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

[OhBuggerandArse]

Took it out of their centenary exhibition because the staff LGBT+ network kicked up a fuss. Craven. This really needs massive public challenge and push back - if the National Library isn't able to fend off the censors we are utterly lost. https://x.com/EthelWrites/status/1955390550494023958

Thanks, Igneo.

She's right, although I'd add that there are still men in women's prisons in England. Less visibility of issues in England may not mean it's not happening. Look at the NHS trusts investigated on here, too.

Women in Scotland are watching this issue closely. We wouldn't have known about the WWWW being excluded from the library exhibition if it wasn't for the FOIs. And we'd hardly know about the book festival if it wasn't for brave writers speaking up and journalists asking the questions.

fantastic!

Hadley really is a pearl and a huge loss to the Guardian. She's nicely sardonic, isn't she?

When you’ve convinced yourself two plus two equals rainbow, you can’t look at the number four.

I agree, luckily we also have the women (and men) to fight against it.
I occassionally have contact with Scottish Enterprise and with the various science funding organisations in my field (less so since I work for a company that is too big for assistance) and I'm dealing with the same people all the time. They just move from one organisation to the other, I assume every move means a better paid job for them, but they basically go round in circles, the only new people are entry level, not more senior people who could possibly change and challenge things. I bet it's the same in the arts and in other sectors, the same people enforcing each others beliefs and maintaining the systems in place.

Yep that fits. My work is a close partner of Scottish enterprise and it's the same at mine and since our EDI team ramped up the GI nonsense about 5 years ago. It's not going to change as senior management just allow it or ignore any queries about it and all the entry levellers are activists.

Some of us are just trying to keep our heads down surrounded by the madness but I'm becoming a bit braver now. When I pointed out that the protected characteristic is sex and not gender (our equality impact document says gender) I was told it was a "toxic debate". I said there's nothing toxic about following the actual law and ensuring what we write down is reflective of the actual EA2010. I got a mumbled well, the EDI team will review. Ha. It's not changed. Still says gender and gender identity has been tagged onto the reassignment one.

For Women Scotland
https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1956790836592570846

The National Library seem to be removing all cards referring to women or women's rights while leaving up several baby blue, pink and white efforts.

More censorship!

I've put my complaint in and specifically asked them to put the book in the exhibition. Should get a reply by the end of next week.

@giuspeace if we're not satisfied with their response we can do a "second level complaint" and then up to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

https://www.nls.uk/contact/complaints-procedure/

Do these idiots never think about how they might explain to an employment tribunal panel that they deliberately failed to reflect the actual law in their policies and procedures because some of the public debate had been ‘toxic’?

I think the absence of the book is purely symptomatic, even symbolic, of far deeper and larger problems with the institution.

Their commitments to freedom of speech, belief, thought and expression all appear to be conditional on the political position of said speech/thought/belief/expression.

This is politically motivated state censorship.

Even worse, they specifically talk about inequalities, and the risks of censorship, and the need for plurality of views and representation, inclusion, etc. While overtly excluding certain books because they don't like the politics.

And that is pure doublespeak.

We need a full review of the whole public sector and governance in Scotland. It seems to have gone very wrong, and it worries me in terms of the health and robustness of our democracy.

There are various other warning signs, too. Journalist imprisoned. Lord Advocate appointed by the FM. Government refusing to follow the rule of law. MSP voting to absolve herself of wrongdoing.

The absence of one book on a library shelf is the tiniest tip of a very large and murky iceberg.

(Edit: FWIW I have no faith that Westminster can or would 'rescue' Scotland, either. They're jailing 80 year olds for peaceful protest!)

Apparently, my complaint is being processed as follows "We propose to review your complaint directly as a stage two investigation complaint which involves a more thorough and detailed investigation. In line with our Complaint Policy guidelines, we will respond within 20 working days of receipt of your initial complaint."

Interesting that you have had procedural replies and that Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Susan Dalgetty apparently haven't even had an acknowledgement response to their letter yet.

Perhaps the complaints online go directly to the board compliance officer who knows how to process them. The chief oatcake is probably busy phoning a friend about the letters she has received.

One can get an automated bollocks holding response, the other knows it needs lawyering up.

They know.

Oh I don’t know Alex Graham was married to Rosie Millard :)

https://x.com/rosiemillard/status/1956784637726093719?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

What I don't understand is why the blatant dissembling and dishonesty isn't being punished. It's one thing for leadership to enforce positions I disagree with, or even ones that are against the law. People disagree on a variety of topics and can make mistakes. But it's another thing to subvert institutional integrity by being aggressively dishonesty about your actions, especially about an issue so central to its mission of free thought and inquiry. Surely everyone, irrespective of their views on this particular issue, can agree that that behavior disqualifies you from leadership, and should do so in a public exemplifying manner.

Have I missed something?

I am quietly fantasising about finding a rogue employee at Edinburgh Central Library who could project TWWWW out of a window onto the facade of the NLS. Turning the pages slowly so people could actually read the contents, rather than respond to it as a 'dangerous object' as LHB has said.

Or a version of this, perhaps? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37036950

Yep INeedAPensieve would need to go back and say its an area of rapid change with new case law arising from specific unlawful acts so the actual law should be footnoted into the policy along with case law.

Its a basic HR KPI (well is in any well run organisation) to be up-to-date with the law.

Humm......
Their's is an "ooO fook its going legal n FOIs have already been done" problem not just a member of the general public making a complaint without saying her rights have been breached.

Now that they are getting volume they know general complaints are not likely to blow over with a exchange of letters

I am sure I saw a much longer article in the Sunday Times online this morning but I now can't find it. Something about one of the major doners to the library and the exhibition threatening to withdraw support. Sorry - that is probably no help. I meant to save it to read.

Alex Graham. Scottish Times.

Please someone organise a read in 🙏