On Monday, I gave what might have been my first ever fist pump for a House of Lords debate. Lord Watson of Invergowrie asked a question in the chamber about an investigation I published with Index on Censorship, where 53% of the school librarians I surveyed said they had been asked to remove books from their shelves. Even more worryingly, 56% of those librarians then felt forced to actually remove the books in question.
An overwhelming number of the books ripped off school library shelves had LGBTQ+ themes or authors, and the bans were usually in reaction to a single parent complaint – or even school leaders acting in anticipation of causing offence among particular communities. I spoke to librarians who feared for their jobs, and others have been in touch since, telling me about the pressure they are under.
The debate in the House of Lords showed overwhelming support for the freedom to read, and it was heartening to see the Lords sit up and listen.
Fast-forward to Wednesday evening. Just as I was thinking about which picture book to read to my son (which may or may not have had LGBTQ+ themes), a Reform councillor was making plans to raid library collections across Kent.
[…]
Whether books have indeed been banned, or a councillor is simply claiming that books have been banned, this is a dark moment for the freedom to read in the UK. Libraries in Kent have this week been a battleground for culture wars, and I fear they won’t be the last to become so.There have been rumours of book ban demands happening in other Reform-led councils, but when I’ve asked the library services in question, they’ve denied having received such instructions. This is the first time it’s happened out in the open.
This is the kind of move we’ve already seen in the USA. Book censorship there has spiralled, with right-wing groups like Moms for Liberty and Republican politicians often leading the charge and calling for bans. Librarians have even received death threats and been investigated for holding LGBTQ+ content, as is very well-evidenced in a new film, The Librarians.
Up until this week, I could confidently say that library censorship in the UK was happening behind closed doors (not that that’s any better), and that incidents, whilst concerning, were not necessarily widespread. I can no longer say that. When a councillor publicly seeks to ban children’s books from a children’s section, something has shifted, there is a certain audacity to it. And now, I worry that the UK floodgates have opened. Others will feel emboldened to take similar actions.
… by Reform not being tackled? I thought it was self evident? How can I say that it’s raining outside? By looking at the rain outside.
I gave one example of how they could tackle Reform. But, taking inspiration from their latest actions, they could declare Reform a terrorist group and lock them up. An extreme solution to be sure, unethical too, but it isn’t above Labour to do so. Pick somewhere in the massive spectrum in-between.
You don’t need to defend Labour here. They’ll throw you under the bus to protect the wealthy too.
Did you not read my comment?
I’m sure that’d be legal and go well. Just declare political opponents terrorists and arrest them. That’s some Trumpian shit right there.
Who says I’m defending them? I’m being realistic.
“Protect the wealthy” lmao. It’s like you’ve completely ignored the government’s actions.
I read your comment. I can also see the rain outside. Just as proof you read my link with the results on whether it’s raining outside. Are Labour(24%) currently ahead or behind Reform(26%)? (Yougov - July poll). I, personally, find that concerning. You do you though.
Now you’re getting it. Did you read my comment? I said it was extreme and unethical. Labour have proved they will do “Trumpian shit”, just not to handle Reform. Pick something in the gulf between the options. Tackle wealth inequality - huge range of options - declare them terrorists.
Or, it’s like I’ve gone outside to check whether it’s raining.
Both my claims: (Reform haven’t been handled, wealth inequality hasn’t been tackled) are evidence based. To argue with me you’re going to need some polling data that Reform have been relegated to irrelevance and you’ll need data that wealth inequality has significantly decreased to the point potential Reform voters aren’t worried about their last cookie. Without both of those you’re just getting soaking wet telling me it’s sunny.
How can you suggest haven’t paid attention to the government’s actions given I referenced their actions in every one of my comments?
Ok, so clearly you didn’t read my comment.
Feel free to read it then get back to me. Goodbye until then.
I read it. You just don’t seem to like that, based on the evidence, I don’t agree.
How can I say Labour haven’t tackled Reform? Lab 24% vs Ref 26%. You argue that they are? Cool, Lab 24% vs Ref 26%.
How can I say Labour haven’t tackled wealth inequality? Government report says wealth inequality is very high. You’d argue they tried tackling wealth inequality? Cool, Government report says wealth inequality is very high.
I said the government’s actions were extreme and unethical. You described Labour’s behaviour Trumpian, so that’s something I guess.
You say I ignore government actions? I referenced government actions. At least pretend you read my comment, have AI summarise it for you or something.
My entire argument is that Labour are, at best, ineffectual at tackling the threats to our country. Evidence backs me up. You want to argue, bring some evidence. Else you’re getting soaking wet with the rest of us. You want to argue it’s sunny? Cool, we’re all getting rained on though. They tried and failed? How does that not support that Labour are ineffective?
Goodbye. (We’re not trains, we don’t need to announce our departure)