Yes, I do have a ‘homosexual agenda’

By admin-s On Jul 17, 2014

We all know by now that “pro-family” is thinly veiled code for “anti-LGBT”, “anti-diversity” and even “anti-single parent.”

Yasmin Disney, MMO

Last week, Singapore’s National Library Board announced its intention to pulp three children’s books deemed to be in opposition to the country’s “pro-family” stance. The contentious decision was taken after complaints from a few library users – and I do mean a few, given that the NLB receives on average fewer than 20 removal requests a year, not all of them related to children’s books.

The decision to destroy these books comes hot on the heels of the recent Pink Dot rally, where a record 26,000 activists gathered in downtown Singapore to celebrate sexual diversity despite fierce opposition from religious and cultural conservatives.

The books at the centre of the controversy include: And Tango Makes Three, an illustrated true story of two male penguins in the Central Park zoo; The White Swan Express: A Story About Adoption, which involves a lesbian couple; and Who’s In My Family: All About Our Families, which features – shock, horror – all kinds of families, including references to gay couples.

In a characteristically insipid statement, the NLB, defending its actions, said that it takes a “cautious approach” to the approval of children’s material in its libraries, while information minister Yaacob Ibrahim stated simply that the NLB’s decision was “guided by community norms.”

He admitted that “societies are never static, and will change over time” but that the role of the NLB is to “reflect existing social norms.” He also added that the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans “accept teaching children about conventional families, but not about alternative, non-traditional families.”

Plenty of people in Singapore have come out to condemn the NLB, criticising the decision to destroy the books as “knee-jerk” and calling for a more thorough review of the so-called “offensive” material. Singapore’s arts and literary community have been particularly vocal ― prominent local writer Ng Yi-Sheng bemoaned the decision to destroy the books instead of choosing a “compromise solution, such as putting the books in adult lending or even the reference section.” Meanwhile, local playwright Alfian Sa’at, called for a boycott of the NLB network, stating: “Our stand is precise and clear. We are against censorship, an opaque bureaucracy and the destruction of books.”

This is great and all, but it only addresses part of the threat. Yes, the removal of these books is an attack on the very premise of intellectual freedom in a democratic society. But to object to the destruction of these books solely on these grounds suggests that there is something inherently offensive about the material contained.