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

Christinapple · Today 00:02

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25387374.national-library-scotland-responds-claim-banned-book/

Laura Webster's lies about the ban have already been discussed and proved with documentation. Why are you continuing to propagate them?

that’s terrible, truly state authoritarianism

As a member of staff at the library and many on Twitter have pointed out, the library didn’t own a physical copy of the book to put on any shelf, and as of yesterday it still hadnt arrived when someone panic ordered it.

So that’s a bit of fake news int’it.

The book was banned from the exhibition despite meeting the criteria (number of votes) for automatic inclusion and after passing an EqIA and sensitivity reading.

Just keeping the facts straight.

yes.

so it was censored.

when libraries start censoring based on equalities criteria and exclude a significant portion of that criteria, there are significant issues

If you prefer we can say it was 'excluded'. The book had been voted for and approved and was to be included in the exhibition.

The staff network objected, there were many emails, messages, meetings and discussions, after which the Librarian decided to exclude it.

The National article is inaccurate and I understand has been reported to the PCC. Sometimes newspapers and the media make errors.

Was the exclusion was based on equalities criteria? My reading of the FoI documents is that the EqIA said to include the book. It was the staff network's subsequent tantrum and threats that changed things.

Authorities have always picked and chosen among equality criteria though. The original EqIA for including men (TW) in Scottish women's prisons had a box ticked for "no impact" on women.

Oh bless you. I’m not sure the National are going to find you reposting their defamatory article that lies about the key points very helpful when they get sued for this but thanks for highlighting the moral bankruptcy of the library and The National again.

Have you even read the NLS’s own email where they admit all this?

TWWWW WAS eligible, passed all the criteria and was selected for display in the exhibition. It wasn’t one of the ‘other 323 books’ not selected.

The ‘fact check’ by Laura Webster included in the article even admits that the claims are that it was excluded from the exhibition, which it was,she’s clearly not the brightest).

The claims centred on the “Dear Library” exhibition, in which 200 books out of 523 nominated by the public were selected for display to mark the library’s 100th anniversary.

The other 323 books – one of which was The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht – were placed on shelves in an open reading room, according to the National Library.

Oh look, they admit they excluded the book for no other reason than the bullying reaction of the staff.

The previous week, an Equality Impact Assessment had said that excluding the book risked allegations of censorship – but said that there would be a risk of backlash and protest if it was included

National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to “the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library”. Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed.

Susan Dalgety
https://x.com/DalgetySusan/status/1955910314655912424
Morning LauraEWebsterr
any chance you or someone from your team could edit this video as it is misleading at best, at worst defamatory as it claims LucyHunterB
and I lied about our book being removed from the National Library’s exhibition. An apology would be welcome too. Thanks.
Quote
Lucy Hunter Blackburn
Oh I say, I think this is defamatory. I mean, properly, clearly.

good point; could you argue that lgbtq staff wanted it excluded based on the focus of a protected characteristic?

It's ironic really that the rainbow lanyard wearers would feel less safe as a result of their own ilk waving their pink and blue banners and shouting for violence, should the book be included in the exhibition. I imagine they knew this only too well.

I'm not sure that argument would be helpful? It's not doing lesbians any favours at all. To me it's more that some members of this staff network have specific political views that aren't representative of anyone but themselves. Not representative of all L or G or B and quite likely not even all T or Q+ staff. And also other people who are none of those things themselves but either ally with the staff network's exsiting politics or believe that the staff network are representative,

Reading the FOI released emails (and we know that's only part of the story) made me think this is exactly how protection rackets work. Gradual escalation to open threat. Nice library you've got there, would be a shame if...
LGBTQ+ network members will have been trained to behave like that in the name of "allyship".

So thinking about this... I don't think the Scottish Govt is ever going to admit it was wrong, that's not how politics works. I guess there's the possibility of a legal discrimination case but we've seen how ugly those can get. It's more getting them to let go of the ideology and start turning things round.

Should we write to our MPs to encourage the Scottish government to support the library and its management when they stand up for their own values and their own equality assessment? Start to diminish the "stakeholder" threat?

I was coming more from the angle of sex being a protected characteristic, which the book focusses on, and staff objected to.

@RedToothBrush Great research, you deserve chocolate. I didn’t realise you were allowed to review things if you hadn’t actually bought them, only borrowed them from a friend . Seems like a new hobby I might investigate for when the nights start drawing in.

(Only seems to review items for 1 star - range of products from crochet hooks, hair clips, portable camping loo, fidget toys, sofa, notepads)

Camping loo? Like, for a campervan?

Politics is in the grip of a weird, extremist faction. This faction is working contrary to clear law, contrary to the wishes of the electorate, the interests of women, and the Scottish government who have stated they respect and will uphold the Supreme Court judgement. It's upheld, enabled, and abetted by decision makers and policy bods who just seem incapable of mouthing the word 'no'.

How does that situation get laid out more clearly?

They're never going to have a "come to Jesus" moment no matter how clearly it's laid out for them.

We just keep chipping away?

Just had a nice email from NLS. They will investigate my complaint about WWWW being withdrawn from the exhibition. I can hardly contain my excitement.

I am really interested in how this is going to play out. Will the book be added to the exhibition? Because if they continue to exclude it, they will have to justify their decision. And we know from the FOIs that there are no reasonable grounds for exclusion, just an attempt to see off a tantrum from their LGBT network.

And if they now include it, given the huge publicity, they're likely to see even more protests from the TRAs that they highlighted as a risk in their impact assessment.

So both reputational damage AND the protests.

Silly billies.

At least the added publicity for the book might alert more people to this issue. I've just ordered the book in solidarity and looking forward to reading it.

This nonsense reminds me of that episode of Father Ted where the priests protest against a film outside the cinema. All it achieved was to reassure the locals that the film was ‘really bad’ and therefore worth seeing!
Like you @user1471471849 I have ordered a copy on the back of this fiasco, and I’m sure many others have done the same. I’d been planning to anyway but this just made me get my act together.

According to the Glasgow Herald Nicola Sturgeon disagrees with Summerhall’s decision to ban Kate Forbes from making any future appearances there. Someone please ask her what she thinks about banning/excluding books.

They’re waiting for all the complaints to come through so they can cobble together a standard response. Perhaps all MNetters on here should post their responses so we can all compare 😄