Jurisdiction
There are some oddities in the Nottingham Council axes Julie Bindel’s talk at the library story.
Council chiefs cancelled a talk by Julie Bindel, the feminist writer, on protecting women from male violence because it contradicts their position on trans rights.
The talk was scheduled at (and by) the library. Do city councils generally oversee items like what talks libraries are allowed to present? Do they generally veto decisions of that kind, on the grounds that they don’t like the speaker’s ideas?
It doesn’t sound right to me. I’m not an expert in city government but I live in a city and I did work for a city department for several years. It’s my impression that city departments do their own scheduling of talks and deciding of what talks to have. It is just an impression, I haven’t researched it, but I think it’s based on some relevant facts, like how the hell would anybody get anything done if that level of micromanagement were normal? I don’t think city councils do micromanage that way, not least because it would enrage everyone and cause endless argument and fuss and gridlock.
It seems pretty damn highhanded for a council to tell the library what kind of talks it can have. I suppose “within reason” plays its usual role here: I suppose talks by the Proud Boys would be dangerous enough that the higher ups might intervene, but short of that – I doubt this is normal.
On Saturday, Nottingham City Council said allowing Ms Bindel to speak at one of its libraries would violate its commitment to being an “inclusive city”.
But it wouldn’t. Even if you believe the insulting claim that Julie is “anti-inclusive,” it still wouldn’t. One person saying things you don’t agree with at a library branch can’t violate a whole City Council’s commitment to anything. If that were the criterion nobody could talk at all.
Citing its allegiance to the campaign group Stonewall, the council said it was preventing the event from going ahead because of Ms Bindel’s views on transgender rights and in support of the city’s LGBT community.
So because of its allegiance to the misogynistic and totalitarian pests at Stonewall, it’s high-handedly telling a library branch what guest speakers it can and can’t have.
I don’t think this is normal. I wonder if it even violates some of their own rules.
You might be right about breaching their statutory duty.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-libraries-as-a-statutory-service/libraries-as-a-statutory-service
‘2.2 Other legal obligations
In drawing up and delivering their library strategies and plans, councils should consider a number of legal obligations, including under:
the Equality Act 2010 including the Public Sector Equality Duty’
The Equality Act includes sex as a protected characteristic. It is certainly arguable that they are breaching that, especially after the Maya Forstater case. I am not a lawyer though, and it is not a guaranteed victory. But there may well be a case to argue.
If they’re following Stonewall “advice”, they might not even know who Maya Forstater is. I sure wouldn’t count on Stonewall’s advising them correctly on anything, and until they are corrected in court, Stonewall will probably keep selling their bullshit. I think that the upcoming Bailey vs Garden Court Chambers/Stonewall decision is unlikely to go well for them, if the her side’s final submission and round up of evidence is any indication. (You can find it here: https://allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CLOSING-SUBMISSIONS-FINAL.pdf ) Nottingham Council may get that memo, from their own legal department.
It would certainly be interesting what sort of e-mail trail might be unearthed in discovery. The one from Garden Court Chambers was damning (see link above) in its prejudicial rush to condemn Allison Bailey for expressing legally protected beliefs. And these were lawyers doing this. Stonewall-deluded lawyers, but still lawyers, who should have known better, but were blinded by smug self-righteousness.
It could be the other way around. Perhaps the library was looking for an excuse to cancel and passed the buck.
Their position on trans rights being that male violence against women is acceptable?
Or, that misgendering, and saying that men cannot be women is worse.
I know of instances where someone has tried to intervene in what is on a library shelf; sometimes it is the City Council, other times private groups. Librarians usually resist such pressure; they believe in the first amendment. But with so many libraries captured by the trans dogmatists, they might have been happy to comply.
YNnB #2 — Thank you for that PDF file of Allison Bailey’s final submission. I was too busy to follow her case, and that PDF file is an excellent place for me to catch up.
I see Mr/Ms Shaan Knan of the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group (STAG) called Bailey “the terfy barrister” which amuses me enough for today.
“the terfy barrister”
I’d go see that play.
You are right Bruce, ignorance of the Equality act is rife. Institutions believe what Stonewall tell them, when the actual act says something completely different. However the law is the law, so they can be reminded of that fact via the legal process. At least potentially.