Scotland's national library removes gender-critical book after staff complaints
The library removed The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, a collection of essays by feminists including JK Rowling about their fight against Nicola Sturgeon's gender self-ID laws.
The book was selected to be included in a major exhibition celebrating the library's centenary.
But Amina Shah, Scotland's national librarian and the NLS chief executive, decided to remove the book from the exhibition after coming under pressure from the library's LGBT+ staff network, who called it 'hate speech'.
The network warned its inclusion would cause 'severe harm to staff' and said it would have 'no choice but to notify LGBT+ partners of the library's endorsement of the book', according to documents released under freedom of information (FoI).
An equality impact assessment produced by the library warned the book could be 'perceived as harmful' and 'asserted increases in hate crime'.
'Anti-trans ideology'
Concerns were also expressed that the NLS would be seen to endorse 'anti-trans ideology', despite the exhibition containing several other pro-trans titles, and that there would be a 'backlash from external partners'.
In a statement, the NLS said the book would still be available to read in the library and the exhibition included 'a full list' of publications not selected for display.
But the two women who edited the book wrote to Ms Shah accusing her of censorship and 'cowardice' for having 'capitulated to what we can only describe as threats from within the library to disrupt the centenary exhibition'.
Lucy Hunter Blackburn, a policy analyst, and Susan Dalgety, a newspaper columnist, said the documents showed that 'you, and some of your senior colleagues, allowed activists on your staff to characterise the very existence of the book as harmful, hateful and akin to racism and homophobia'.
'By conceding to this internal lobbying, not only have you allowed this defamatory misrepresentation to go unchallenged, but you have in effect endorsed it. Surely, the role of the National Librarian is to ensure the library is a place where ideas, debate and discussion take place,' the pair said.
'Yet rather than treat this book as a book, you have allowed it to be treated as a dangerous object, not safe for public display in Scotland's national library.'
Campaigners 'smeared'
They noted that the women who contributed essays to the book included campaigners who won April's landmark Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not women under the Equality Act.
'These are women who have changed the course of politics not just in Scotland but in the UK, and who spoke up for many who felt less able to do so,' Ms Hunter Blackburn and Ms Dalgety said.
'All these women have been smeared and their words excluded from the exhibition by your decision.'
They said the equality impact assessment was a 'fig leaf', meaning to conceal an embarrassment, and the FoI documents showed that the library 'has discriminated against this book purely for the position it takes on questions of sex and gender identity'.
The library received 523 title nominations for the Dear Library exhibition, of which 200 were to go on public display. The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht received four nominations, with two normally enough to guarantee selection.
An email sent on May 14 this year confirmed that the book 'will feature in the exhibition' and 'will be displayed alongside 200 other publicly-selected books'.
Library chiefs said its inclusion was not an endorsement of its contents and reflected its ethos of 'welcoming people of all identities and beliefs'.
But on the same day, a reply was sent stating that the staff LGBT+ network was 'disappointed' by the decision and accusing the book's authors of being 'explicitly exclusionary in nature'.
'Attack on women's rights'
Another reply questioned what would have happened if the exhibition selection had included 'a non-fiction work advocating for racist, homophobic, or other discriminatory and exclusionary viewpoints'.
The equality impact assessment was produced on May 21, warning that its inclusion 'could be seen as an endorsement of anti-trans ideology' and result in 'severe damage' to the library's reputation.
However, it acknowledged that excluding the book 'could be regarded as an attack on women's rights and censorship of gender-critical ideology '.
It also noted that the book 'is the only inclusion of pro-gender-critical content within the exhibition, whereas there is a large amount of content within the exhibition which platforms LGBT+ communities'.
A report produced for the library's management team on May 27 said the staff network had threatened to inform the library's LGBT+ partners and the following day Ms Shah published a paper recommending the book be excluded.
She said: 'This is 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.
On May 29, a staff member emailed a colleague stating that the book 'promotes hate speech to a particular group'. The same day Ms Shah met Sir Drummond Bone, the library's chairman, to discuss the matter. The following day she emailed colleagues stating: 'Drummond has agreed with my recommendation.'
An NLS spokesman said: 'Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access this book as well as the 200 other titles that were not selected for display. A full list of those publications is available as part of the exhibition.
'Libraries are vital places where people can access all kinds of publications for free, and form their own opinions.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Anyone with a brain is jumping off HMS Britain
A piece was recently published about five Oxford graduates. All of them are struggling to find work more than a year after getting good degrees. The article provoked a spate of online mockery about the young people's supposed sense of entitlement. Not for the first time, social media reminded us that we are what GK Chesterton called 'veneered vandals', savages under the thinnest of layers. In fact, the five Oxonians came across as ambitious and determined. They were making ends meet through temping, tutoring and working summer jobs while firing off hundreds of application letters. They were simply finding out, like so many people of their age, that three years of study and tens of thousands of pounds in student debt no longer get you onto the first rung of a career ladder. This discovery shocked them, as well it might. Theirs was the generation that was yanked out of school in March 2020, thinking that they would be back to take their A-levels after three or four weeks of lockdown. In fact, it wasn't just their schools that they never went back to; it was the way of life of pre-pandemic Britain. Before lockdown, the UK budget was on its way to surplus. Now, the Government is borrowing nearly £150 billion a year, two thirds of which must go to pay interest on past borrowing. No one has a plan to undo the supposedly emergency spending of 2020. The only debate is over whether taxes must rise to meet the new commitments, or whether we carry on borrowing. Did we imagine that we could pay people to stay home for the better part of two years without suffering an economic hit? As a matter of fact, I think a lot of us did. The same people who spent lockdown howling down attempts to loosen restrictions as 'putting the economy before lives' are now angry and bewildered because prices, taxes and unemployment have risen. Britain has reached the end of a long run of structurally high employment. For more than 30 years, our jobs market was the envy of Europe. Yes, we could be hit by external events, notably the global financial crisis. But we bounced back quickly, because we understood that the best way to encourage employers to hire people was to make it easy to fire them. A moment's thought reveals why. In a country with light employment regulations, firms take on staff during upswings, knowing that they can always drop them if things go wrong. But in a country with restrictive regulations, every employee is a potential liability, and companies hang back warily. In such countries, unemployment is structurally high, especially among young people. That has been southern Europe's tragedy for decades. British governments used to understand this. Neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown tried to undo the labour reforms of the 1980s. Both knew that, if they wanted revenue for public services, they needed a buoyant economy. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, by contrast, seem to struggle with the concept of cause and effect. Never mind their tax-and-spend policies. They appear not to grasp that raising the costs of employing people leads to fewer people being employed. Four months ago, they hit businesses with a double tax. Employer National Insurance contributions rose from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent, and at the same time kicked in on earnings above £5,000 instead of £9,100. What did they think would happen, for heaven's sake? If tobacco taxes reduce smoking and carbon taxes reduce emissions, what did they suppose jobs taxes would do? Sure enough, the number of employees on payroll plunged by 109,000 the following month, and has declined further in every month since. Britain's overall unemployment rate is now at its highest since lockdown. The really striking figure, though, is youth unemployment. Among 16- to 24-year-olds, the jobless rate has reached Mediterranean levels: over 14 per cent in recent months. Why? Again, because of our refusal to acknowledge that actions have consequences. Pushing up the minimum wage (which applies from age 16) and the national living wage (which applies from 21) makes MPs feel righteous. They have voted to raise minimum remuneration for 20-year-olds by 55 per cent since 2020. The trouble is that these repeated hikes end up punishing young people, not helping them, by closing off job opportunities and condemning many to welfare. Around 60,000 students a year go straight from university onto long-term sickness benefits. MPs with a basic knowledge of economics tend to keep quiet, because they are terrified of being asked how they would like to live on £10 an hour. It is an irrelevant question, but it nonetheless terrifies them. I was, I think, the only parliamentarian to speak out against an above-inflation hike in the minimum wage during the pandemic, at a time when wages were falling across the private sector. Everyone else wanted an even bigger rise. Ignorant voters, self-righteous journalists and cowardly politicians make a potent combination. This year, the minimum wage rose by 18 per cent for 16- and 17-year-olds and by 16.3 per cent for 18-, 19- and 20-year olds. Result? Fewer jobs for young people. Openings in the hospitality sector are down by 22,000 since last year, and graduate postings have fallen by an almost unbelievable 33 per cent. To repeat, policies have consequences. I sometimes think that the readiness to acknowledge trade-offs is the real dividing-line in politics. And I don't just mean among politicians. Among voters, too, there are those who look at the costs of policies, and those who go to the polling station humming 'I'm just a soul whose intentions are good'. Hikes in the minimum wage are the least of it. The open-ended extension of equalities laws is an even greater deterrent. When retail workers can be compensated for being paid less than warehouse workers on supposedly sex discrimination grounds, even though the retail workers were refusing to be redeployed to warehouses, employers can hardly be blamed for being reluctant to hire. And that is before we get to Angela Rayner's package of employment laws, the most far-reaching since the mid-1970s. The Employment Rights Bill, currently before the House of Lords, is a regulatory omnibill that covers sick pay, paternity leave, bereavement, privileges for new employees, a right to demand flexible working, new holiday entitlements and extra powers for trade unions. As Tony Blair put it, early in his premiership: 'There is almost always a case that can be made for each specific instrument. The problem is cumulative. All these good intentions can add up to a large expense, with suffocating effects.' Quite so, and it is more than a little scary that we are governed by people who can't see it. Here is a paradox. Labour – the clue is in the name – is meant to be the party of the worker. Yet every single Labour-majority government has left office with unemployment higher than when it began. Every. Single. One. This one, unlike some of its predecessors, has wasted no time. Already we can see where it is going: more and more workers' rights, fewer and fewer workers. We are in a vicious circle. Higher unemployment means fewer people paying taxes into the system and more drawing benefits from it. Since Labour has already proven that it cannot cut spending – not even mildly to slow the rise in benefits claims – that can only mean even higher taxes, prompting more disinvestment, slower growth, higher unemployment and lower revenue. According to a survey by the British Council, 72 per cent of Brits under 30 are thinking of working abroad, and who can blame them? We are pulling off the extraordinary double of simultaneous emigration and immigration crises, exporting our entrepreneurs and replacing them with people who go onto benefits. And, God help us, we have another four years of it to come.
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
'We must return the human dimension' to talks, says Nobel Peace Prize winner
Image source, Reuters Ukrainian human rights lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner Oleksandra Matviichuk tells the BBC that the 'human dimension must be returned to the political process' taking place over the war. 'What will happen to the dozens of thousands illegally detained citizens, men and women, and prisoners of war… this question is very urgent,' Matviichuk says. According to Ukrainian authorities, nearly 16,000 Ukrainian civilians are still in captivity in Russian prisons after being abducted by the invading army. That's not counting the nearly 20,000 Ukrainian children estimated to have been taken to Russia. In June, I spent time with families of Ukrainian civilians still detained in Russian prisons. Their fear is that their loved ones are being left out of the discussions around peace, and there is no framework in place to return them to Ukraine. Matviichuck says she has lost faith that Trump can bring a peaceful solution to the war. 'As a candidate for president, [he] said that he would finish this war in 24 hours. This is the longest 24 hours in history.'
Daily Mail
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Chilling sight of Putin shaking his head and shouting over journalists as they demanded to know when he would 'stop killing civilians' in Ukraine
As the two leaders sat down for peace talks, a wall of reporters hurled questions over the din - asking when Putin would end his war in Ukraine. But what followed was a chilling sight. The Kremlin strongman shook his head defiantly, as aids could be heard ushering journalists out of the room, saying 'Thank you, press'. Putin appeared to make a confused expression as multiple journalists bombarded the two with questions, including what seemed to be a series of bewildered looks, before seemingly shouting over their questions. Trump, meanwhile, said nothing. He simply thanked reporters before being led out, in stark contrast to his heated Oval Office exchange with Volodymyr Zelenskyy earlier this year. It wasn't the only time that Putin's actions raised eyebrows at this summit, as some Ukrainians have noticed the Russian leader weirdly twitching during his interaction with the US president. Kremlin footage captured the Russian leader's knee jolting repeatedly as he stood alongside his US counterpart at the end of their brief exchange following a joint press conference. The pair, flanked by security teams and aides, spoke for a short time, with a translator stepping in to assist their conversation. Video clips shared online showed the Russian leader repeatedly dipping one knee as he stood beside the 6ft 3in former president at Elmendorf-Richardson air base in Anchorage - before departing without agreeing to a ceasefire in Ukraine. It seemed to be a series of bewildered looks, before seemingly shouting over their questions But the unusual movements was seized by eagle-eyed Ukrainians, who ridiculed the 72-year-old's fidgeting and speculated about the state of his health. They even claimed he wore a 'light exoskeleton' as well as thick-platform shoes to overcome his 'Napoleon complex' and minimise his height difference with the US president. An exoskeleton is wearable robotic device designed to assist or augment the posture of the person wearing it. Observers also noted the striking difference in stature, with Trump's 6ft 3in frame towering over the 5ft 7in Russian leader despite Putin's visibly elevated footwear. Despite no deal being reached during after two-and-half hours of talks, Trump was upbeat, saying there were 'many, many points that we agreed on' but admitted there was one issue — 'the most significant' — that remained unresolved. 'We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there,' he added, without giving details. Following the summit, Trump has been calling Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO and European allies to update them. Zelensky has now said he will travel to Washington on Monday. He closed by thanking Putin once more, saying: 'We'll speak to you very soon, and probably see you again very soon. Thank you very much, Vladimir.' Putin then appeared to catch Trump off guard, responding in English: 'Next time in Moscow?' A visibly stunned Trump replied: 'Oh, that's an interesting one… I'll get a little heat on that one, but I can see it possibly happening. Thank you very much. Thank you all.' There was no mention of a ceasefire from either Mr Trump or Putin during the press conference which followed after their near three-hour meeting. And despite speaking in a room filled with the world's press, no questions were taken before both presidents shook hands, briefly posed for pictures and sauntered out of the room.
