by Michael Nyby
The title of last year’s Freedom to Read Week report from the Intellectual Freedom Committee, Grunts and Twitches, invoked Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s proclamation that living next to the United States is like sleeping next to an elephant. The prime minister’s metaphor illustrated the reality in which Canada is affected by our neighbour’s “every twitch and grunt,” regardless of intent. The reference cast the first wave of American-style library censorship efforts, directed primarily at resources concerning gender, sexuality, and race, as the titular “grunts and twitches.” To continue the analogy, it appears that in 2023, the sleeping elephant has rolled over.
During the reference period from September 1, 2022 to August 31, 2023, Canadian libraries reported 118 intellectual freedom challenges—up from 55 in the previous twelve-month period and 46 in the twelve months before that. In fact, these 118 reports represent the highest number ever recorded in Canada in a single twelve-month period. That said, it is important to recognize that this number likely represents a very small portion of actual censorship efforts in Canadian libraries. It is widely believed that most difficulties encountered by libraries go unreported to library organizations. Studies by the American Library Association (ALA) have resulted in an oft-cited estimate that between 82% and 97% of all library challenges go unreported, and there is no reason to believe that Canadian libraries fare any better. To that end, the data available illustrate a mere snapshot of library censorship efforts in Canada. Despite our best efforts, it is nearly impossible to know the full extent of the situation.
[T]hese … reports represent the highest number ever recorded in Canada in a single twelve-month period.
Several factors have influenced the remarkable increase in challenge reporting that we have seen in the past year. Notably, the 2022–2023 period stands as the first year that two separate library censorship databases were consulted to compile this report. In the past, the Intellectual Freedom Challenges Survey database, maintained by the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Canadian Federation of Library Associations–Fédération canadienne des associations de bibliothèques (CFLA-FCAB) was the sole source of data on library censorship efforts in Canada. We are fortunate that in recent years, Toronto Metropolitan University’s Centre for Free Expression has put in tremendous effort to create their own public database of library challenges and has worked closely with the CFLA-FCAB Intellectual Freedom Committee to create a partnership for data sharing and collection. Furthermore, the CFLA-FCAB collaborated with the Association des bibliothèques publiques du Québec to better disseminate the Intellectual Freedom Challenges Survey in our second most populous province. While additional awareness-raising and dissemination efforts are certainly responsible for part of the increase, it is impossible to ignore the influence of American conservative activist groups, such as Moms for Liberty and their Canadian analogues, Action4Canada, Concerned Citizens Canada and Save Canada—all three of which were mentioned by name in comments attached to reported challenges.
Since 2020, Moms for Liberty and similar groups have been targeting American public and school libraries, spearheading a spike in library challenges reported to the ALA. Fortunately, this trend did not immediately surface in Canadian libraries. In a telling anecdote, the ALA’s three most challenged titles of 2021 (Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer, Jonathan Evison’s Lawn Boy, and George M. Johnson’s All Boys Aren’t Blue) were all challenged for their pro-LGBTQIA2S+ content. In the same year, Canada’s most challenged title, Irreversible Damage, by Abigail Shrier, was denounced for its perceived transphobic content. This dichotomy is typical of censorship trends in libraries in both countries over the past decade. While challenges in American libraries focused mainly on works dealing with LGBTQIA2S+ and anti-racist themes, challenges in Canadian libraries centred primarily on titles with racist (or perceived racist) content. However, the rising influence of Canadian conservative activist groups has shifted the tides of censorship in our country over the past two years, leading to a striking rise in reported challenges and a major shift in the subject matter of challenged titles.
challenges between two time periods.
Of the 118 reported challenges, 44 were to titles and events with perceived pro-LGBTQIA2S+ content, representing 38% of all reported challenges. In contrast, challenges of this nature made up a mere 8% of all challenges reported between January 2015 and December 2021. This singular rise was driven by challenges involving 23 drag storytime events. Though these events were popular and generally well attended, complainants have accused them of “grooming,” “indoctrination,” and “sexualizing children.” Though challenges to drag storytime events make up the majority of challenges to pro-LGBTQIA2S+ content, it is worth noting that even if all challenges to drag events are excluded from the data, the remaining 21 challenges of this nature still comprise over 18% of total reported challenges, more than twice the 2015–2021 rate. Of the challenged titles, Juno Dawson’s This Book Is Gay and Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer were the most challenged, despite only receiving two challenges each. Despite their complete lack of sexual content, several titles within this category were challenged simply for the presence of same-sex relationships, including the children’s picture books And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson; My Moms Love Me, by Anna Membrino; and Donovan’s Big Day, by Lesléa Newman.
The acrimonious language used in complaints against pro-LGBTQIA2S+ titles and events was echoed in challenges to titles with perceived sexual content, particularly in juvenile nonfiction literature on the topic of gender and sexuality. For instance, Cory Silverberg’s Sex Is a Funny Word and Erika Moen’s Let’s Talk About It: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human were both accused of “sexualizing children,” and a challenge to Robie Harris’ It’s Perfectly Normal complained that it “allows grooming of children.” But the work that received the most enmity was Dagmar Geisler’s picture book My Body Is Growing, which was described as “soft porn for kids” and containing “nudity, pornography, sexual photos [and] pedophilia.” With five unique challenges, Geisler’s book is the most challenged title of the period.
Though similar language appeared in many of the challenges to both pro-LGBTQIA2S+ content and sexual content, the comments did not always reflect the actual content of the titles themselves. Despite accusations of “grooming” and “sexualizing children,” titles such as This Book Is Gay; Sex Is a Funny Word; and Let’s Talk About It: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human emphasize the theme of consent and include lengthy sections on sexual predation and abuse, providing children with important information on how to identify and avoid grooming attempts. Even more absurdly, My Body Is Growing was accused of containing “sexual photos” despite containing no photographs whatsoever!
Though the subjects of sexuality and gender were the most obvious targets, the influence of American library censorship movements extended to other topics as well. In the past, the most common challenges in Canada dealt with materials containing racist language and themes, primarily when concerning Indigenous peoples and cultures. Up until late 2022, the CFLA had not received a single reported challenge to materials perceived to be racist towards Caucasians. In contrast, the moral panic in the United States surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives—including resistance to the teaching of critical race theory in schools—has led to a high rate of challenges to books focused on race relations. Specifically, works such as The Hate U Give, by Angie Thomas, and Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You, by Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds have been among the ALA’s most banned books in recent years. We are now beginning to see this trend extend beyond the border as well. In the current reference period, two titles were challenged for perceived anti-White racism: Woke Baby, by Mahogany L. Browne, and Our Skin: A First Conversation About Race, by Megan Madison and Jessica Ralli. Similarly, but not explicitly challenged for racism, a Farsi-language storytime event was challenged for being exclusionary to English-language speakers, who according to the challenger “make up the majority of our taxpayer stakeholders.”
[T]he moral panic in the United States surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives—including resistance to the teaching of critical race theory in schools—has led to a high rate of challenges to books focused on race relations … We are now beginning to see this trend extend beyond the border as well.
As the loudest groups have focused their sights on the above subjects, it is easy for other trends to get lost in the noise. For instance, some libraries experienced intellectual freedom challenges concerning materials related to the war in Ukraine, a trend that was not very present in previous years. Perspectives on resources related to this topic stemmed from both sides of the conflict. One library received challenges over the use of Ukrainian flag colours and a children’s display highlighting the war. The complainant claimed the displays did not “adhere to a neutral stance” on the war, and requested they be taken down. Complainants with a pro-Ukrainian perspective cited concerns about disinformation as their primary motivation. Challengers derided certain Russian-language works as “Russian imperialist propaganda,” including an anthology of poetry entitled I Am a Wounded Land: Russian Poetry on the Crimean Spring and the Donbass War. In one instance, the library acquiesced to the challenger’s demands and removed a title from its collection (The Truth About Ukraine: Who Benefits From the Split of the Country?, by Igor Prokopenko) after determining that it “did not meet the library’s accuracy selection criteria.” Conversely, a library that experienced challenges over two separate Russian-language works alleged to contain misinformation and propaganda decided to retain both titles, while acknowledging that the works “lean towards nationalistic fervor and strong propaganda,” and stating that the presence of the titles in the collection does not constitute an endorsement of their content.
These two opposing decisions on titles that some allege are harmful disinformation provide some insight to a long-standing contradiction in library service. According to the code of ethics supplied by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, libraries aim to uphold the tenets of intellectual freedom by working to “reject the denial and restriction of access to information and ideas,” while striving to promote information literacy, inclusion, and to eradicate discrimination.1 Some library workers have identified a conflict between these ideals. How can one promote information literacy while continuing to carry books filled with disinformation and propaganda? How does one work to eradicate discrimination while lending transphobic titles? These questions have sparked a great deal of debate within the profession. In response to the controversy, many progressive library workers have placed their commitment to intellectual freedom on the backburner to concentrate on curating a collection and environment more inclusive and welcoming to vulnerable communities. However, in light of the recent deluge of aggressive and often exclusionary censorship efforts stemming primarily from the political right, it is clear that at least from a practical standpoint, a strong commitment to intellectual freedom in libraries serves to protect the rights of vulnerable communities. Intellectual freedom has been a pillar of library philosophy for nearly a century; and in our current climate, it is perhaps our most valuable tool in our efforts to amplify the voices of the most marginalized within our communities.
Michael Nyby is a public school librarian, database specialist, and vice-chair of the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Canadian Federation of Library Associations–Fédération canadienne des associations de bibliothèques.
1International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (2012). “IFLA Code of Ethics for Librarians and other Information Workers.” https://www.ifla.org/g/faife/professional-codes-of-ethics-for-librarians/