Librarians in UK increasingly asked to remove books, as influence of US pressure groups spreads
Requests to remove books from library shelves are on the rise in the UK, as the influence of pressure groups behind book bans in the US crosses the Atlantic, according to those working in the sector.
Although 'the situation here is nowhere [near] as bad, censorship does happen and there are some deeply worrying examples of library professionals losing their jobs and being trolled online for standing up for intellectual freedom on behalf of their users', said Louis Coiffait-Gunn, CEO of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (Cilip).
Ed Jewell, president of Libraries Connected, an independent charity that represents public libraries, said: 'Anecdotal evidence from our members suggests that requests to remove books are increasing.' The School Library Association (SLA) said this year has seen an 'increase in member queries about censorship'.
Most of the UK challenges appear to come from individuals or small groups, unlike in the US, where 72% of demands to censor books last year were brought forward by organised groups, according to the American Library Association earlier this week.
However, evidence suggests that the work of US action groups is reaching UK libraries too. Alison Hicks, an associate professor in library and information studies at UCL, interviewed 10 UK-based school librarians who had experienced book challenges. One 'spoke of finding propaganda from one of these groups left on her desk', while another 'was directly targeted by one of these groups'. Respondents 'also spoke of being trolled by US pressure groups on social media, for example when responding to free book giveaways'.
It is 'certainly possible that the scale of censorship we're seeing in the US will influence the debate over here', said Jewell. However, the level of influence to date is far from clear, particularly because the nature of censorship requests in the UK seems to differ from those brought forward in the US.
Censorship by pupils in UK schools, including 'vandalising library material, annotating library books with racist and homophobic slurs', and damaging posters and displays was identified in Hicks' study, which she wrote about in the spring issue of the SLA's journal, The School Librarian. Such censorship 'is not something I have seen in the US', she said.
The types of books targeted may also differ. 'Almost all the UK attacks reported in my study centred on LGBTQ+ materials, while US attacks appear to target material related to race, ethnicity and social justice as well as LGBTQ+ issues,' said Hicks.
While the study was small, the 'LGBTQ focus of book challenges was undeniable', wrote Hicks. Challenges were levelled against Alice Oseman's Heartstopper series, about the love story of two British schoolboys, and 'coded' narratives in books such as Billy's Bravery by Tom Percival, about a boy who wants to dress up as his favourite superhero, Nature Girl.
This supports the findings of an Index on Censorship survey last year, in which 28 of 53 librarians polled reported that they had been asked to remove books from library shelves, many of which were LGBTQ+ titles. In more than half of those cases, books were taken off shelves.
However, a 2023 study by Cilip, which found that a third of UK librarians had been asked by members of the public to censor or remove books, did identify themes of race and empire as among the most targeted, along with LGBTQ+.
While there may be differences in how the challenges are playing out, 'this should not take away from the huge impact these attacks are having' in the UK, said Hicks. 'My research demonstrates that UK school librarians are facing equivalent levels of distress and hostility in the face of book ban challenges such as these.'
In the US, book banning measures have been enacted across a number of states in recent years. 'Library leaders in the UK are paying close attention to what's happening in the US and there's definitely a strong feeling of solidarity with American librarians,' said Jewell. Coiffait-Gunn of Cilip added that the profession 'looks on with deep concern at the increasingly polarised and political debate' in the US about 'what people, especially children, are allowed to read'.
One cause for concern in the UK is the 'lack of robust evidence' about how widespread censorship is, said Coiffait-Gunn. 'It's hard to evidence what doesn't happen and which books are not available.' The government does not tally how many school libraries or librarians there are, 'let alone track book bans'.
Most UK libraries follow the Cilip ethical framework, which states that published materials should not be restricted on any grounds but the law, said Jewell. 'That gives them the confidence and assurance to reject demands' for censorship.
'What we must guard against is a climate where libraries avoid stocking certain books – or holding talks or activities – for fear of negative publicity, threats or intimidation,' he added. 'It's vital that libraries feel able to provide access to a wide range of perspectives if they are to facilitate the free exchange of ideas.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Miliband has got his nuclear plans wrong. Here's what we should do
Yesterday, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband announced a new 'golden age ' of nuclear energy. But with the wrong technology, unfit regulation and no real delivery plan, his golden age already looks tarnished. He's pinning his hopes on an already out-dated large-scale nuclear technology that has been plagued by construction problems in Finland, France and the UK and whose developer EDF is already moving on to a newer version. And while his commitment to small modular reactors (SMRs) is commendable, they are at best a decade away with no examples in existence in the West. While it is tempting to think you could simply hoist a submarine reactor onto a dock and call it a power station, this is unrealistic. Military reactors are designed for stealth, speed and war, not for civilian safety, grid connectivity or cost-efficiency. So Rolls Royce has had to develop an entirely new concept. In fact the current market leaders in Western SMR-design are GE-Hitachi whose small boiling water reactors recently began construction in Canada. However, given the imminent retirement of all but one of our existing large nuclear reactors, bigger is better for the nuclear ambition, and in this, Miliband's plan is woefully inadequate. Luckily, there is a solution ready and waiting: the Korean APR1400 design which has been successfully completed in both South Korea and UAE with eight units now in operation, built in an average of 8.5 years, at an average cost of $5-6 billion. Far cheaper than the £40 billion some analysts expect Sizewell C to cost. Around £6 billion is thought to have been spent already. The Korean design has been approved by both US and European regulators and should be a no-brainer for the UK: build what works. But to do this we need to take an axe to our overgrown thicket of nuclear regulation. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) bizarrely reports to the Department for Work and Pensions, not the Energy Secretary, and sits beyond any meaningful strategic oversight. This well-intentioned separation has resulted in a regulatory regime akin to requiring 57 seat belts in your car – technically thorough, but practically unhinged. One requirement is that each new reactor design must expose workers to even less radiation than its predecessor. That might sound like progress, until you realise that radiation levels inside a modern nuclear plant are already so low they're hard to detect at all. The plant manager at one of our old Advanced Gas Cooled reactors (AGRs) once told me that the only time his radiation detector registered anything other than zero was when he left it on his desk and the sun shone on it. Nuclear workers are typically exposed to more radiation on the street than inside the plant. At this point, further exposure reductions offer no safety benefit. They just add cost, complexity and delay. The environmental regulators are as bad. The Sizewell C design is exactly the same as Hinkley Point C and the site is almost identical to Sizewell A and B. So why on earth were 40,000 pages of environmental statements required? This regulatory excess is expensive and draws out the process of approving new reactors beyond what is remotely reasonable. Britain risks running out of electricity. We had a near miss blackout event in January that was likely a factor in the renewal of the controversial biomass subsidies. We are also likely to see further small extensions to our ageing AGRs which are nearing the ends of their lives. But with a third of our fleet of gas power stations dating back to the 1990s and expected to retire in the next five years, Britain can ill afford delays to new nuclear plants. Particularly not the sort of avoidable delays our overzealous regulators have created. If Miliband is serious both about his golden age of nuclear, and more particularly, keeping the lights on in a decarbonised world, he needs to be far more ambitious. A truly serious plan would involve a programme of 5-6 large-scale reactors, and since the Koreans have the best track record, we should sign them up. He needs to get tough on the regulators. Abolishing ONR altogether and creating a new regulator, as part of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, with staff who are experts in risk management as well as nuclear safety, and severely curtailing the power of environmental regulators. One of the biggest benefits of nuclear power is its high energy density: it uses very little land to create a lot of energy. That should be taken into account, with regulators forced to look at the national picture rather than taking a strictly site by site approach. And he needs to stop wasting time with incentives for investors. They are not interested in the risk of our shambolic regulatory landscape. He should face this reality, and commit public money for the construction of the first two new reactors, re-financing once construction is completed. This would be a profitable strategy: the Government can borrow more cheaply than the private sector, the Korean design (with suitable regulatory restraint) can be built faster than the Hinkley design, meaning lower financing costs, and nuclear reactors are very profitable to run so investors will be very interested once the risky construction phase is over. He could even offer shares to the public in a 21st Century version of 'Just tell Sid' which remains the most successful public share subscription in UK history, and would perfectly align with Chancellor Rachel Reeves' ambition for UK savers to deploy their capital in the interests of national infrastructure.
Sky News
39 minutes ago
- Sky News
Who are the two Israeli ministers who have been sanctioned by the UK?
The UK government has sanctioned two prominent Israeli ministers for "inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank". Britain has been joined by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway in imposing sanctions on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich - who are opposed to Palestinian statehood and are on the far right of Israeli politics. The ministers are being sanctioned in their personal capacities and are now subject to a freeze on UK assets and director disqualifications, as well as a ban on entering the country. Here we take a look at who they are and why they have been sanctioned. Itamar Ben-Gvir Mr Ben-Gvir is Israel's security minister and the leader of the Jewish Power (Otzma Yehudit) party - one of the members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling coalition. The 49-year-old has previously been convicted of supporting a Jewish terrorist organisation and has supported the removal of Palestinians from their lands - including calling for Gaza's people to be resettled from the territory. The minister has also called for the al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem to be replaced with a synagogue. The mosque - the third-holiest site in Islam - is built atop the Temple Mount - the holiest site in Judaism, and which was once home to two Jewish temples. Mr Smotrich is Israel's finance minister and leader of the National Religious Party-Religious Zionism - which is another part of Mr Netanyahu's coalition. He is in charge of Israel's administration of the West Bank - the occupation of which is illegal under international law. He has also approved an expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and called for aid not to be let into Gaza. Mr Smotrich has recently said not "a grain of wheat" should be allowed to enter Gaza, saying it will be "entirely destroyed" and its people should be encouraged to leave in great numbers to go to other countries. What has the UK and its allies said? In a joint statement with foreign ministers from the four other countries who have announced sanctions, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the two senior Israelis had incited "serious abuses of Palestinian human rights". The statement added: "These actions are not acceptable. This is why we have taken action now - to hold those responsible to account." Meanwhile, a Number 10 spokesman said the sanctions have been applied in the "personal capacities" of the two ministers and "not their ministries and departments". What has Israel said? Mr Smotrich, speaking at the inauguration of a new settlement in the Hebron Hills in the West Bank, spoke of "contempt" for Britain's move. "Britain has already tried once to prevent us from settling the cradle of our homeland, and we cannot do it again. We are determined, God willing, to continue building." Israel's foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar said it was "outrageous" that the UK had sanctioned the two ministers. He also said he had spoken with Mr Netanyahu and that an Israeli response would be decided at a "special government meeting early next week". The countries have used the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 to designate the ministers "involved persons". What can't they do?
North Wales Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Planning reforms ‘critical' to 1.5m homes pledge delivery clear Commons
MPs voted by 306 to 174, majority 132, to approve the Planning and Infrastructure Bill at third reading on Tuesday evening. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook said the Bill, which aims to improve certainty and decision-making in the planning system, will help to tackle the UK's housing crisis. Meanwhile, shadow housing secretary Kevin Hollinrake described the draft legislation as 'dangerous' and warned it could lead to 'rows of uninspiring concrete boxes'. Speaking in the Commons, Mr Pennycook said: 'This landmark Bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. 'It is critical in helping the Government achieving its ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England in this Parliament. 'When it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure, the status quo is patently failing the country and failing the British people. 'We can and we must do things differently, this Bill will enable us to do so. It is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country, and in doing so it will help us tackle the housing crisis and raise living standards in every part of the country.' Mr Hollinrake argued it is not possible to 'concrete our way to community', adding: 'This Bill, in its current form, is not just flawed, it is dangerous. It risks eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between government and the governed. 'We need homes for first-time buyers, for young families, for key workers, for the next generation. But we need the right homes in the right places, shaped by the right principles. 'What are we being offered instead is a top-down model driven by arbitrary targets and central dictats. The result: solar settlements, identikit developments, rows of uninspiring concrete boxes that bear no relation to the history, the heritage or the hopes of the communities they are building.' This comes after Labour MPs rebelled on Monday over the Government's plans to change current nature protections in the planning system. Campaigners have raised concerns the Bill will allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules and community concerns, increasing the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and loss of valued woods and parks. Mr Pennycook said the 'suboptimal status quo' for the environment and development is not working, as he pledged to introduce a nature restoration fund to bolster conservation efforts. He added: 'We want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies, ensuring that Natural England bring forward plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery as well as unlocking development.' During the Bill's report stage on Tuesday, Conservative former minister Robbie Moore accused the Government of permitting 'absolute theft' in its compulsory purchase order (CPO) reforms. The Bill will allow an inspector or, where there are no objectors, authorities to remove 'hope value' from land when a CPO is made, meaning any uplift calculated on the basis that a developer could be given planning permission in future is ignored. The MP for Keighley and Ilkley said: 'So-called 'hope value' is not a capitalist trick, it is not a racket, it is not unfair, it is simply the true market value of the property. 'Property rights matter. They are the foundation of our society. 'If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate property of a law-abiding person and then they must stipulate on how that land must be used, and then tell the landowner how much they are entitled to receive from the state, that is wrong and in my view is an absolute theft of private property.' Labour MP Chris Hinchliff urged the Government to go further, calling for it to remove 'hope value' for any land or property which is being compulsory-purchased for the purpose of delivering housing targets. The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 68 would 'give councils the land assembly powers necessary to acquire sites to meet local housing need at current use value, and so do away with speculative hope value prices, which put taxpayers' money into wealthy landowners pockets'. 'This would finally make it affordable for local authorities to deliver the new generation of council homes. That is the true solution to this nation's housing crisis,' he added. The Government has previously said it will ensure that compensation paid to landowners through the CPO process is 'fair but not excessive' and that development corporations can operate effectively. The Bill will now be sent to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
