I’m surprised a liberal democracy like New Zealand even has an official procedure for this.
On the one hand, I don’t think any book should ever be officially banned by a country. On the other hand, this book won the Supreme Margaret Mahy Book of the Year award at the 2013 NZ Post Children’s Book Awards, which obviously categorizes it as a children’s book. I’d agree it’s inappropriate to market a book with gratuitous sexual descriptions to the YA crowd. I know nothing about this book, but that is the chief complaint.
I found this quote from the author interesting.
“We know the rules about writing for these groups. When writing for ‘YA’ you generally can have the same themes as for adults but younger protagonists.”
Really? Just make the main character a teenager and you can call it YA, while writing about whatever you want?
The publicity from the banning will probably assure much greater sales everywhere except New Zealand. And if people in NZ have Kindles…
Really ? One of the defining positions of liberalism is enjoying banning stuff for people’s own good. From the late Soviet Union and the American progressives to David Cameron, the ruling passion to moralize leads them to ban everything that doesn’t move, from sexism, racism, pornography, alcohol, smoking, effectual opposition, copyright infringement, mormonism/catholicism, anti-mormonism/anti-catholicism, gambling…
Obviously as a liberal democracy Australia has one of the most admired vigorous internet censorship programs in the world, but New Zealand is catching up.
I don’t know if NZ has the grand tradition of wowsers it’s great neighbour maintains, but I wouldn’t be surprised. On the other hand I am not unsympathetic to discouraging young people from reading this sort of trash.
Your whole post is not even wrong.
Uh… yeah.
Always better to have librarians and booksellers who can provide helpful guidance, or even (not a preferred option) warning labels on the cover, than to just ban a book IMHO. I agree with NeonMadman that sales will probably spike. India banned Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and guess what? People found a way to get copies in, and it was widely read.
It hasn’t been banned outright, it has only been taken out of circulation until the censors decide what rating to give it. At worst it seems it would go back to its original R14 rating. The complaints came when that R14 rating was removed.
What? Wha. . . What?
It’s not easy to make bookbanners the rational side, but you have exceeded yourself.
Wait, “effectual opposition”? Worst Mad Lib ever.
David Cameron?
Drunk posting 
David Cameron, as much as Hoover, FDR, Gladstone, Churchill, Clinton, Clemenceau and Reagan is as much part of the Liberal Tradition as any other mainstream politico in Britain or the USA for the past 200 years. He like Lady Thatcher merely harks back to the Manchester Liberals/the libertarian wing rather than to the progressive welfare state wing. All Liberals share a strong reverence for constitutional government, the rule of law, free markets, property rights, anti-clericalism, pro-education, a very limited monarchy if any, anti-populism and representing the People when in governance. Because unlike, say, Bakunin, or even Upton Sinclair, they don’t trust the masses to represent themselves.
They will crush you.
Oh, that’s what you meant. I thought you were just making up definitions for words all willy-nilly. This explains the banning of this YA novel succinctly and doesn’t sound very close to word salad at all.
Margaret fucking Thatcher?
Is Claverhouse our resident monarchist? I think he is.
Yes, he’s Divine Right of Kings. I’m not at all clear on why he’s connecting that to censorship, though.
He is technically right that both the right and left wings in the Anglosphere tend to claim descent from classical liberalism rather than entirely from either monarchism or radical socialism.
And of course kings by Divine Right never ever make laws against blasphemy or lèse-majesté or anything like that.
The question was “effectual opposition”? This is not an answer.
The Office for Film and Literature Classification has a detailed page about what’s happened here. In summary:
- The initial classification was by the OFLC was M (unrestricted and suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over).
2.This was changed by the Board of Review to R14: ‘parental advisory explicit content’ (the chairman wanted R18 but was outvoted).
[QUOTE=OFLC summary]
An R14 classification had never previously been assigned under the Classification Act. The decision was also unusual in that the Board did not require an official label to be displayed on the book, even though it was now legally age-restricted.
[/QUOTE]
3.Then the OFLC reconsidered the Board of Review’s decision and removed the Age restriction. Don’t ask me why this can happen.
4.Now the Board of Review has issued an interim restriction while it reviews the OFLC’s reconsideration of the Board’s Review of the OFLC’s initial classification.
TL/DR It’s a bureaucratic clusterfuck, that’ll probably sorted next month.
In other words-- Not Banned, In the Process of Being Re-Classified. No need to re-install Queen Elizabeth as your head of government.