National Library of Scotland censors The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht

Well, one obvious form of training would be for staff to watch a screening of the new documentary The Librarians about librarians in places like Texas acting on book bans, especially books about racism or homophobia:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt34966678/

I have a nasty suspicion that some of those in the UK lauding the librarians would also advocate banning The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht.

I haven't seen the film myself yet. I just saw the trailer. It's on at some cinemas and I think on Prime.

If staff members acted inappropriately and threatening, why is there no disciplinary action taken against them? Training is all very well, but these "allies" blackmailed Shah and caused huge reputational damage to the library.

However, I also find Shah's response poor. If violence is being threatened, shouldn't that be a reason to stand up for the book and the (legally protected!) belief the book represents? She folded before anyone had actually actively threatened violence.

All it seems to take these days is threatening violence. Instead of defending the people (and their beliefs) who are being threatened, the response mostly seems to be to cancel the event or to remove whatever causes the controversy. That shouldn’t happen in a pluralistic society that claims to value freedom of speech and freedom of belief.

Another win. Shining light and resisting the no debate stance of captured organisations.

And I'm wondering if I'm missing something here -

The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht is chosen.

The Network make 'indications' that are described as 'threatening and inappropriate'

The Librarian reads the book and thinks 'ooh, there's actual evidence in the book that the Network and their pals are likely to follow through on their threats'.

The Librarian, instead of saying to the Network 'look guys, you need to knock this on the head, you're just proving that the stuff in this book is true - maybe stop being such bullying pricks?', instead folds to the bullies and pulls the book.

Seriously, apart from the Network being told to maybe have a bit of reflection on their behaviour, are they actually facing any consequences for creating such a hostile environment in the workplace?

But to be fair, props to the independent investigator - that report is scathing.

Can we find out from an FOI what the network do? How many members, how many meetings, how much funding they get, how mamy meeting they have a role in? And whenever there is an equivalent for female employees on a women’s group

Eeesh, the Network really do not come out of that well, do they?

They clearly gave off vibes of 'nice Library you've got here, shame if something were to happen to it...'

I know the report says she read it, but I don’t believe it. I’d have to then believe that she knew it was weak to capitulate but did it anyways. Surely no one in a position of responsibility like hers would be so Lilly livered?

the sarcasm is obvs, right?

Well it claims in the Advocate report that she did and it was the tales of violent protests that convinced her that there was a risk. The Advocate says that in that case they should have sought advice on how to protect against the protest. It really is an amazing report. The person who wrote this did a good job of asking the right people the right questions and listening to the responses.

I am interested in whether the union - which (of course) supported the network and allies in calling for non-inclusion have anything to say.

The Librarian (it seems to me) was bullied and was - perhaps still is - scared of the bullies. But she is doing the right thing now. (Depends on the trainings and other reviews though).

Holy cow.

I'm impressed.

I don’t believe she read the book before she made her decision.

Thank you for that link. It is an amazing document. Talk of listening to the lived experience of people in other PC groups - women and those with GC beliefs. Wow.

And some consequences ...

• 'The Library has arranged for an academic expert in Freedom of Expression and Library and Information Studies to deliver organisation wide training. This training will be delivered over multiple sessions in October and November 2025.
• The Library has reviewed its EQIA process and has taken legal advice on policies and procedures relating to equalities.
• The Library is reviewing the Terms of Reference for staff networks.'

Yikes.

The villains of the piece are the LGBT+ staff network who really don’t understand the purpose of the place they work

it’s interesting that it was reading the book that made Ms Shah nervous about including it, made her frightened of the TRAs

Amina Shah’s interview was utter cringe. Self-serving and obviously still in fear of her local “LGBT Network”. Senior managers need to rediscover some courage. Or resign if the job does not match their skill set.

Popped in yesterday, and took a photo of the book in front of the display showing the ’letters’ from the Reader to the Library:
‘I will not censor or
seek to ban opinions
different to my own.’

And the Librarian to the Reader:
’I will show you all sides of
the argument.
I will keep you safe in a space
for like and unlike minds.’

The irony!

Yes I got my email today from them.

was a good report from the independent person

Well NLS has done us a favour really. They caved into the TRA bullies, were than trashed in the press and did an investigation. Which showed…that they caved into TRA bullies. Hopefully other institutions will now think twice before they ride roughshod over women to appease those bullies.

And serious harm, goodness bloody me!

Now the book has been included I’m wondering what “serious harm” has happened?

The interesting parts of the report to me are:

“Senior managers met with leaders of the Network in mid-May who indicated that if the book was included, they would "go public", inform the Library's partners, and would not feel comfortable representing the Library at planned Pride events in June. I accept, as some staff told me, the tone of those indications was threatening and inappropriate.”

and

“However, in my view, the main determining factor in the decision was advocacy by the Network and allies, supported by the Library's recognised trade union. They identified the book as posing a serious risk of harm to staff and visitors.Their indications they would "go public" and raise the issue with external stakeholders was a significant and weighty factor which led directly to escalation of the book's inclusion to the LLT and was seriously considered throughout the decision-making process. It is unclear whether the Network is intended to be an internal advocacy body or a group for mutual support. Nonetheless, it played a central role in objecting to the book's inclusion and ultimately having it excluded from the exhibition.”

An interview with Amina Shah was the 2nd item on Front Row on radio 4 just now.

Consequences!? 🤣 Good one! Have any of the gender bullies who've seen their organisations dragged into courts, fined and shamed, ever faced consequences? Funnily enough Nicola Sturgeon is the only one that comes to mind.

'The legal investigation found removing the book was based on on an “inadequate risk assessment, informed by inadequate evidence and consultation”.
The library’s decision did not uphold the aims set out in the Library’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, the advocate's review found.'

Right, good. And consequences?

Thanks for letting us know.

And well done to all of those who made complaints etc..

https://www.nls.uk/media/dpknjpm1/dear-library-exhibition-independent-investigation-october-2025.docx

Link from NLS email - fingers crossed