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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Absolutely. If a section of the workforce threatened violence over the inclusion of any other belief/religion, what would happen?

Brief and Summary of the invesitagation, pasted from the online document: (italics are my own highlights)

Independent Investigation - 'Dear Library' exhibition

15 October 2025

1. Investigation brief

The Library has received a high volume of complaints about not including the book 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' (hereafter referred to as the book) in our 'Dear Library' exhibition which is on until next year in our George IV Bridge building.
The complaints have been received from authors/contributors to the book, Library users and members of the public.
In most cases, the key question and outcome that complaints are seeking is:

• To review the decision to not include the book 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' in the Library's 'Dear Library' exhibition.

With the advised preferred outcome from complainants:

• Include the above book in the 'Dear Library' exhibition.

The Library commissioned an independent review of the process leading up to the decision not to include the book.
This reviewer, an advocate and independent member of the Scottish Bar, was asked to investigate:

• The process for the public nomination
• The initial selection of items for the exhibition
• The decision to review the initial selection
• Whether appropriate corporate governance processes, including equality impacts assessments were followed throughout
• What influencing factors may have contributed to the decision.

This report has been prepared by an advocate, an independent member of the Scottish Bar. The scope of the investigation was defined by the brief above, but the investigation was conducted independently. The writer identified and interviewed relevant staff and was provided with all documents requested from the Library.

1. Investigator's Summary

The process for public nomination and selection of books to be included in The Book That Shaped Me was reasonable and appropriate. The LGBT Staff Network and allies raised concerns that 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' had been selected, because members considered it was discriminatory and exclusionary and involved a risk of serious harm to staff and visitors. Those concerns were appropriately escalated, and the National Librarian ultimately assumed responsibility for deciding whether the book should be included. She decided it should not, and that was supported by the Chair of the Board. That decision was based on inadequate risk assessment, informed by inadequate evidence and consultation. The decision did not uphold the aims set out in the Library's Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion policy.
I recommend the complaint be upheld.

(continues with more detail)

It's all very politely worded but the investigator found Shah's response inadequate as well.

I do not accept the Librarian undertook an adequate or appropriate assessment of risk to inform her decision. Though she identified some risks, she could not say how she assessed and weighed them. I found no evidence she systematically identified risks, assessed the likelihood or seriousness of harm arising from each. I found no evidence she considered appropriate means of mitigating the risks she identified. She did not, for example, consult police to identify the likelihood of protests and disruption, or whether there were means of managing those events to mitigate the risk and keep staff and visitors safe.

And some quotes from Section 3, the Library Response:

The book was included in the exhibition from the 5th September.B (Yay!)
....
We did not wait until the investigation was completed to act. At the end of August 2025, as a result of the public discourse, the Board asked the Library Leadership Team to undertake the following actions and report back before the Board meeting at the end of November:

• Meet with the authors and consider including the book in the exhibition.
• Review the Terms of Reference for staff networks.
• Review the Library's EQIA process.
• Offer Library wide training in Freedom of Expression and equalities law. ...

It's all very polite and restrained but they're doing things I'd like them to do. It was the staff network that kicked this off and wrongly told people that getting the book removed was a legitimate aim so "reviewing the Terms of Reference" is a shot across the bows. I doubt that there is much of a case against any individual and it would be a horrible drawn-out process that would create a lot of ill feeling and make many people's working life more difficult. They do still all have to work together. I'd rather they just thought "don't let's do that again".

And finally:
If you are unhappy with our response, you have the right to ask the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) to look at your complaint.
The SPSO is the final stage for complaints about public services in Scotland. This includes complaints about the Library. The SPSO cannot normally look at complaints:
• more than 12 months after you became aware of the matter you want to complain about, or
• that have been or are being considered in court.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, Bridgeside House, 99 McDonald Road, Edinburgh, EH7 4NS

On reflection the Network were only copying what every successful bullying TRA group had got away with for years. Welcomed for being stunning and brave, no consequences. I read the SexMatters summary of Jo Phoenix' case against OU again yesterday - clearly everyone harassing Phoenix felt fully supported by their organisation.

If a huge difference can be made by a really gutsy woman such as Maya Forstater or Sandy Peggie taking a stand, maybe if a CEO or head of HR took disciplinary action against bullies in their organisation for what is clearly harassment or other inappropriate behavour in the workplace, that disciplinary action could be modelled elsewhere.

Although of course if such things did happen they would probably be done without any publicity, to preserve "the brand". Any carpetings, demotions or sackings would be kept very quiet...

The Librarians film was on BBC4 and is on Iplayer ( I think)

Remember that gurning faced video which the National newspaper made to educate us all that it wasn't a banning and we were all just hysterical and was repeatedly posted by TRA's as 'proof'.

No sign yet of an update on their social media platforms. I do look forward to it.

One of the points that I made in my complaint was that it wasn't specifically this issue that was the problem; it was that the National Library was clearly open to being pressurised into submitting to political/belief/ideology/religious influence.

That should be of concern to everyone who supports a pluralist, open democracy.

Is this response adequate to ensure our institutions are aware of the issues and threats to freedom of belief, speech, expression?

It's a good, clear, investigation, I think. Robust and to the point. Some excerpts:

'From about 500 nominations by the public, 200 titles were selected by Library staff to be included in the exhibition, including 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht'. It was selected because it added to the diversity of views represented, with staff noting the exhibition also included books with trans perspectives and narratives. '

'Library staff recognised from an early stage that 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' may attract controversy due to the lively public debate on, and widespread public interest in, sex and gender issues. This was brought to the attention of senior managers including the National Librarian (the Librarian) informally, in early February 2025. The consensus of both the exhibition team and senior managers was that the book should be included because it added to the diversity of views represented in The Book That Shaped Me. '

'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. '

'the book was assessed against the Library's Sensitivity Appraisal Framework, which sets out how the Library identifies and manages sensitive material including that which "may cause offence, discomfort, or dislike to persons, or categories of persons". The book 'passed' the sensitivity assessment. An equalities impact assessment (EqIA) was completed which showed a balance of considerations for and against including the book. '

'The Librarian personally assumed responsibility for making the decision because she recognised it was likely to be controversial whatever the outcome, and felt it was appropriate that she bear both the weight and consequences as the responsible officer and leader of the Library'

(I do appreciate her professionalism and courage in doing so.)

'She identified a "risk that [stakeholders] will withdraw their support for the exhibition and the centenary". She considered risks may include protests at the Library which would disrupt the exhibition and operations more widely, with potential for violence directed towards both staff and visitors, as well as damage to the Library's reputation and relationships with external stakeholders. She told me that she had read the book, and was concerned about accounts of protests, sometimes including violence, witnessed by authors. She told me she took the decision based on risk assessment but could not say how she assessed the perceived risks.
I do not accept the Librarian undertook an adequate or appropriate assessment of risk to inform her decision. Though she identified some risks, she could not say how she assessed and weighed them. I found no evidence she systematically identified risks, assessed the likelihood or seriousness of harm arising from each. '

This is the really important bit, imo.

The protests and violence described were coming from the trans activists. Not feminists. These are the people who share the same views as the staff who made the threatening and inappropriate indications. It should be very clear where the problem is and the direction of travel of those threats. What the Librarian did is effectively exactly what Sian Berry did - suggest that women just shouldn't provoke aggressive, violent threats by speaking up. Women should stay quiet and not cause a fuss.

'The Library failed to work in collaboration with people with lived experience of gender critical beliefs'

I mean, you don't have to look very far to find them. That's most of us, especially in Scotland.

', the main determining factor in the decision was advocacy by the Network and allies, supported by the Library's recognised trade union'

(my bolding)

Does anyone know which union this is?

I hope it's clear which bits are my words and which are quotes from the report!

Anyway, it's this which is the crunch:

'...risks may include protests at the Library which would disrupt the exhibition and operations more widely, with potential for violence directed towards both staff and visitors, as well as damage to the Library's reputation and relationships with external stakeholders. She told me that she had read the book, and was concerned about accounts of protests, sometimes including violence, witnessed by authors.'

It needs to be very, very clear that the protests at the Library which were anticipated and did materialise from women included: women leaving miniature protest cards; adding copies of the book to the collection; requesting the book; dressing up as a suffragette; holding a read-in; writing complaints.

The protests described in the book include (I expect) trans activists protests, which have been going on for years and include: violent and aggressive threats, extreme noise like banging pots, whistle blowing, high amplification; banging on windows; breaking windows; graffiti; physical attacks and violence; throwing soup, rape and death threats; blocking women's entrance or exit to venues; smoke bombs; harassment; swat targetting, etc.

So the risks the Librarian was concerned about were coming from trans activists. This appears to have been why she has capitulated to the threats. I can't say I blame her, so many women have been subject to threats, and some of them unfortunately have been realised.

It needs to be very, very clear when anyone tries to 'both sides' this, that the risks are not balanced. One side does not protest like the other side.

I came across this article in Spiked

https://archive.ph/s1bSP

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/10/16/the-book-burners-have-taken-over-the-publishing-house/

It seemed tangential but pertinent. So much easier to ban a book before it's published, even better before it's even written. Saves the cost of a match!

I've not watched The Librarians film (I've seen some of the series but I expect the premise is quite different) but I've read the Wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Librarians_(2025_film)

I'm looking forward to the sequel detailing their battle to get this pre-emptive censorship knocked on the head.

I noted the concern of the concern of the Society of Authors and indulged in a hollow laugh.

It's available on iPlayer as part of the Storyville series. My sister messaged me on FB yesterday as she had just watched it on TV.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002kkmj/storyville-the-librarians?seriesId=unsliced&page=1

Decision to not include the book boiled down to “who would it be safest to annoy”

Yes, its capitulation to threats.

Thanks for the link @NotAtMyAge. Will take a look.

Prospect has members who work for the National Library of Scotland, so that may be the recognised trade union.

The Times has a wee interview with Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn

https://archive.ph/Y8xXu

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/wheesht-authors-vindicated-library-reassure-women-9frpgq5h7

I watched it and it’s quite interesting. However, while my sympathies were generally with the librarians, I felt the programme failed to grasp the thorny issue that there are some books not suitable for younger kids. When you’re a teenager you should be able to read almost anything. But I don’t think smaller kids need more than the sketchiest idea about sex, homosexuality, GI etc, that can come later.

Some of the objections in the programme were apparently that the books were too pornographic for young people. There wasn’t enough detail to know if this was a legitimate concern or not.

I used to like the Storyville strand, though I've not watched one since everything became streaming. If I have some time next week I'll watch it.

Iirc though many of the so-called book bans were about books that were inappropriate for the age group. Although I don't doubt some people would call for outright bans.

Excellent article, thanks.

Thanks. They're spot on, as usual.