Imagine this, a government steps up to protect young minds from graphic sexual content in school libraries, and the mainstream media loses its collective mind. Not because they're defending timeless literature, but because they seem hell-bent on keeping explicit material accessible to children. Take the Toronto Star, for instance. In a recent opinion piece, they slammed Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's government for exempting "classics" from its review of school books, arguing that this move "has only made clearer what many long suspected: that marginalized voices are the true objects of its attack.” They even accused Smith's team of cherry-picking "out-of-context images from the books in question to support her claim.”What books are we talking about? Graphic novels and young adult titles with illustrations of oral sex, masturbation, and other explicit acts — stuff that has no business in elementary or junior high libraries. .Alberta's education minister issued a directive in July to remove such content, prompting Edmonton Public Schools to flag hundreds of titles for review, including works by Margaret Atwood and Maya Angelou that crossed the line into visual depictions of sex. But the Star twisted this into an assault on 'diversity', ignoring the core issue, which is age-appropriate material for kids.And it gets worse. The Toronto Star has doubled down, insisting that children deserve "the freedom to read" even books laced with pornographic elements. In another column, they warned that restricting access to titles with sexual minority and gender identity themes "silences young people," as if graphic sexual imagery is the only way to represent those communities. .Freedom to read? Sure, but since when does that mean unrestricted access to illustrations of blow jobs for 10-year-olds? This isn't about empowering kids, it's about indoctrinating them under the guise of inclusion.Why this obsession? Mainstream outlets like the Star, CBC, and The Globe and Mail have churned out article after article decrying these policies as "book bans" and "censorship.” They frame it as a right-wing attack on progress, but dig deeper, and the motive shines through. These media giants thrive on cultural battles that divide Canadians, painting conservatives as bigots while positioning themselves as champions of tolerance. Yet their selective outrage reveals a deeper hypocrisy. They want pornographic material available to young children because it fits their progressive narrative — normalizing explicit content as "education" on gender and sexuality. .EDITORIAL: Scrap the Temporary Foreign Worker Program so Canadian young people can work again.Anything that challenges traditional family values gets amplified, while parents' concerns get dismissed as backward.Think about it. Putting that filth in front of children has no place in schools. We're not talking about discussing relationships or health in a classroom setting. We're talking about libraries stocking books with detailed drawings of sexual acts, accessible without parental oversight. .Alberta's revised directive, released just days ago, clarifies that written descriptions might stay for older students, but visual porn is out — period. Premier Smith defended it bluntly, "Pornography is a problem.” She's right. Studies show early exposure to explicit content can warp kids' views on sex, leading to issues like anxiety or risky behaviour later on. A report from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights how such material normalizes exploitation.Saskatchewan gets this. Last year, they passed the Parents' Bill of Rights, enshrining parents' role in their kids' education. The law requires schools to get consent before using a child's preferred name or pronouns if under 16, and it mandates parental involvement in sexual health lessons. They even invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield it from court challenges, ensuring parents — not activists or bureaucrats — stay in the driver's seat. It's a commonsense move that puts families first, yet mainstream media howled about it as an attack on queer youth.Here's the real kicker. These same media outfits are the first to demand censorship on everything except porn for kids. Remember how they cheered when social media platforms banned conservative voices for "misinformation" during COVID? Or how they push for "hate speech" laws that muzzle debate on immigration or indigenous issues? The CBC has run segments urging tighter controls on online content to combat "disinformation," yet when Alberta pulls explicit books, it's suddenly a free speech apocalypse. Laura Winton of the Library Association of Alberta called it "an explicit act of censorship," but where was that energy when platforms deplatformed doctors questioning lockdowns?.EDITORIAL: Statehood for Palestine? Why premature recognition would be a grave mistake.And what about Christian worship singer Sean Feucht, who wanted to host about a dozen free worship events across Canada. Every event other than Saskatoon and Edmonton had to find a new venue. Why? Feucht is anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ. Feucht stands for traditional values, which in Canada, are now considered extremist. No mainstream media was screaming censorship over Feucht. They were praising his cancellations.This double standard reeks. Mainstream media loves "free speech" when it means exposing kids to graphic sex, but clamps down on anything that threatens their worldview. In the US, similar battles rage, with outlets like the New York Times decrying book removals as targeting LGBTQ+ stories, while ignoring parental rights. Canada follows suit. The Toronto Star, in yet another piece, lamented US bans on sexual content as obsessive targeting of same-sex themes. But ask yourself, if these books were straight-up porn mags, would they defend them?Alberta and Saskatchewan lead the way, standing firm against this nonsense. Parents across the country should demand the same — schools free from explicit trash, with moms and dads calling the shots. The media's obsession won't fade, but neither should our resolve. Kids deserve protection, not exploitation wrapped in "freedom." If the left wants a fight over what's appropriate for children, conservatives are ready. After all, safeguarding innocence isn't censorship; it's common decency.
