By: Phone Min Thant, Staff Writer
In a meeting last July, former CEO and chief librarian of the Vancouver Public Library Christina de Castell prohibited the library’s staff from wearing watermelon pins representing solidarity with Palestine. The decision came after the VPL received a number of complaints from the public regarding said pins.
In response to concerns from staff, de Castell said, “Pins that have a political symbol and represent personal beliefs are not appropriate to wear in the workplace.” When asked about other forms of political expression the VPL has engaged in such as pride flags and orange shirts, de Castell remarked that the library only engages in “advocacy” for issues in which the governing body has “an established and documented position.” After de Castell’s resignation in December, her interim successor, Dawn Ibey, continued to defend the VPL’s decision by saying that the mandate of a public library is to “educate and provide information . . . in a way that is non-partisan and unbiased.”
If the VPL engages in selective political activism, doesn’t it contradict their narrative of being “non-partisan and unbiased?” Besides, why should a library serving the public, with its diverse views and perspectives, aim to be apolitical in the first place? While it’s problematic that the VPL thinks it should be apolitical, it is only when it comes to support for Palestine that Canadian institutions throw their appraisal of diversity out the window, and rosy words about freedom of expression are replaced with chants of ignorance and negligence. VPL is regretfully one such institution.
“If there is so-called neutrality through freedom of expression which allows a transphobic speaker to hold a public event in the same space where others wear rainbow pins and celebrate pride month, then shouldn’t watermelon pins also be included?”
First, let’s examine the VPL’s official policies on freedom of speech and expression. Its “inclusive library services” include encouraging “the right of access and the right of representation of diverse groups and experiences” as well as the active promotion of perspectives that have historically been marginalized. In addition to this, the Canadian Federation of Library Associations (CFLA), which the VPL is a part of, advocates for the right for Canadians to hold, express, and share their thoughts and opinions. The CFLA ensures that libraries under its oversight uphold these rights and freedoms.
The VPL’s selective understanding of “freedom of expression” is especially noticeable when compared to their response in 2019, when it refused to block a controversial room-booking by transphobic speaker Meghan Murphy for a public speaking event. Despite much public protest and scrutiny against Murphy’s transphobic views, the VPL allowed the event to continue undisrupted, citing “intellectual freedom” and “freedom of expression.” They doubled down and said that people whose perspectives “may be contrary to the library’s vision and values” may also use the library’s services. Its new policies in the wake of this debacle confirmed that the library will only take action if the Criminal Code or the BC Human Rights Code are violated.
The library put up this statement after the event: “The library believes that freedom of expression and access to ideas and information are essential to the health and development of a democratic society.” This is inarguable, but isn’t the ability to show solidarity with an oppressed population also a sign of a democratic society? If there is so-called neutrality through freedom of expression which allows a transphobic speaker to hold a public event in the same space where others wear rainbow pins and celebrate pride month, then shouldn’t watermelon pins be included? After all, wearing such pins doesn’t violate any criminal law, but banning staff from wearing them sounds like it does.
The VPL said all of its staff’s “unique contributions are respected,” right? Clearly this isn’t an issue of “unbiased” politics or “personal beliefs.” The key problem lies in Canadian public institutions’ antagonism against any advocacy for Palestine. From public universities to the parliament, any movement supporting Palestine gets repressed, silenced, or ignored. The banning of watermelon pins at the one place that is supposed to be educating and informing the public on all perspectives shows that there is no neutrality or compromise when it comes to Palestine — despite Palestinians having experienced discrimination historically and hence deserves even more advocacy from VPL according to its policies. As an institution that stocks George Orwell’s 1984, a book explicitly about censorship, oppression, and constant surveillance, the VPL needs to do better than censoring and silencing what it doesn’t like.
