In that you see a spectrum of mish-mashed thinking on intellectual freedom and meeting room regulation:
"Publicly funded libraries that make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use."
Great! They got that answer correct. But then you see these:
"CFLA-FCAB affirms controversial expression is supported in the library. Equally so, challenge to controversial expression is supported. CFLA-FCAB does not, however, endorse the exercise of prior restraint as a means to avoiding controversy in the library."
Starting to hedge their bets a bit, here. "We affirm controversial expression, but we also support the people who want us to shut the controversial expressers down. But, um, we don't think it's good to shut people down IN ADVANCE (like they did in Ontario)."
"CFLA-FCAB unequivocally directs libraries to work within the Canadian law and human rights codes."
And, of course, Canadian law and human rights codes can be interpreted so as to allow authoritarians to jaywalk in spiked heels right over "controversial expression" in this case.
"CFLA-FCAB recognizes Canadian public libraries are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identifies freedom of expression as one of the four fundamental freedoms in Canada, subject only to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
And the London, Ontario public library branch is probably perfectly within the malleable "reasonable limits prescribed by law" in shutting this event down.
People joke about how "similar" the US and Canada are, but the First Amendment--capitalized on purpose--is a huge difference between the US and most of the democratic countries we suppose have freedom of speech/expression, even one right up there, just over that imaginary line.
It reminds me of that podcast interview with the main guy at the Babylon Bee awhile back - he said that in the last couple years they kept finding themselves with an embarrassment of riches in material to use. They could just print it like straight news. It was a parody of itself.
And interestingly the London Public Library decides not to censor even when groups actually asked for them to censor…how does the institution explain their different decisions?
I don't see how this is a surprise. Read the language of the CFLA in this:
http://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CFLA-FCAB_statement_meeting_rooms.pdf
In that you see a spectrum of mish-mashed thinking on intellectual freedom and meeting room regulation:
"Publicly funded libraries that make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use."
Great! They got that answer correct. But then you see these:
"CFLA-FCAB affirms controversial expression is supported in the library. Equally so, challenge to controversial expression is supported. CFLA-FCAB does not, however, endorse the exercise of prior restraint as a means to avoiding controversy in the library."
Starting to hedge their bets a bit, here. "We affirm controversial expression, but we also support the people who want us to shut the controversial expressers down. But, um, we don't think it's good to shut people down IN ADVANCE (like they did in Ontario)."
"CFLA-FCAB unequivocally directs libraries to work within the Canadian law and human rights codes."
And, of course, Canadian law and human rights codes can be interpreted so as to allow authoritarians to jaywalk in spiked heels right over "controversial expression" in this case.
"CFLA-FCAB recognizes Canadian public libraries are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identifies freedom of expression as one of the four fundamental freedoms in Canada, subject only to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
And the London, Ontario public library branch is probably perfectly within the malleable "reasonable limits prescribed by law" in shutting this event down.
People joke about how "similar" the US and Canada are, but the First Amendment--capitalized on purpose--is a huge difference between the US and most of the democratic countries we suppose have freedom of speech/expression, even one right up there, just over that imaginary line.
https://www.lpl.ca/sites/default/files/2023-04/Equitable%20Access%20Meeting%20Room%20Policy.pdf
Canadian and US law on this particular question are quite different. In America, this document would be a First Amendment lawsuit timebomb.
It reminds me of that podcast interview with the main guy at the Babylon Bee awhile back - he said that in the last couple years they kept finding themselves with an embarrassment of riches in material to use. They could just print it like straight news. It was a parody of itself.
Some more coverage of this censorship incident:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/how-woke-won-author-london-library-refusal-1.6846015
A CBC interview with the library CEO and the deplatformed speaker: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-158-london-morning/clip/15985600-london-library-denies-request-woke-ideology-speaker-event
And interestingly the London Public Library decides not to censor even when groups actually asked for them to censor…how does the institution explain their different decisions?
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/london-library-rejects-call-by-jewish-group-to-cancel-pro-palestinian-comedians-show
https://www.bnaibrith.ca/antisemitic-american-comedian-to-perform-in-canada/