ɫɫ��

Smith’s education minister decreed guidelines aimed at keeping “explicit sexual content” out of school libraries. This comes with a cringe-making five-point definition of such content, exhaustively listing which body parts shouldn’t be seen coming into contact with which other parts. Has there ever been a more graphic “ministerial order” than

But it goes further, and there’s the rub, so to speak. Nicolaides also doesn’t want kids to come across “non-explicit sexual content,” either, a phrase so broad that it could sweep in pretty much any modern English novel. Which led  to put out a list of more than 200 works it planned to take off the shelves — including “Brave New World,” “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood.

Which of course prompted Atwood to take to social media with a withering put-down of Alberta’s clumsy efforts at censorship and a clever little story about John and Mary, who “produced five perfect children without ever having sex.”

Pro tip: when Saint Margaret of the Annex, our beloved national bard, turns her literary guns on you, you’re already losing. Better rethink.

Smith’s government is doing exactly that. , pending a rewrite to make it clear the intent was just to prevent graphic sexual content from getting into school libraries, not to ban literary classics.

The premier went a bit further, though. She accused the Edmonton school board of engaging in so-called “vicious compliance” — i.e. interpreting a stupid policy in a stupid way in order to highlight just how stupid it is.

This is a well-known technique of middle managers faced with implementing stupid orders from their corporate masters. I was sorely tempted to engage it when I was in management at a particularly stupid company (not the ɫɫ�� Star, I hasten to make clear). Did I do it? Uh, can’t remember. But kudos to the Edmonton school board in this case.

We now turn to Quebec in our survey of provincial stupidity. Premier François Legault has been irked for months at the fact that pro-Palestinian protesters have been praying in the streets of Montreal as part of regular demonstrations over the destruction in Gaza. That includes praying in Place d’Armes, in front of the Notre-Dame Basilica.

“Seeing people on their knees in the streets, praying … I don’t think it’s something we should see,” said the premier. Now his government is translating that distaste into actual policy. It plans to bring in legislation outlawing public prayer, in line with Quebec’s approach of ����ï������é, or strict separation of religion from the public sphere.

Of course, how and when to invoke the sacred — sorry, cherished — principle of ����ï������é is always a matter of judgment. It’s long been noted that Quebec’s approach tends to vary depending which religion is involved.

Specifically, the public can be quickly stirred if Muslims are involved — as in the case of the prayers in Place d’Armes. But a giant illuminated cross still shines atop Mount Royal and legislators will debate any law on public prayer in a National Assembly chamber where for decades a large crucifix hung over the Speaker’s chair (it was removed only in 2019).

Not just Muslims are rallying against Legault’s proposed ban. , worrying that religious processions might run afoul of a new law. And of course anyone concerned about civil liberties should be concerned. Banning public prayer would clearly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — though that won’t worry Legault, who routinely uses the notwithstanding clause to insulate against anything as trivial as a Charter challenge.

Banning public prayer isn’t just offensive, it’s also stupid. It would expose Quebec to further ridicule as a narrow-minded, hypocritical place — something the province really doesn’t need. And it’s completely unnecessary. Any concerns about Muslims disrupting others by praying can be handled under existing laws. There’s no need to layer on more restrictions.

Wrong in principle and stupid in practice. There’s a lot of that going around these days.