In a discussion about the so-called ‘Clean Books Bill’ in the 1920s, the flamboyant and irreverent mayor of New York, Jimmy Walker, had famously remarked: “No woman was ever ruined by a book.”

What about the censorship of children’s books? The government is now planning to distribute children’s books, on themes related to same-sex marriage and gender issues such as ‘coming out’, in schools.

This is causing ripples among parents. I don’t like it when the authorities interfere in what should, or should not, be read and impose a stifling political correctness, but on the other hand I don’t think there needs to be any special concern about children reading books on gender issues.

The main thing is that they should be good books, with some literary qualities and imagination. Moral tracts badly disguised as stories are generally not that good. I don’t like propaganda-style books of any kind.

Classrooms should not be insulated from the social, political and moral issues being discussed in the world outside, and children are anyway exposed to a much wider set of influences than the school library. Today’s books for young teenagers are full of ‘problem’ stories, dealing with issues like divorce, non-traditional family structures, drugs or bullying. Children want to learn about social realities and should not be too sheltered.

When I was school-age, I remember reading some Enid Blyton stories which are now considered so politically incorrect that they have been taken completely out of circulation internationally.

In some places, the suitability of children’s classics like Huckleberry Finn, Little House on the Prairie or some of the Tintin comic books have even been questioned, as they present outdated views considered to be racist or colonialist.

Social norms are always shifting and political parties must keep their fingers on the pulse of changing trends

This is an extreme and mind-deadening approach to children’s literature, as books are part of our social history which cannot just be wiped out. Stories will never survive in popularity unless they have some literary qualities besides their old-fashioned world view, so if children want to keep reading them, then let them do so. It is hypocritical to push for freedom of speech and access to information, but then only on selected current issues while suppressing others.

• Every now and again, people moan and write in the newspapers, including this one, about the disappearance of morality in younger generations. Does this lament for the past really hold water? It is so easy to slip into nostalgic fantasy, glossing over misdemeanours and hardship, and viewing the past as some rosy, idyllic haven of virtue. This is very selective thinking.

Just to give a few everyday examples, until the 1940s, women were not allowed to vote. They were discriminated against at the workplace, to the point that even the few women who had studied medicine were not allowed to work as doctors after marriage.

Unmarried young mothers were sent to convents in Gozo to give birth in secret and were then pressured into giving their babies up for adoption. Until the 1960s, even the wearing of bikinis was outlawed. Children were beaten by teachers as a punishment in the classroom.

The past is not a model of virtuous behaviour. In any case, we all know about the reputation of Strait Street in the 1950s, now being glamourised as part of Valletta’s heritage.

This may seem like a long time ago to young people, but this is all within living memory, at least that of my parents’ generation. It is not that distant.

Now, I am not saying that we should imitate the government, which can be relied upon to always unearth some past misdeed to justify its own faults. It is just that whitewashing the past is exactly that, whitewashing. By nature, perhaps we all believe that the mindset of our own generation is the central one. We look at older and younger people and shake our heads at their world view or behaviour.

The pace of social change is not always constant. It is sobering to remember that only four years ago, close to half of voters were against divorce in the referendum.

With this conservative stance, I cannot imagine that the majority of people favour recent legislative changes such as gay marriage and adoption, let alone the right to change sex simply through a notarial deed.

This does not mean that all the changes were wrong. Legislating for minorities does not always engender the sympathy of the majority, and neither does it have to. Minorities have rights, and their voices count.

If a government is too far out of step with the majority of their voters, however, there may be a political price to pay at election time. This is partly what happened to the former Nationalist government, which had irritated an important segment of voters on the divorce issue.

Social norms are always shifting and political parties must keep their fingers on the pulse of changing trends. They must be sensitive to the cultural tone of the moment, also recognising that younger people see the world differently, if they are to represent and tap into the mood of voters.

The underlying silent swell of the sea is stronger than the noisy waves at the surface.

petracdingli@gmail.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.