Having said that, I have certainly come across the odd book here and there that I found repellent and couldn鈥檛 bring myself to finish. However, the decision not to read the book was entirely mine, and it never occurred to me to try to prevent anyone else from reading it. As my mom used to say, 鈥淭here is no accounting for taste,鈥� and just because I personally object to something is not a reason to deny other people access to it.

I chose to pursue a career where I would never be far from books, and by my mid-20s, I had completed a Master of Library Science (M.L.S.) degree at the University of Alberta. One of the requirements for the degree was a non-thesis project, and we were free to decide our own topic of inquiry. I chose to all post-secondary institutions, both secular and religious, in the Canadian prairie provinces to determine, among other things, how prevalent challenges to library materials were at that time (1980鈥�1985); the types of challenges received (for example, requests for outright removal of material or simply restrictions to access); and what the outcomes of these challenges were.

It was perhaps a foregone conclusion, but my survey confirmed, as history has repeatedly shown, that the desire to censor and ban library material is widespread, and that any type of material, regardless of subject matter, no matter how innocuous or anodyne, could be subject to a removal request.

For instance, the titles objected to include Beyond Reason by Margaret Trudeau, the ex-wife of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (I have read this book myself, and while it might be said that Margaret Trudeau didn鈥檛 always make the best decisions, to my mind, there was nothing truly objectionable about her memoir, and I enjoyed reading it). In another example, a religious institution stated that the biology textbooks were kept in closed stacks because the chapters on human anatomy and reproduction in particular were considered pornographic, and access had to be controlled.

Ministerial Order 30/2025

So, there was a tediously familiar ring to the announcement, in May 2025, that the Alberta provincial government was launching a review of all K-12 school library materials. Formerly, Alberta school boards made decisions regarding their library collections locally, under voluntary guidelines. Asserting a need for new province-wide standards, Demetrios Nikolaides, Minister of Education and Childcare, issued on July 4, 2025.

Rather than providing a list of prohibited titles, the order banned school library materials that contained written descriptions and/or images of explicit sexual activity. The initiative was roundly criticized by many organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties , the Centre for Free Expression () and the of Canadian Publishers. In response to the order, Edmonton Public Schools (EPS) it planned to remove 226 titles, including classics such as The Handmaid鈥檚 Tale and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Premier Danielle Smith accused EPS of 鈥溾�� (i.e., malicious compliance), suggesting they had interpreted the order in an overly restrictive manner.

Minister Nikolaides subsequently issued a modification to the standards, , which excluded written descriptions. Only images of explicit sexual activity were now subject to the ban. Offensive materials were to be removed from school libraries by January 5, 2026. School boards were required to submit lists of titles they intended to remove to the government by October 31, 2025, but were not required to make the lists public.

Access to Information requests by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation () in January 2026 revealed the titles removed from the five largest school boards in the province. At that time, the school boards, Calgary Board of Education and Edmonton Public Schools, had removed 44 titles and 34 titles, respectively. This, in itself, illustrates one of the more obvious problems with book banning in general. Even with the fairly precise definition of terms contained within the order, the process of determining which titles should be removed is obviously at least partly subjective; otherwise, the same titles would be removed by all school boards throughout the province. Thus, the order fails even in its most basic purpose, to introduce uniformity in provincial standards for school library materials.

Consequently, students at some school boards continue to have access to library materials that other school boards have decided to remove. Across the province, the most commonly removed materials were graphic novels and, in some cases, only a single illustrated panel or two led to the decision to remove. A of library materials that have been removed as of April 2026 has been compiled by the Investigative Journalism Foundation.

Political influences behind the order

The Alberta government stated that the new standards were developed after with concerned parents, but this is not entirely accurate; in fact, the impetus largely came from with two groups in particular: Parents for Choice in Education () and . These groups cited graphic novels in particular that primarily dealt with coming of age, sexual orientation, and gender identity: Flamer by Mike Curato; Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic by Alison Bechdel; Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe; and Blankets by Craig Thompson. Both groups have been vocal opponents of inclusivity with regard to 2SLGBTQI+ (Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional people who identify as part of sexual and gender diverse communities) students, as well as the inclusion of information on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in public school health curricula.

Furthermore, there are close ties between PCE and the United Conservative Party (UCP) government. PCE鈥檚 executive director, John Hilton-O鈥橞rien, is a and founding board member of the Wild Rose Party of Alberta, of which Smith was from 2009 to 2014. Also, during the 2022 UCP leadership race, candidates, including Smith, participated in a PCE-organized .

An even closer relationship exists between the UCP government and Take Back Alberta, founded by David Parker. Take Back Alberta out of the Coutts blockade on the Canada-US border, in which several hundred vehicles blocked traffic between the two countries to protest COVID-19 public health measures. In 2022, members of Take Back Alberta gained nine seats on the UCP executive board and successfully ousted Jason Kenney, Smith鈥檚 predecessor.

Although apparently not directly involved in the current book-banning process, Parker made explicit remarks at several rallies in 2023 about the need to libraries. He suggested that low voter turnout is key, and that it might be possible for his organization to take over every school board in the province.

The parental rights debate

A talking point frequently cited by these groups is the concept of 鈥�,鈥� and many of the tactics used by PCE and Action4Canada have been deliberately copied from the strategies of American parental pressure groups such as . An excellent documentary, , provides a chilling account of the massive increase in book-banning efforts aimed at public schools in the US, in which Moms for Liberty, among other groups, has played a decisive role. It also makes clear just how vulnerable the librarians safeguarding their collections are, many of whom have had their jobs and personal safety threatened or have been ousted from their positions simply for having a particular title on their shelves.

All of this is not to say that parents don鈥檛 have rights. Of course, they do, with regard to their own children. The problem arises when parents extend their efforts in ways that affect other parents and their children, who may not share the same opinions and beliefs. It鈥檚 important to remember that this campaign has largely been at the expense of the public education system in Alberta, which has a very large mandate and serves an enormous constituency.

Parents often deliberately choose the public system because they want to forego school-based religious indoctrination of their children, preferring instead to see them exposed to a wide variety of people and ideas. For parents who object to what they see as a more free-wheeling attitude in the public system, Alberta has an abundance of choice in private, religious, charter, alternate and independent schools.

Moreover, Alberta is unique in that of per-student funding for these private schools comes from the public purse, a fact that many Albertans find controversial and that many taxpayers object to. All this is to say that parents who object to more inclusive school library collections have a wealth of options and should be able to find a school that aligns more closely with their priorities.

Defending the freedom to read

It goes without saying that school library collections should be carefully curated, with age-appropriate materials that not only support the curriculum but also expose children to the wealth of human knowledge and experience. It鈥檚 also important to allow people to have their say 鈥� we have freedom of speech and thought in Canada after all. However, allowing people to express their opinions should not necessarily lead to materials being removed from school library shelves.

A comprehensive collection policy developed in consultation with all stakeholders and including a sound process for handling challenges to school library materials is crucial to ensuring that all children continue to have access to an abundance of materials that enrich their educational journey. Book banning will always be with us 鈥� that is the way of the world 鈥� but it鈥檚 my hope that as we continue to progress toward a more tolerant, equitable and compassionate society, we can gradually stem the tide of intolerance and be free to read whatever we want.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.