As a follow-up to the post I have already made this morning concerning Trump's attack on US universities, which has the obvious intention of restricting their ability to teach what they think appropriate, I noted an article in the Guardian a couple of days ago that said:
Requests to remove books from library shelves are on the rise in the UK, as the influence of pressure groups behind book bans in the US crosses the Atlantic, according to those working in the sector.
Although “the situation here is nowhere [near] as bad, censorship does happen and there are some deeply worrying examples of library professionals losing their jobs and being trolled online for standing up for intellectual freedom on behalf of their users”, said Louis Coiffait-Gunn, CEO of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (Cilip).
Do not presume that censorship cannot happen in the UK.
It can, and there are those who are determined that it will.
What do they want to censor? Anything to do with human rights.
Anything referring to the LGBTQ+ community.
Books and other material promoting diversity, equality and inclusion.
Anything to do with left-of-centre ideas, of course.
And anything to do with climate change.
Right now, the moves will be limited. But expect something the left has used to good effect to become a key feature of congressional campaigns, and that is clicktivism. You can just see there being campaigns created to demand that material of the above sort be removed from libraries and schools. It would be all too easy to do. And it worries me, for precisely that reason.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Perhaps we should write to our libraries requesting that they remove a book that is pernicious, contains at its heart a category error and which, in the hands of politicians has caused massive suffering and death. I refer to Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”.
Two can play at censorship – the right whinge focuses on non-issues (= culture wars) – what should be focused on are the trash that imbeciles such as Hayek write and which in the hands of infants (i.e, politicians) cause so much harm. There needs to be a shift in focus. Maybe librarians should pull Hayek’s works (on the basis of demonstrable harm caused), sit back and see what happens.
Please don’t.
Tolerance is essential in a good society. We cannot beat them by playing their game.
Fair point.
My suggestion (pull books that are used to justify the destoruction of people and people’s lives) was to highlight their nefarious impact on society. As the other poster suggested – make a display – two displays: – books that some have requested to be removed mostly dealing with cultural norms and another one for the likes of Hayek and the impacts his work (& others) has had. Use two displays to highlight which set of books has resulted in evil outcomes (chuck in Mein Kampf with Hayek’s Road to Serfdom – both books leading to evil outcomes in their own different ways). LGBTQ stuff – diversionary – look – there’s a squirrel – woof wof wof etc.
I am still not convinced…
I agree Richard we need diversity of voices. How do we debate or challenge points of view, discuss fundamental issues of life, politics, war, economy, human rights, humanity , Environment, history, arts etc if we don’t have alternative visions to compare and then importantly how we respond. Good luck to our Librarians. Unfortunately there is so much information out there now to sift through but having resources to positively affect our world is so important and freedom of speech. Thank you to your readers who suggest further reading as I have read many books now that I probably wouldn’t have read before for pleasure and for insight.
Now this is interesting.
My gut reaction is with Mike.
I detect an adherence to principle Richard when there are other dominant factors calling the shots.
Hayek, Friedman etc., are well dug in in this society, and that status quo – in the economics departments of even our finest universities is supported by the largess of the rich who benefit most from these ‘models’.
We must never ever underestimate the mind games played by Neo-liberalism on those of us who consider themselves to be Liberals (I am not one). Neo-liberalism is really good at blackmailing and exploiting well-intentioned Liberals who hold their principles dear. This was identified by Carl Schmitt as a weakness in Liberalism. I agree with him.
Relevant questions for Liberals to ask oneself include:-
‘Is one putting principle first and ignoring the fact that reality is telling us something different?’. If so, that is just as bad as any Neo-liberal deceit surely? What’s the difference? How does an adherence to principle hobble change, never mind bring it about in the face of overwhelming power?
For me – and I have been here before – this is a fascinating area of thought and development.
This is because we live now in unique times in terms of information delivery where the printing press has been surpassed many times over. And where the wealth that has been amassed now finds itself feeding back into the political processes that are meant to uphold democracy and how that has actually been normalised.
The big question then is this? Can liberalism ever come to terms with a need to be authoritarian as a means of balancing competing narratives and power-influence on policy? Can it resolve its contradictions created by it’s principles? Can it contain evil and self-interest by force?
This is a hugely relevant question about attaining the society we want. I speak as an operator – not just as a policy geek. I am sceptical, unconvinced about the concept of ‘freedom’ as a principle. I’m not sure that we can be trusted with it as a species. We need some more honest conversations I’m afraid and accept maybe less freedom to arrive at a form of freedom that is tolerable to all or accept that allocating less freedom to a certain sector of our society is actually desirable and maybe necessary and that our actions to achieve that may have to be or feel illiberal?
I tend to believe that an author is never guilty of someone else’s crime. Hayek made it clear that the road of serfdom was intended for a particular audience, at a particular time, for a particular purpose and certainly not for politicians. Milton Freidman has been far more influential. An influence to such a degree that people have a view of Hayek filtered by a Friedman lens, which is very anti government, and completely ignore all the times when Hayek advocated for strong government action.
Pardon?
Really?
Are we talking enlightened government action, or action? There is a difference.
Any librarian who is asked to remove books from their shelves should immediately respond by creating a special display of ‘books we have been asked to ban’.
The Streisand effect can be weaponised.
In the 60s an Irish friend told me lots of books were banned in the Republic of Ireland. Also the government thought not enough people were learning Irish.
The suggestion was to publish the banned books in the Irish language.
It might not be true but it’s a good story.
I am not convinced it is true…
Even worse if you use eBooks – at a press of a button your book you bought (but in reality are effectively renting) can be removed from your device with no recompense.
Censorship is real, and has already happened. You only need to listen to the “impartial” BBC.
It is so bad that many can’t / won’t listen to much of their output. Might have something to do with:
Richard Sharp – Chairman BBC
Former Goldman Sachs banker, where he worked with Rishi Sunak Under investigation for being appointed to the role by Boris Johnson after securing Johnson an £800,000 loan. A major Tory party donor (£400,000). Board member of right-wing think-tank, the Centre for Policy Studies. Donor to controversial Quilliam Foundation.
Tim Davie – Director-General BBC
Cambridge-educated former PepsiCo Exec. Davie stood as a councillor for the Conservative Party in Hammersmith. He was a former chairman of Hammersmith and Fuham Conservatives in the 1990s. As Director-General, he has warned BBC staff to avoid ‘virtue signalling’.
Robbie Gibb — Board Member for England
Former Tory aide and head of communications for Theresa May. Brother of Tory MP Nick Gibb. An ardent Brexiteer who said the BBC is “culturally captured by the woke”. Accused by Emily Maitlis after she had left Newsnight of being a ‘Tory agent’ who had actively influenced editorial policy.
John McAndrew — Director of News
Former Editorial Director and Director of News Programmes at right-wing media outlet GB News. The channel hosts five shows presented by Tory MPs and was found guilty by Ofcom of materially misleading the audience” during McAndrew’s tenure.
Nick Robinson “journalist”
Former President of the Oxford University Conservative Association. Former Chairman of the National Young Conservatives.
See also
“How the government captured the BBC”, Prospect Magazine (2024)
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/64534/how-the-government-captured-the-bbc
Agreed
And all noted
I work for a public library run and managed by volunteers in partnership with the Somerset public library service . Last year women’s group, concerned about children’s books about gender issues, caused some disruption in libraries in Somerset and West Dorset demanding that books should be removed. None were. We were advised by the head Somerset libraries that Somerset buys its stock from books legally published or distributed in the UK; that public libraries are legally obliged to stock books giving both pro and anti opinions on any issue; and that no library staff member should ever remove a book from stock. I have shared the Guardian article with Somerset libraries.
Thanks.
And good news.
And thanks for what you do.
You love censorship, Richard – you’ve censored 4 or 5 of my posts already today – they probably pointed out the errors in your argument, rather than simply agree with you and tell you how wonderful you are.
As far as racism is concerned, it takes one to know one.
If you have posted that many times you have used multiple false identities
A fundamental freedom is that of the editor – to consign drivel to the bin. That’s not censorship. That’s the freedom to exercise sound judgement.
Can something also be mentioned about this
https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/starmer-trump-trade-musk-vance-b2734132.html
I think the libraries are a start and now our laws, i bet this won’t be the first time either. I think this needs to be made apparent to more sleepwalking sheeple facism is knocking at the door of the uk and we need to regognise what guises it is coming in, and resist now before it’s too late. It’s starting a slow drip that last time turned into a world war and I hate having to live through a world where it still exists and our hopes are on a so called knight of the realm with a career spent in humanitarian pursuits that is now dancing with the devil. Makes me shudder to think where we will be when the music stops.