Waverley Library’s decision to remove Adam Johnson’s How to Sell a Genocide after complaints raises a question that goes far beyond one book, one library or one Sydney council: who decides which political arguments the public is permitted to view?
The distress experienced by survivors of the Bondi Beach terror attack must be acknowledged and treated seriously but this cannot become a veto over material available to an entire community.
Public libraries don’t endorse every book they acquire. Their purpose is to provide access to knowledge, conflicting perspectives and uncomfortable ideas so readers can reach their own conclusions. If the possibility of offence becomes sufficient grounds for removing a book, libraries cease to be independent public institutions and begin functioning as political gatekeepers.
In the current political climate, this risks creating a system of pre-emptive censorship in which librarians avoid books critical of Israel or Zionism – not because those books are inaccurate, unlawful or outside collection guidelines, but because institutions fear organised complaints and reputational controversy.
The controversy also demonstrates why the word “genocide” has become such a contested part of the debate over Gaza. It’s a confronting word because it describes the destruction of a people, and its application to Israel’s conduct has been supported or investigated by human rights organisations, international legal experts, genocide scholars and United Nations officials.
At the centre of this dispute is the increasingly aggressive attempt to blur criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism, often through promotion of the IHRA working definition. Australian court decisions have reinforced the importance of protecting political criticism of Israel and Zionism.
A public institution worthy of the name should help communities confront difficult ideas – not hide those ideas when politically influential groups object.
