Kate Forbes's treatment at the Edinburgh Fringe was a farce
Forbes is apparently so dangerous to your average avant-garde theatre-maker or performance poet, using Summerhall's many spaces for their Fringe run, that management at the venue issued a grovelling apology to these notional adults:
A fragility and intolerance of others, an anti-arts politics even, has been permitted to spread
Summerhall Arts' primary concern 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.
With such overblown rhetoric and handwringing, your average person still living in reality may suspect something appalling happened. Did Forbes goosestep across the atrium? Call for an immediate ban on stage make-up? Did she bring some kind of weapon to the venue, which was awarded £608,302 of public cash from Creative Scotland in January?
It's worse. She came to the building, was asked questions by the Herald's Andrew Learmonth, in front of a paying audience who wanted to hear her, then left again. Frightening.
Forbes was booked to take part in the Herald's Unspun Live talk-show series on 6 August. Leaving aside the irksome rise in political interview shows at what is supposed to be an arts festival, it's entirely ordinary she would do so.
A diminutive 5ft 2, Scotland's not-remotely-dangerous deputy First Minister has an earned reputation of being a capable, diligent and principled legislator who, until the recent announcement she'll be leaving parliament at the 2026 elections, was tipped to be a future First Minister.
She also holds gender-critical views. Despite these being entirely lawful, they bring instant pariah status in the arts world. In addition to the heresy of believing in the law of the literal land, which states that women and men are not each other, and that the former require single-sex spaces sometimes, Forbes is also a devout Christian.
Her religious views wouldn't have permitted her to vote for same-sex marriage had she been in parliament at the time that Act was passed. She has also said she'd personally never have an abortion. Both viewpoints arguably scuppered her leadership bid against former First Minister Humza Yousaf in 2023, despite his devout Muslim beliefs likely being similar. If you want to impose a double standard on a woman, of course, it suddenly becomes very easy to know what one is.
It says something ugly about both the state of the arts and freedom of expression that a venue in a city once celebrated as the 'home of the Enlightenment' wishes to apologise for a mild-mannered political leader saying things some people disagree with. In my recent experience, however, as someone formerly embedded in Scotland's artistic community, I know that using one's art form to explore difficult, controversial issues is in itself a downward trend.
The performing arts have been inculcating such a navel-gazing, relentless focus on the self – whether one's sexuality or the ever-nebulous 'gender identity' – that it has made a great deal of its practitioners about as edgy as a floral-patterned fabric circle. A fragility and intolerance of others, an anti-arts politics even, has been permitted to spread.
It's not normal for artists to act this way – something younger performers perhaps may not be aware of. It's also not remotely acceptable – or lawful – for a venue in receipt of taxpayers' funds to say they may in future ban people with Forbes's views from their programming. The dramas created by these types are often worthy of a Fringe First award.
A stunning display of both comedy and farce, good fodder for column inches and baffled conversations with like-minded peers. But, for those of us who value the arts, freedom of speech, and democracy, this is yet another example of a growing tragedy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Southport victim Bebe King's family slam new plans to share suspects' ethnicity
Bebe King's grandfather said the actions of the far-right and Nigel Farage's Reform UK party in bid to "make a political gain" had been "despicable" in the wake of the horrific tragedy Southport victim Bebe King's family have urged the government to shelve new police guidance encouraging forces to publish the ethnicity and immigration status of high-profile suspects. Little Bebe was the youngest of the three little girls killed in the horrific knife attack last year. The six-year-old was murdered alongside Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Bebe's grandfather, Michael Weston King, said they had been failed by the "despicable" far-right who "tried to make a political gain" from their loss. Mr Weston King urged ministers to reconsider their support for the new official guidance, slamming it as "completely irrelevant" information about suspects. He also hit out at Nigel Farage's "despicable" Reform UK, whose party has been calling for the guidance to be an enforced policy. Mr Weston King told the Guardian: "This apparent kowtowing to the likes of Farage and Reform, who surely want such a policy in place, is extremely disappointing, though perhaps not surprising. 'I not only speak for myself but for all of the King family when I say that the ethnicity of any perpetrator, or indeed their immigration status, is completely irrelevant. Mental health issues, and the propensity to commit crime, happens in any ethnicity, nationality or race. 'The boy who took Bebe had been failed by various organisations, who were aware of his behaviour, and by the previous government's lack of investment in [the official anti-extremism strategy] Prevent . As a result, we were also failed by this.' He added that the family 'were failed further, by the likes of Reform and the right wing, as they tried to make political gain from our tragedy, only causing further misery to us and others, which was despicable'. Teen killer, Axel Rudakubana, was jailed for a minimum of a 52 years for his attack on the Taylor Swift themed dance class full of children in July last year. In the days that followed, fascist thugs used the tragedy to incite riots across the UK. They spread false information that Rudakubana, a black Brit born in Wales to a Christian family, was in fact a Muslim asylum seeker. The unrest saw scores of police officers injured, mosques and asylum hotels targeted and people of colour lynched indiscriminately in the streets. Home secretary, Yvette Cooper, welcomed new police guidelines released on Wednesday, despite criticism from anti-racism campaigners and women's groups. It follows claims of police 'cover up' that two men charged in connection with the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, were asylum seekers. The far-right then staged an anti-immigration protest, where some worw Nazi imagery on their clothes and told a crowd the 'far right must unite'. A judge defied court guidance to publicly name underage Rudakubana, who was 17 at the time of the attack, in a bid to stop the riots. But the violence only stopped once hundreds of thugs involved began receiving prison sentences. Mr Weston King said: 'Though we are not interested in retribution or revenge, we were glad to see that the rioters, along with those who spread lies and hatred online, received prison sentences. I very much hope that the mood and opinion of the nation is in keeping with ours, and that this plan does not go ahead.'
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
What really happened at Kate Forbes' Fringe interview
We always thought The Herald's run of events at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe might spark a bit of debate — but we weren't expecting anything quite like this. Instead, we've found ourselves a reluctant party in this year's big festival censorship row. On Wednesday, the Daily Mail reported that Summerhall Arts had issued an apology to other performers for the 'oversight' of allowing Kate Forbes to be interviewed onstage as part of our Unspun Live podcast. They also said the venue set up a 'safe room' for performers upset by the Deputy First Minister's presence in the building. Actually, it was a 'designated relaxed space'. We know this, because they also sent the apology to us too. Just to be clear, the venue knew back in April that we'd booked Kate Forbes to appear as a guest at Unspun Live. The first we heard there might be an issue was last Tuesday — two days before she was due to appear on stage and be interviewed by me. At a meeting, we were told some artists had complained to management. There were fears about 'hate speech' and anxiety around the sort of audience Ms Forbes might attract to the venue. They said they were worried about the questions she might asked by that audience. As far as we were concerned, this was our event — and we were determined to run it the same way we would any other. The same way we ran the events with John Swinney and Anas Sarwar. On the night, we were steeling ourselves for some sort of protest or disruption, but as far as we know, in the end there was nothing more than a bit of graffiti in the toilets: 'Summerhall platforms transphobic, anti-abortion, homophobic polititian (sic) Kate Forbes.' In that emailed apology to all companies, the venue made clear that Ms Forbes would 'be in the Dissection Room in the Summerhall building today at 5pm for an interview until 6.30pm, after which she will leave immediately.' They went on to say Unspun Live was booked in by them before the line-up of interviewees was confirmed — but that they 'should have considered the likelihood of her being booked to attend, and the understandable upset it would cause'. 'We apologise unreservedly for not notifying you all sooner — we should have done,' they added. They said their main concern was that 'cancelling the event could pose significant additional risk to the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ artists, staff and audiences by attracting those who share Kate Forbes' views outside of these walls to Summerhall, and as such the interview will take place as scheduled, with all proceeds from the event donated to a local LGBTQ+ charity.' Summerhall said they had 'work to do to repair the damage from this oversight'. 'At this stage, we can guarantee that we will be writing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that prevent this from happening again.' We got through the night and, even though it was always likely the story would get out, we were — at that point — content to leave it there and move on. Aside from the Kate Forbes disagreement our working relationship with Summerhall and particularly the people who worked on our show was good. But it feels important to say something. Summerhall told us they did not want to cancel. Nor did they ask us to cancel. I mentioned this on stage last week, and went on to say that for the avoidance of any doubt, if they had asked to cancel, we would have said no — and that we stood by our decision to invite the DFM, and were very happy she said yes. Debate, challenge and the exchange of difficult ideas should be at the heart of the Fringe. They were certainly, I hope, at the heart of Unspun Live.
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
First Farage, now Jenrick, the BBC pandering to the extremists does nothing to dial down the temperature
What message does it send when the man maligning millions of people, about whom he knows nothing, comes out as the good guy? Robert Jenrick has some brass neck contending with the widely-held belief that the latest of his poisonous remarks, consistently demonising migrants, is xenophobic. The BBC this week issued an apology after the Shadow Justice Secretary complained that a critic had been handed airtime to push back. And when the state broadcaster caves in to men like Jenrick, we are all in trouble. It was theologian and author Dr Krish Kandiah, speaking on the BBC's Thought for the Day who spoke for many - including the ordinary people across the country at risk from the increasingly inflammatory language and people platformed by broadcasters who should know better. Kandian used the word 'xenophobia' in relation to an article in which Jenrick said: "I certainly don't want my children to share a neighbourhood with men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally and about whom we know next to nothing.' Kandian said: "These words echo a fear many have absorbed – fear of the stranger. The technical name for this is xenophobia. All phobias are, by definition, irrational. Nevertheless, they have a huge impact.' Jenrick posted online in response: "On BBC Radio 4 this morning listeners were told that if you're concerned about the threat of illegal migrants to your kids, you're racist. Wrong. You're a good parent.' The BBC's position was that it was apologising to Jenrick for the inclusion of an opinion in a place where it was inappropriate, not passing judgement on the rights or wrongs of the opinion. But when is pushing back against hate ever inappropriate? What message does it send when the man maligning millions of people about whom he knows nothing, comes out as the good guy? And what world are we living in when we cannot use the words (Kandian let him off lightly in my opinion) that accurately sum up yet another of Jenrick's attempts to stir up division. Here's a glimpse at his recent body of work. There was the time in January he used the sexual exploitation of young girls to blanket-condemn 'hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures who possess medieval attitudes towards women'. Describe one of your colleagues' countries at work as medieval with an alien culture and see how far you get before you are disciplined. Twelve months ago Jenrick was vilified for saying police should 'immediately arrest' any protesters shouting 'Allahu Akbar', the Arabic phrase meaning God is great. In response, Conservative party chair Baroness Sayeeda Warsi said: "This language from Jenrick is more of his usual nasty divisive rhetoric.' Labour MPs Naz Shah, the MP for Bradford West, called Mr Jenrick's comments "textbook Islamophobia'. His comments "literally equate every Muslim in the world with extremism" she argued. In a social media post she said: 'Imagine in this climate, either being that ignorant or deliberately trying to stigmatise all Muslims. He should apologise and speak to Muslim communities and learn more about our faith.' Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: 'People like Robert Jenrick have been stirring up some of the problems that we've seen in our communities.' Then there was the time last October the Shadow Chancellor insisted Britain's former colonies should be thankful for the legacy of the empire. Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, lawyer and activist posted on X: 'The ingratitude of this political illiterate @RobertJenrick. Britain would be nothing without colonised African & Asian nations. Its Industrial Revolution & Capitalist Wealth were built on the blood, sweat, forced labour & lives of our forebears. 'The 'inheritance' it left were the resources it stole, lands it pillaged, genocides committed, division of nations, systemic rape & collective punishment committed in the name of its racist British empire – a genocidal & thieving empire that still profits off former colonies to date.' Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on African reparations, said: 'Enslavement and colonialism were not 'gifts' but imposed systems that brutally exploited people, extracted wealth, and dismantled societies, all for the benefit of Britain.' So for the BBC to apologise to Jenrick, even on a technicality, sums up how detached from reality the broadcaster finds itself. In any case, what does Jenrick have to be upset about? Firstly the context. As we know there is precedent for politicians using language like him to insult, vilify entire groups of people and stir up hatred. In 1964, former Tory MP Peter Griffiths was elected to Smethwick, north west Birmingham, on the slogan 'If you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour.' Griffiths refused to disown it, claiming he regarded it as 'a manifestation of popular feeling.' Second, the framing. Jenrick's Tory party closed off all the legal routes into this country in order to deliberately frame those arriving as illegals. To suggest everyone arriving - including families - as a threat is a throwback to the days of Griffiths. Third, the BBC is the channel that ordered one of its non-white presenters to, humiliatingly, apologise for stating that Nigel Farage had been using, in a Reform UK speech, his 'customary inflammatory language' - even though he actually had been using his customary inflammatory language. The Beeb is also the channel which had its own staff publicly rebel after Breakfast show presenter Naga Munchetty was found to have breached the corporation's editorial guidelines in criticising US President Donald Trump for telling black politicians to 'go home'. Munchetty was ruled to have overstepped by accusing the US president of racism. Angry colleagues at the time pointed out that the complaints unit is dominated by older white men with no real grasp of the way in which Trump's words impact ordinary people. It looks very much as though that unit is still crammed to bursting with privileged middle-class high earners with their heads in the sand. Because if Jenrick's remarks don't qualify as xenophobic then what does? The Beeb needs to pick a side, because if you are non-white there have been a number of decisions from the broadcasters which do not help the fight against those who wish to divide us. Remember the time when it broadcast live, in its entirety, that repugnant, 2022 party conference speech by then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman, packed with lies and 'hurricane of migrants' rhetoric. The criticism of the Beeb's decision to hand a season ticket to Farage for its flagship political debate show Question Time, long before he was ever elected to Clacton, is well documented. And there remains a feeling that the broadcaster is happier to chase controversy than play its part in calming tensions. It needs to answer that charge urgently. Because to pander to extremists is simply not good enough. Ends
