Are the images satire or bigotry? Designated terrorist group CAIR says they are “Islamophobic” bigotry. These questions are at the center of the controversy surrounding a book called “Bad Little Children’s Books” — a collection of mock children’s book covers that parody hot-button topics like racism and discrimination.
CNN One cover titled “Happy Burkaday Timmy!” portrays a girl in a veil holding a ticking present, while another illustrates the “Rockets and Missiles of the Islamic State.”
A different cover paints a Native American family with the title “The Anti-Vaccine Kid and the Gift of the Navajo Blanket Riddled With Smallpox.”
The book’s cover features a yellow strip along the joint made to resemble the gold spine of the classic Little Golden Books — except instead of cute animals and flowers, it has skulls, guns, bombs and knives. On the front, the book says it contains parodies, spoofs, and “offensively tweaked covers.”
Though it was released in September, the book was thrust into the limelight Friday after the book-related news blog Book Riot excoriated the tittle for its “racist, xenophobic, and religious bigotry” themes, which was quickly picked up the perpetual troublemakers promoted at CAIR.
After a Twitterstorm calling for Abrams Books to recall the titles, the publisher issued a statement Saturday standing by “Bad Little Children’s Books.”
“Some reviewers and commenters on social media have taken elements of the book at face value, which, we believe, misses the point of the book as a work of artistic parody and satire,” read the statement, released via Twitter. “Its intention is to shine a spotlight on stereotypes about race, gender, and difference that have become commonplace in today’s world and to, in fact, skewer all levels of societal bias.”
A spokesjihadist for the designated terrorist group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Ibrahim Hooper, called it the statement a “wild” claim. “It is probably wild that they claim it is to expose intolerance and bigotry,” Hooper told CNN. “I think it had the opposite effect of promoting it and exploiting it. Bottom line is they have the right to publish this kind of material, but should they?”
“And I think given the divisions we have seen in our society I don’t think it is the best use of the First Amendment.” (Oh, that’s rich, a Muslim advising us on what the First Amendment is all about).
“Freedom of speech and responsibility are not mutually exclusive,” argued Hooper. He called for tolerance and mutual understanding instead of the “promotion of hatred and division.”(Tolerance and understanding have never been part of Islam, you terrorism-funding pig)