Category: Cultural Comment · Book Bans & Censorship
I woke up to the oddest civic perfidy: Alberta, in its wisdom, decided The Handmaid’s Tale might be too graphic for school libraries. Yes, Margaret Atwood’s chilling dystopia—featuring stripped‑down color palettes and moral nightmares—was tossed into the same bin as Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World under the decree that they contain “explicit sexual content.” The Guardian+2The Times+2
Let that sink in. Literary masterpieces, reframed not as heroics of civic thought but as potential indecency. The province, egged on by socially conservative “parents’ rights” groups, launched a blitz removing over 200 titles. Among them: beloved, timeless works that are public contract rather than private perversion. The Times+3The Guardian+3The Guardian+3
When Classic Literature Becomes a Crime Scene
Alberta’s premier, Danielle Smith, paused the madness—only after the backlash became too glaring to ignore. She insists that the policy was meant to distinguish between “pornographic material” and classic literature, and that local boards just ran off without a map. That’s a polite way of calling it “vicious compliance.” The Guardian+1
Meanwhile, Margaret Atwood—ever the razor-sharp satirist—fired back, mocking the censorship as treating teens like “stupid babies” and unleashing a satirical short story to boot. In it, she caricatures a sanitized future of perfect, unquestioning Christian capitalism, showing us that when you sanitize the story, you erase the soul. The Guardian+1
A Ban by Proxy: Who’s Really Driving This Train?
It’s not Alberta’s isolated outrage; it’s part of a North American wave. Right‑wing “parents’ rights” groups—many who cut their teeth opposing vaccines—have levied influence through Action4Canada and Parents for Choice in Education. The direction is clear: queer narratives and sexual topics—even ones nestled in dystopian warnings—are classified as suspect. The Guardian+1
Let me be clear: there’s nothing inherently pornographic about 1984’s telescreens or Brave New World’s soma-induced stupor. What we’re seeing isn’t morality; it’s ideological panic disguised as prudence.
The Irony of Censoring 1984 in 1984
There is a delicious absurdity here: Orwell’s 1984, a novel about the obliteration of truth and the tyranny of ignorance, is being banned for being… too honest? That’s literary cognitive dissonance speaking. You can’t purge 1984 for its darkness when its subject is the darkness itself. It’s like removing a scarecrow because it frightens the crows.
What Just Happened (And Why It Matters)
- Alberta banned—then paused banning—over 200 books, including The Handmaid’s Tale, 1984, Brave New World and graphic queer memoirs like Gender Queer. CT Mirror+6The Guardian+6The Guardian+6
- Activists and Atwood herself blew the whistle, deriding the move as infantilizing and authoritarian. The Guardian+2The Times+2
- The policy emerged through the pressure of activist parent groups with a conservative agenda. The Guardian
- Smith issued a halt, promising a sanity check between “pornography” and “literature.” The Times+1
What We’re Really Pissing Into the Wind Here
Censorship via virtue signaling is still censorship. Alberta’s stumble reveals something deeper: our society can stomach the aesthetic of oppression (think dystopian chic) but balks when the legal line is crossed—however fuzzily—into sexuality. We worship alternate worlds in decadent prose, but we panic when pages reflect real bodies and identities.
This is not prudence. This is fear masquerading as care. Alberta, with its pausing finger on the erase-button, reminds me of someone who’d remove the eyes from a Rembrandt because they find the gaze… unsettling.
So What Do We Do with This Theatrics?
- Call the bluff. If 1984 is banned for being explicit, you’re not defending kids—you’re depriving them.
- Support educators and curators who resist ideological blinkers.
- Keep reading the books that scare the power brokers. They’re the ones still breathing with truth.
Leave a Reply