Is there a way to stop Drag Queen Story Hour from coming to a library near you?
Let's find out what this writer suggested to the Mobile, Alabama public after Rainbow Mobile showed up and forced their perverse program on the public.
Editor:
It requires no animus against homosexuals for someone to argue the
“Drag Queen Story Hour” scheduled for Sept. 8 at the Ben May Memorial Library
shouldn’t take place. Objectors should continue making reasoned, respectful
efforts to cancel it.
Respectful can still be forceful. It is essential to confront homosexuality as a set of corrupt, destructive behaviors which no one should tolerate or accept as normal.
The legal case for blocking the reading is slightly stronger than most
people understand. Legalities aside, the principled arguments for objecting are
substantial — as we’ll discuss momentarily.
Yes, let's get to fundamental aspects of our culture. No one should apologize for decency and God-given rights and responsibilities.
Let’s start with the legal issues. The First Amendment wonderfully
protects free speech and assembly; exceptions are, wisely, quite narrow. But
it’s beyond dispute that constitutional freedoms do not fully extend to
children — a public school, for example, can restrict speech of a sexual nature
— nor to those who would speak to children.
The latter restrictions, it must be acknowledged, are very slim. But
two 1982 Supreme Court cases (Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court, Norfolk, and
New York v. Ferber, respectively) held that “[T]he … interest [of] safeguarding
the physical and psychological well-being of a minor … is a compelling one” and
“we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional
well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of
constitutionally protected rights.”
Perhaps it's time for another set of lawsuits against libraries which will not safeguard the well-being of children.
(Relatedly, the high court ruled in 2003’s U.S. v. American Library
Association that governments providing funding to libraries may indeed place
content-based restrictions on such funding, and that libraries themselves “must
have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons.”)
It's time to assert those restrictions. It's time to fight back against this perverse, immoral insanity. There is no diversity here. This is perversity.
True, it’s unlikely the mere fact of a man wearing women’s clothing
while reading gay-parent-themed books to children would trigger concerns
legally obvious enough for courts to let local government block the event. But
those three cases show it is not absurd for local authorities to explore
whether legal avenues exist.
Wait a minute. On the country, a local governing board has every right and necessity to speak out and stop this nonsense. There are plenty of reasons why parents should not allow homosexuals dressed as women to read LGBT-themed books to children, in many cases as young as three years old.
Parents who tolerate this destructive corruption should be censured, held accountable.
Not to “equate” the following examples with the drag queen event, but
for illustrative purposes, to show that there are times when city officials
would surely cite child-protection concerns as reason to limit the First
Amendment, consider two scenarios. If a group wanting Stormy Daniels dressed as
a Playboy bunny to read steamy excerpts from “Fifty Shades of Grey” to
5-year-olds, local officials would search for some way to cancel the event. The
same would apply if someone in blackface, with obviously racist intent,
proposed to read “Little Black Sambo” to toddlers.
Yes. Examples like this are necessary to demonstrate how monstrous these programs are. Why aren't we seeing a greater outrage to stop this craziness? Because of the big lie under the whole LGBT movement, which is that these individuals are "born that way", and therefore it is a violation of their civil rights to deny them their right to "be themselves."
The Mobile Public Library’s own rules contain a sizable loophole for
officials’ exercise of judgment, listing three “exclusions” for its open-door
policy, including this: “Meetings which may interfere with the function of the
library because of noise or any other factor are not allowed.” Local officials,
with justification, could say the reader in blackface would “interfere with the
function of the library.”
Those exceptions need to be better defined to ensure that the programs are age-appropriate.
Such a limitation is an acceptable step that any governing board can take. Why didn't the library commission draw up those rules as needed?
All that said, legality isn’t the biggest issue here (other than to
suggest that city officials, by publicly exploring legal options, could gain
leverage to persuade the drag queens to cease and desist). What’s more
important is the impropriety involved.
How about the immorality involved!
The adjudgment of impropriety is not dependent on the assumed
homosexuality of the drag queen “reader.” Gay or straight, it is improper,
indeed arguably immoral, to hijack a public forum to confront young children
with matters of sex and sexuality. Remember, this event is specifically aimed
at children ages 3 to 8. Whatever children show up, even if (presumably)
accompanied by parents, this isn’t just a case of nice volunteers wanting to
read to children to promote literacy. These are people openly advertising their
reading as a way to promote, to the children, a particular agenda, both via the
readers’ outfits and their choice of gay-themed books.
Yes. This statement says it all.
The children aren’t so much beneficiaries as targets — here, for sex-
and sexuality-related messages any community might want to exclude from the
public square. From a standpoint of propriety if not law, there are such things
as “community standards” that reasonable societies should observe and respect.
Yes, for fear of tyranny, the state rightly may have no enforcement
mechanism for these standards. Yet in a strong civil society, the standards
will be policed via nonviolent community pressure married, even more
importantly, to self-restraint. Elected officials, meanwhile, should not only
publicly examine their (limited) legal options to force such an event’s
cancellation, but — with respectful and constructive tones, without vitriol or
slander — should also use their civic pulpits to urge the drag queens to
reconsider. The queens should be told they aren’t morally welcome to use
Mobile’s children as pawns, in public venues, for social and political games.
Find private homes, please.
Community pressure is what MassResistance is all about. We are putting these efforts into full practice. We are contacting the libraries, getting parents and community leaders involved, bringing in protests, and communicating with library leaders and elected officials to put an end to these abusive, occult programs.
An early 20th century stage actress famously said she didn’t care what
homosexuals do “so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the
horses.” If frightening horses is off limits, then even more off limits should
be anything in public, gay or straight, which can confuse or scare innocent
children.
Amen to that.
Quin Hillyer
Mobile (qhillyer@gmail.com)
It's time for a return to normalcy. It's time for a return to decency. It's time for a return to basic morality. It's time for men and women, parents and children, to stand up to this LGBT insanity.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal is located in a downtown Vancouver office building.
You had to have a ticket to attend!
