Book banning in Alberta, Canada

I guess the good news is they specifically define the content they're banning? But context still counts for nothing, and if it results in singling out and eliminating the LGBTQ+ content, oh well?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-school-library-book-rules-1.75817...

Book banning is now proceeding in Edmonton, Alberta. Gotta love the politician talk: "the policy is not about banning books, but putting rules in place for schools that lack standards for age-appropriate material." That's like saying "I'm not stopping you from reading them, I'm telling you why you can't read them."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-school-books-removal-1.7620807

There's something kinda hilarious in this follow-up article:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/danielle-smith-dwells-on-graphics-not-wor...

The order by Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides targeted all depictions in a library: written, illustrated, photographed or otherwise. And it seemed to offer little leeway any time a book offered a "detailed and clear depiction of a sexual act."

This is why a book like Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged may have gotten targeted by Edmonton schools, for a line on page 100:

"He held her, pressing the length of his body against hers with a tense, purposeful insistence, his hand moving over her breasts as if he were learning a proprietor's intimacy with her body, a shocking intimacy that needed no consent from her, no permission."

Or, six pages later:

"He shuddered suddenly, he threw off the blanket, he looked at her naked body, then he fell forward and buried his face between her breasts."

I mean ... Ayn Rand is your example? That's like having a huge national debate over whether a serial killer deserved his parking ticket, lol. If you're gonna get up in arms and ban this book for something ideological, THOSE are the parts that worried you?? Maybe politicians don't know how to read anymore. Or else it's a shell game for what they're really targeting, but since these are right-wingers ... I'm sticking with the "can't read" assumption.

And then it gets funny again for an entirely different reason:

After having those passages from Ayn Rand read to him, John Hilton-O'Brien, a supporter of the government's policy, remarked: "That doesn't sound appropriate. However, you don't want to accidentally ban Catcher in the Rye."

Translation: "If I've not personally heard of a book or its author before, I'm against it. If I have, we can let it go." A standard to live by!

To my ears sounding like little more than a specific instance of a frustratingly common trend, worldwide. It's rarely about anything more principled than something that offends someone's individual sensibilities, and that someone believes the general principle should be easily seen by everyone else -- but there is no such principle.