Calderdale Council librarians censoring books! By women of course.

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

It appears that librarians working for Calderdale Council believe it's their job to hide books from the public if they personally disapprove of the content. Of course they're books written by women - Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock, Abigail Shrier, Heather Brunskell Evans and a number of others. They've been removed from the shelves and hidden them!
An unbelievable level of censorship and none of them have been disciplined - the council appear to be supportive of anti democratic censorship like this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/31/gender-critical-books-hidden-librarians-calderdale/

Oh well not exactly a shock. Some bad women go into bookshops and rearrange shelves.

Its good to finally have what a lot of women have suspected confirmed as true!

It’s just more of the #nodebate isn’t it - the real message they are sending is “my beliefs are so flimsy they are unable to withstand any scrutiny, questions, or opposing arguments”

Calderdale is a bit of a hotspot for this.
There are threads on MN about an event that got cancelled because it wasn't deemed inclusive enough (for a woman fighting a discrimination case). Some of the local councillors are quite zealous shall we say.

Reminds me of when politicians in Iran stomp on - well everything really - because it’s easier than addressing actual real life issues. Economy down the toilet? Let’s arrest some women for showing a lock of hair! Dead cat dead cat dead cat!

I wasn't aware of that. It's a real problem when trans extremism gets wedged in to government - local and national.
Naively I thought that librarians of all people were aware of the dangers of censoring differing ideas. Evidently they're just small minded (in Calderdale at any rate).

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4792309-the-tide-has-turned-in-the-lesbian-capital-of-the-uk

As someone in the trade I have my doubts about some aspects of this story.

Calderdale is a small authority (12 LIBRARIES) and the Brunskell Evans, the Jeffreys and the Donaldson (? - can no longer access the article) are highly unlikely to ever have been offered up for library purchase or chosen if they were.

I don't want to say any more as it's too outing - if anyone wants to DM me to discuss I'm happy to do so.

No DMs necessary.
Calderdale Council have openly admitted that they have got the books and hidden them from public view:

Direct quote from the article:

"Calderdale Council has stated that no books are expressly banned by library services, but information from the local authority has revealed that “following consideration of a formal grievance internally” a number of titles were “placed in the lending store”.
The council has confirmed that while these books could be found in the catalogue and specifically requested by the public, they “are not visible on our library shelves”."

**

I have my suspicions as to what might have happened here although not entirely sure why the items have been placed in the stack.

The story is puzzling to anyone who knows how library purchasing works..

I don't care how small Calderdale is they must have professional librarians. This brings the whole profession into disrepute.

https://twitter.com/drewilliamson/status/1686431961361883136?t=Mad7I8dyh7sth-F82rrn8A&s=19

Jenny Green has put in a FOI request.

FOI request to Calderdale Council about hiding gender critical public library books in store with no public access

Presumably “following consideration of a formal grievance internally” a number of titles were “placed in the lending store”. translates as some anti women, trans extremists who work in the library used the authority's grievance procedures to complain about these books? Rather than finding their spines and telling them to get lost, management reached a shameful compromise and hid the books from sight.

Perish the thought that women's voices should be on display in Calderdale libraries.

Maybe they'll create a restricted section a la Hogwarts 🤔

Maybe they'll organise a book burning. Not seen one for years and years. Oddly enough it.happened in another country which draped flashy flags everywhere.

Maybe we could just ban all books containing ideas from libraries, just in case seeing those ideas causes hurt feelings?

As you can't always tell which books have ideas in them, perhaps the best thing is to get rid of books in libraries altogether. Hell, let's just abolish libraries while we're at it.

...with JKR's books having pride of place!

Please don't blame librarians for this: it wouldn't have been their decision. As the article says, the removal of these books was due to "a formal grievance internally" and the decision would have been taken at a higher level within the council. I guess it's similar in a way to all the terrible stories coming out of the USA about books on certain toipics being removed from libraries in right wing areas - it's not the librarians who do it: they're forced to do by the authorities above them. It sounds like a shocking misuse of a grievance procedure in this case.

I work in a library. Librarians are absolutely capable of this kind of thing. It's an extremely woke sector, like the arts and academia.

They have been somewhat protected by their commitment to freedom to read and of information, but it's a fine line.

Many have already been inclined to avoid books deemed inappropriate about race issues, while pushing certain other books on the same topic. If you look at topical reading lists compiled in public libraries they are often very unbalanced. Similarly with book displays.

It's the same with LGBTQ+, and I would say that's not all about the + people either. You are very unlikely to see non-mainstream views equally represented.

I work in a library. We had TWO copies of Shon Faye's book on the shelf (until I dispatched one to another library) and a whole load of other TRA style trans books - including a good few in the teen section - but nothing from the GC perspective. I would love to request we order some in but as everyone above me has pronouns in their email signature I am worried it will not be looked on favourably and I am on a temporary contract, I can't afford to rock the boat.

I went to order Victoria Smith's 'Hags' when it came out, they didn't have it but said they'd buy it and I had it within a couple of weeks.

I also made a FOI request through the What Do They Know website. The council finally responded today:

Request

Please release all internal communications regarding the removal of gender critical books from public view in your libraries.

Response

I am unable to give you copies of the documentation held in this respect, as due to the nature of the matter that led to their removal it is confidential third-party information and therefore exempt under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. Please see the attached Section 17 notice for further details.

I can confirm that the books were removed following a recommendation made by a senior manager as part of an internal HR matter. The books have remained accessible to the public via our online catalogue.

However, bearing in mind the public interest in this matter the Council’s Director of Public Services is reviewing the process leading up to the implementation of recommendations made, in the context of relevant Council policy and any relevant external legislation and guidance. The result of the review will be available in due course.

I hope this is helpful to you and any feedback from you would be welcomed.

Does this refusal to release anything at all look legitimate, or did they just fob me off with some nonsense?

Could be, but it might just be that they will investigate further which would be could.

ie finding out how whoever it was just assumed they could take this decision in the first place.

Is there a way you could reply now saying something like glad they are going to investigate further and will they update you once it is done?

Good on you for using the channels open to make them aware there is an issue they cant just gloss over.

It's not nonsense, but it might be a bit optimistic. And if accurate, it might leave Calderdale exposed through other channels.

Under Section 40(2) of the FOIA, personal data is exempt if disclosing it would conflict with either data protection principles or GDPR. Calderdale's Section 17 notice argues that "it may be possible to identify the member of staff involved in the matter from the information held in the details of the complaint and subsequent decision, even once personal information had been redacted from the records". As a result, disclosing the data would breach data protection principles and is therefore exempt.

So far, so good.

However, Calderdale may have exposed themselves here through the ICO concept of "cut-off points" between personal and non-personal information.

ICO produces a guidance note specifically dealing with HR complaint files: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2021/2619040/s40-access-to-information-held-in-complaint-files-final-v-31.pdf . This ICO document notes that complaint files may contain personal data about complainants and other individuals, but that complaint files may contain "information that is not personal data at all". That kind of data, e.g. data setting out the organisation's policies on for example what kind of books can be displayed, is the data that Calderdale might be expected to share. The guidance states that "Some information in a complaint file will never be personal data, regardless of the context it is held in and the way it is used – even if it is used in a way that affects an individual." The guidance cautions that "It is important to be able to detect any ‘cut-off’ points, at which information within a complaint file ceases to be personal data and becomes ordinary, non-personal information."

Calderdale's Section 17 claims there was no non-personal information anywhere in the paperwork relating to this issue. If there was really no non-personal information - no general policy discussion - that would imply that at no time was the availability of gender-critical books described in any terms except as a direct response to an HR matter.

In turn that would suggest that the risk of discriminating against gender-critical library visitors was never even discussed. For example, had one employee said "I'm not sure we should remove all the gender critical books, that might disadvantage readers with those views" that statement would surely be non-personal information which should have been disclosed. The implication of Calderdale's reply is that the effect of their actions on gender-critical readers, and indeed the underlying principles by which books should be displayed or hidden, were never addressed at all, except in relation to the concerns of a specific employee.

In other words I wonder if Calderdale's response suggests that they may have breached the Public Sector Equality Duty by acting without consideration for discrimination on the grounds of belief.

I guess it's similar in a way to all the terrible stories coming out of the USA about books on certain toipics being removed from libraries in right wing areas

Really?

What I have noticed is controversy over sexually explicit material in school libraries. So parents get in trouble from reading from these books at school board meetings. That is, it's too pornagraphic for an adult meeting but they think it's appropriate for children.