Why are we here? We are here because the American Library Association [ALA] based in Chicago, Illinois, has been working for over half a century to s-xualize and indoctrinate America’s children via the medium of its so-called "Library Bill of Rights" that half a century ago made it "age" discrimination to keep anything from children. See, Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/723442 (archived: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing). This has driven the faster and faster pushing of inappropriate material into school libraries causing parents to challenge such material in greater numbers and frequency, then the librarians complain about all the parents complaining, after ALA first caused the problem. So in an effort to stop all parents anywhere from challenging materials, ALA had to come up with something. ALA wants its "Library Bill of Rights" to be codified into state law, thereby effectively overruling the US Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico ( https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/removal-of-books-with-lascivious-content-from-school-libraries-likely-not-unconstitutional/ ) and blocking parents from even filing complaints in the first place. This Chicago organization called ALA has over a third of state legislatures considering whether to codify this "Library Bill of Rights" that one court ruled means "nothing." Such legislation has already passed into law in Illinois, ALA’s home state. But it has been rejected in Rhode Island, a state closer to Connecticut. Now such legislation to overrule the Pico case and the First Amendment comes to Connecticut in the form of HB 05417. So that’s why we are here. The question is, will Connecticut legislators pass into law what a private organization from Illinois has put forth to try to turn its nothing "Library Bill of Rights" into Connecticut law?
I’m Dan Kleinman, the Executive Director of the World Library Association based in Bee Cave, Texas. WLA is the new alternative to ALA. For opposing a similar law in New Jersey, also promoted by that same Illinois private organization, NJ state senator Andrew Zwicker called me a "meddling minority." So the World Library Association from Texas is a meddling minority but the American Library Association from Illinois that essentially wrote the Connecticut legislation and that of many other states is not. The meddling being done is by the Illinois organization trying to mislead Connecticut legislators into violating Pico with false claims of First Amendment rights, the "right to read," and the right for children to "see themselves" in the books they are reading.
This effort by ALA has encompassed about 20 states so far, almost half of the United States. The details of exactly how and why it is so bad, along with what states are considering codifying the Illinois organization’s aspirational creed that means nothing, is written at the Right to Read Act page on World Library Association here: https://worldlibraryassociation.org/right-to-read-act/ I feel there is no better guide on the topic from the point of view of parents. To be very clear, ALA has worked for a very long time to mislead legislators nationwide into doing what the Illinois private organization wants, namely, ensure children get access to all materials at any age per the "Library Bill of Rights." As you consider this legislation, ask yourselves if you wish to be misled and to discard US Supreme Court precedent designed to protect children from harm, and to discard the First Amendment and likely your own state constitution.
And there it is, Connecticut Constitution, Article I (a real Article I, not the fake stuff in the Library Bill of Rights), Section 16, "The citizens have a right … to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance." So if HB 05417 passes into law, it will immediately violate the Connecticut Constitution because parents will lose the right to seek redress from the school board whose hands are now tied by the law. This is why you don’t want a private organization from Illinois writing any laws for Connecticut. ALA simply doesn’t give a whit about the Connecticut Constitution or anything else for that matter.
One way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is with "long-term inoculation." This is in training from EveryLibrary, a crypto ALA affiliate. As part of long-term inoculation, ALA (via EveryLibrary) specifically states, "Get to know your legislators and local leaders," in the context of "identifying and activating others who care." Have any Connecticut legislators been "identified and activated" to "care" about ensuring children have unlimited access to anything whatsoever? Have any librarians or library associations gotten to "know their legislators"? See this for yourselves here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. And the crypto nature of EveryLibrary being a part of American Library Association is detailed here, as well as details on its "long-term inoculation": https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html
A second way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is via training ALA’s top lawyer gave to librarians, that before legislation is written, because that’s the goal they are after, before legislation is written, there needs to be "sustained messaging" that takes away the idea that certain materials are s-xually inappropriate for children and "reframes" the issue as one of diversity, inclusion, and the right for kids to "see themselves" in the materials they are provided. This statement was surfaced and reported by me, after which Utah Senator Mike Lee discussed it at a recent "Banned Books" hearing on Capitol Hill. He played the recording then afterwords said ALA’s lawyer was "saying the quiet part out loud," that ALA is gr—ming and s-xualizing children. His words. As Utah Senator Mike Lee put it, “the goal is to s-xualize children, to provide minors with s-xually explicit material, and then hide this content from the parents.” Watch Senate Mike Lee display then discuss this video World Library Association surfaced and listen to his discussion of the issues regarding the contents of supposed "banned books": https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments. So ALA has decades ago made it age discrimination to keep kids from materials, the Pico cases allows for the removal of inappropriate material, books like Gender Queer have been successfully removed from many schools under the Pico case, and ALA couldn’t stand for that. So it created "Unite Against Book Bans," one of the goals of which was to get legislation passed nationwide that would prevent parents from applying the Pico case and prevent parents from exercising their First Amendment rights to seek redress of the government from governmental actions. And here you are in Connecticut discussing this very legislation that has been the subject of "long-term inoculation" and "sustained messaging" that "reframes" known inappropriate material as diversity, equity, and inclusion.
And along comes HB 05417. It would make the following the law of Connecticut: “No board shall remove or restrict access to library material for any of the following: (1) Partisan approval or disapproval of any library material by the board; (2) An author’s race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views; (3) Personal discomfort, morality or political or religious views of a member or members of the board; (4) An author’s points of view concerning current events, whether international, national or local; (5) The race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views of a protagonist or other characters or as otherwise represented in the library material; or (6) The content of the library material is related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships.” Now compare that with the "Library Bill of Rights" that the Berry v. Yosemite Community College District court case ruled means "nothing" ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).
"No board shall remove or restrict access to library material for any of the following: (1) Partisan approval or disapproval of any library material by the board…" says HB 05417. Article II of the Library Bill of Rights, they call it an "Article" to make it sound official, maintains that "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." Do you see the slight word change from the Illinois version to the Connecticut version? Much of the rest of HB 05417 is based on the Library Bill of Rights with some word changes. But at least that language comports generally with the Pico case.
As you get further into HB 05417, it simply defies the Pico case. That case allows schools to immediately remove materials that are educationally unsuitable or pervasively vulgar. HB 05417, on the other hand, eliminates those concerns by saying, "(6) The content of the library material is related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships." Gender Queer was removed from many schools as it violated the Pico case. However, under HB 05417, Gender Queer would never be removed because it is "related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships." Pervasive vulgarity or educational unsuitability and the Pico case goes right out the window when the words of HB 05417 are applied. Not only does HB 05417 eliminate the US Supreme Court Pico case, it also eliminates the First Amendment’s and Connecticut Constitution’s grant of right of redress. If the school board is constrained by law from removing Gender Queer and similar books, then parent’s rights to seek redress of the government are eliminated, gone, this is the goal of ALA. Under HB 05417, there is no longer a right to ask a school board to remove a book from the school. Those rights are gone. HB 05417 takes those rights away. Under the wording of HB 05417, there is not a single book in the library now or ever that may be challenged by a parent and removed by a school board. This is the goal of the Illinois based private organization called ALA. I feel certain no parents want this legislation HB 05417 to pass into law in Connecticut except those few who support that Illinois organization more than they support the law, community standards, and common sense, and except those few legislators who have been successfully coopted by the "long-term inoculation" and the "sustained messaging" from the Illinois based private association of librarians.
I further feel certain that should HB 05417 pass into law, it will be challenged in court for First Amendment violations, among other things, then eventually struck down. Will that out-of-state private organization fund all that legal footwork to protect Connecticut’s children? Of course not. HB 05417 should never become law in the first place, and it should never be reworded because it is fatally flawed. It comes from an out-of-state organization as part of a half century effort to "long-term inoculate" adults so they drop their guard and allow children to be s-xualized and indoctrinated in school despite that being against the law, community standards, and common sense. When the ALA lawyer says to "reframe" inappropriate material as DEI so kids can "see themselves," anyone can see for him or herself what’s going on, and Senator Lee’s words make it crystal clear.
Do not pass Chicago ALA’s HB 05417 into law.
URL of this page:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.