The National's latest journalistic mishap
For the institution's Dear Library display, the public had been asked to nominate books that had helped shape their lives. A selection of these would then be included in a ten-month exhibition celebrating the library's centenary. The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht received twice as many nominations required to guarantee inclusion in the display, and its selection was assessed using equality, diversity and inclusion criteria, according to emails seen via Freedom of Information requests. Internal memos outline why the book was to be included in the display: multiple people put it forward, it was to be one of 200 books 'not being platformed or elevated above others' and that the removal of the book from the exhibition list would prompt 'an accusation of censorship'. Consequently an email was circulated that confirmed The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht was to be included in the exhibition.
But not everyone was willing to accept this reasoning. The library's internal staff LGBT network mounted a campaign to remove the gender-critical tome from the selection. In one email, a staff member queried whether 'a non-fiction work advocating for racist, homophobic or other discriminatory and exclusionary viewpoints' would have passed vetting and been selected for the curated display. Some even claimed that the book 'essentially promotes hate speech to a particular'. Pressure piled on Amina Shah, the national librarian, who eventually caved in to the outrage. For its part, the National Library of Scotland said in a statement that while 523 books had been nominated, only 200 could be displayed, adding: 'Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access this book as well as the 200 other titles that were not selected for display.'
The National was quick to jump on accusations of censorship by the book's authors, Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn – and even released a video in which one of their reporters attempted a fact check:
You may have heard that a gender critical book has been banned from an exhibition by the National Library of Scotland. Well, it hasn't. It's not true… Editors have claimed their book is being excluded after pressure from staff. They've called it censorship… They said the book was singled out by staff, who they say had threatened to disrupt the exhibition if it was included. But here's the truth. Their book is one of 200 others not to have been selected for the exhibition. The book is in the National Library. Anyone can read it. It's just not in a showcase celebrating Scotland's literary milestones, which is a curated selection, not an open mic.
It seems to have escaped the attention of the paper's sharpest minds that the book, er, was initially included before being subsequently removed due to pressure – with there being email evidence to back the development up. Hunter Blackburn has claimed the journal's video is defamatory – effectively accused the book's authors of lying – while Dalgety has urged the newspaper to apologise. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
28 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Ministers have a duty to protect freedom of speech and end this insanity
The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht is a collection of essays edited by Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As is often the case during the Edinburgh Fringe, the material was weak and the delivery unconvincing. While authoritarian bullies rampaged across Scotland's cultural landscape last week, the response from senior politicians was predictably - depressingly - poor. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In saner times, an apology from a publicly-funded venue for allowing the Deputy First Minister to enter the premises would have provoked justifiable outrage from the very top of Government. Likewise, the decision to ban a book from an exhibition at the National Library of Scotland would, surely, have seen the personal intervention of the First Minister. Instead, last week we witnessed yet more of the lack of leadership which has allowed trans activists to wreak havoc across the public sector. First, and I cringe for those involved as I type these words, we learned that management at the Summerhall venue in Edinburgh set up a 'safe space' for staff and performers while Deputy FM Kate Forbes was in the building. The presence of Forbes, a devout Christian who previously revealed that, had she been an elected member at the time the law was changed, she would have voted against gay marriage, was dangerous. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes (Picture: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire) Management at the venue later apologised for letting her in. 'Summerhall Arts' primary concern,' said a spokesperson, 'is the safety and wellbeing of the artists and performers we work with, and going forward we will be developing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again.' This is insanity. Kate Forbes is a democratically elected politician whose faith-born opposition to gay marriage, while controversial, is perfectly legal. Her presence in Summerhall created no danger for anyone, LGBTQ+ or otherwise, and those claiming otherwise should be embarrassed. The only danger, here, is in Summerhall management's attack on free speech. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Another enthusiast for undermining this fundamental freedom is National Librarian, Amina Shah. It emerged last week that the excellent book 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' had been withdrawn by Shah from an exhibition highlighting the importance of libraries and the ways in which they can 'empower individuals and the communities they belong to'. The editors of the book, a collection of essays by women involved in the ultimately successful campaign to defeat the SNP's plan to allow anyone to self-identify into the legally-recognised sex of their choosing, discovered through a freedom of information request that it had received more public nominations for inclusion that any other. They learned that the book had, initially, been selected for inclusion in the 'Dear Library' exhibition but that, after protests from members of staff, Shah - with the backing of the board, chaired by Sir Drummond Bone - withdrew it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Shah's actions are indefensible and stand fully in contradiction to the responsibilities that come with the position she is unfit to hold. I suspect the National Librarian's decision is one that will whisper in her ear for years to come. Faced with threats of disruption from staff if 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheest' had been included in the exhibition, Shah should have turned to the National Library's disciplinary code. Rather than capitulating to authoritarian bullies, she should have reminded them that gross misconduct is a real thing with real consequences. As these twin scandals unfolded, finance secretary Shona Robison spoke of the need for 'tolerance'. In her reaction to the Summerhall scandal, Robison revealed at least some of the reason that we find ourselves where we do. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'I don't think,' said Robison, 'it sends out the right signal over freedom of speech.' Any weaker and the pulse would be undetectable. Something that sends out entirely the wrong signal over freedom of speech is members of the Government sitting back while others deny the free speech of others. When culture secretary Angus Robertson eventually spoke up, he served a weak cocktail of bromides. While he was a 'strong supporter' of free speech, there would always be 'tensions' between that right and views that some people might find 'unpopular or unjustifiable'. It would not, he added, 'be easy all of the time to please everybody'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On Robertson waffled: he was a strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression; there was an important distance between government and cultural organisations; there were issues of 'public concern' and 'public debate'. Over the two decades that I've known former journalist Robertson, I've always considered him - in common with most in our trade - a fundamentalist on freedom of speech. His unwillingness to take a stronger stance, here, does not chime with the values I've long understood him to hold. Robertson spoke about the important distance between government and cultural organisations and it is, of course, correct that ministers should have no say in the decision making of bodies such as Creative Scotland but that does not mean he should not intervene when things are going catastrophically wrong. Robertson is entitled to demand the presence in his ministerial office of Summerhall chief executive Sam Gough. The culture secretary is perfectly within his rights to point out to Gough that Summerhall - a venue recently propped up with more than £600,000 of public money - must operate within the law and that failure to do so will mean the tap's turned off. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The National Library of Scotland is funded by the Scottish Government and answerable to the Scottish Parliament. Robertson has the right - the duty - to act here, too. Amina Shah, cowed by activists, removed a book from an exhibition that includes, satire fans, George Orwell's '1984'. She's a censor and Angus Robertson should sack her and remove Sir Drummond Bone from the library's board. Freedom of speech is under attack as never before in living memory. The culture secretary's presence on the frontline of this battle would be very much appreciated.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sex Matters warns National Library over book ban law breach
The charity said the decision 'creates a hostile environment for gender-critical staff' and 'discriminates against members of the public who share those beliefs'. They added: 'By April 18, 2026, when the exhibition closes, you could be facing thousands of claims under the Equality Act.' READ MORE In their letter to National Librarian and NLS chief executive Amina Shah, and to board chair Sir Drummond Bone, Sex Matters chief executive Maya Forstater, director of advocacy Helen Joyce and director of campaigns Fiona McAnena said many of the chapters in Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht were "personal testimonies to the harassment and discrimination faced by women who express this belief in Scotland today'. 'Gender-critical belief is covered by the protection against belief discrimination in the Equality Act under Section 10. 'As an employer and service provider you have a legal obligation not to subject your staff to harassment or discrimination on the basis of their beliefs, and not to subject members of the public who may use the library or visit its exhibitions to direct or indirect discrimination based on their belief.' The letter says the exclusion could also breach the law on unlawful harassment under Section 26, which covers unwanted conduct 'that violates a person's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment' linked to a protected characteristic. 'Displaying books that individuals may disagree with or even find offensive is not harassment; it is core to the job of a library,' they wrote. 'However, refusing to display a book in an exhibition of books nominated by the public because it relates to a protected belief is an action that could well meet the test for harassment in relation to your gender-critical staff.' NLS is celebrating its 100th year (Image: National Library of Scotland) They also warned it could meet the threshold for direct discrimination under Section 13. 'The internal documents about the decision released under Freedom of Information reveal that this is exactly what you did: you decided to exclude this book, which was nominated by four members of the public, from the exhibition after a group of staff claimed — without evidence — that there were groups behind it that were 'exclusionary', and that including it would cause those staff 'severe harm'. "They threatened 'to notify LGBT+ partners' if you went ahead with the original plan to include the book in the exhibition.' The letter continues: 'Imagine if a small group of staff complained about the inclusion of a book by black authors about their experience of racism, a book by gay authors about their experience of homophobia, or a book by Jewish authors about their experience of antisemitism. "You would have had no difficulty recognising this as a call to discriminate based on a protected characteristic.' It accuses library management of capitulating to threats and of using 'a tool that is meant to help you identify and mitigate risks of undertaking unlawful discrimination as a device for discrimination', calling the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) a 'sham' because it omitted the protected characteristic of belief. The charity has called on the NLS to reinstate the book 'without denigrating it with a sign calling it divisive', meet editors Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn, apologise to authors and nominators, and 'consider what other reasonable steps, such as training, you could take to prevent future harassment based on gender-critical belief and to build a true culture of inclusion.' Read more: Judicial guidance on discrimination cases, the charity added, gives a range of £1,200 to £12,000 for injury to feelings in less serious cases — meaning thousands of claims could lead to multi-million pound exposure. Members of the public were invited to nominate 'books that shaped people's lives' for the Dear Library exhibition. After securing four public nominations, two more than the others that made the display, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht — which features more than 30 essays from contributors including JK Rowling, Joanna Cherry KC and Ash Regan — was initially confirmed for inclusion on May 14 with 'safeguarding measures' in place. FOI documents show the same day, an internal note described it as 'a book that calls for exclusion of a section of society' and suggested 'calling it divisive [might] minimise the harm caused by including it'. In an email, the staff LGBT+ network said it was 'disappointed' and alleged 'the group behind it are explicitly exclusionary in nature.' The network compared the book's stance to 'racist, homophobic and other discriminatory and exclusionary viewpoints', warning of a 'detrimental' impact on staff, visitors and relationships with marginalised communities. On May 15, the network met urgently with managers. The EqIA, completed on May 21, cited perceived harm, asserted increases in hate crime, risks of being seen to endorse 'anti-trans ideology', a 'detrimental impact on staff', visitors feeling 'emotionally impacted', potential backlash from external partners, losing trust, and the risk of protests. It also warned of the risk of accusations of censorship and that it would be the only book from that perspective in the exhibition. On May 28, Ms Shah wrote to Sir Drummond recommending exclusion 'not due to the content of the book itself or the views expressed, but to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the Library". "There is a risk that they will withdraw their support for the exhibition and the centenary,' she added. Sir Drummond agreed. FOI records show no equivalent review was carried out for any other book, and no suggestion that titles presenting the opposite perspective should be reassessed. READ MORE Joanna Cherry KC said she was 'appalled' the NLS had 'bowed to pressure from a small group within their staff to censor a book written by feminists, sex abuse survivors and lesbians, about their experiences during an important period in Scottish recent history'. Bathgate and Linlithgow MP Kirsteen Sullivan called the decision 'absolutely ridiculous — censoring a book that gives detailed accounts of women who have been unjustly censored!' In July, Ms Shah told a colleague the episode showed 'training on intellectual freedom is required' within the NLS. Following the backlash, Ms Shah told staff: 'It's important to note that the Library is not banning or censoring this or any other book. Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access it or any other title.' Dr Hunter Blackburn pushed back against that. 'This is unprofessional," she tweeted. "Anyone can see from the FoI, WWWW was not just another book that was left out. "There are 30+ pages of internal consideration about whether to accede to internal activist complaints about the initial decision to include it. The Chair was consulted.' An NLS spokesperson told The Herald: 'We will examine the contents of the letter and will respond in due course.'
The Independent
11 hours ago
- The Independent
West Virginia sends hundreds of National Guard members to Washington at Trump team's request
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
