Ministers have a duty to protect freedom of speech and end this insanity

While authoritarian bullies rampaged across Scotland’s cultural landscape last week, the response from senior politicians was predictably - depressingly - poor.

In saner times, an apology from a publicly-funded venue for allowing the Deputy First Minister to enter the premises would have provoked justifiable outrage from the very top of Government.

Likewise, the decision to ban a book from an exhibition at the National Library of Scotland would, surely, have seen the personal intervention of the First Minister.

Instead, last week we witnessed yet more of the lack of leadership which has allowed trans activists to wreak havoc across the public sector.

First, and I cringe for those involved as I type these words, we learned that management at the Summerhall venue in Edinburgh set up a “safe space” for staff and performers while Deputy FM Kate Forbes was in the building. The presence of Forbes, a devout Christian who previously revealed that, had she been an elected member at the time the law was changed, she would have voted against gay marriage, was dangerous.

Management at the venue later apologised for letting her in.

“Summerhall Arts’ primary concern,” said a spokesperson, “is the safety and wellbeing of the artists and performers we work with, and going forward we will be developing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again.”

This is insanity. Kate Forbes is a democratically elected politician whose faith-born opposition to gay marriage, while controversial, is perfectly legal.

Her presence in Summerhall created no danger for anyone, LGBTQ+ or otherwise, and those claiming otherwise should be embarrassed. The only danger, here, is in Summerhall management’s attack on free speech.

Another enthusiast for undermining this fundamental freedom is National Librarian, Amina Shah.

It emerged last week that the excellent book “The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht” had been withdrawn by Shah from an exhibition highlighting the importance of libraries and the ways in which they can “empower individuals and the communities they belong to”.

The editors of the book, a collection of essays by women involved in the ultimately successful campaign to defeat the SNP’s plan to allow anyone to self-identify into the legally-recognised sex of their choosing, discovered through a freedom of information request that it had received more public nominations for inclusion that any other.

They learned that the book had, initially, been selected for inclusion in the “Dear Library” exhibition but that, after protests from members of staff, Shah - with the backing of the board, chaired by Sir Drummond Bone - withdrew it.

Shah’s actions are indefensible and stand fully in contradiction to the responsibilities that come with the position she is unfit to hold. I suspect the National Librarian’s decision is one that will whisper in her ear for years to come.

Faced with threats of disruption from staff if “The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheest” had been included in the exhibition, Shah should have turned to the National Library’s disciplinary code. Rather than capitulating to authoritarian bullies, she should have reminded them that gross misconduct is a real thing with real consequences.

As these twin scandals unfolded, finance secretary Shona Robison spoke of the need for “tolerance”.

In her reaction to the Summerhall scandal, Robison revealed at least some of the reason that we find ourselves where we do.

“I don’t think,” said Robison, “it sends out the right signal over freedom of speech.”

Any weaker and the pulse would be undetectable.

Something that sends out entirely the wrong signal over freedom of speech is members of the Government sitting back while others deny the free speech of others.

When culture secretary Angus Robertson eventually spoke up, he served a weak cocktail of bromides.

While he was a “strong supporter” of free speech, there would always be “tensions” between that right and views that some people might find “unpopular or unjustifiable”. It would not, he added, “be easy all of the time to please everybody”.

On Robertson waffled: he was a strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression; there was an important distance between government and cultural organisations; there were issues of “public concern” and “public debate”.

Over the two decades that I’ve known former journalist Robertson, I’ve always considered him - in common with most in our trade - a fundamentalist on freedom of speech. His unwillingness to take a stronger stance, here, does not chime with the values I’ve long understood him to hold.

Robertson spoke about the important distance between government and cultural organisations and it is, of course, correct that ministers should have no say in the decision making of bodies such as Creative Scotland but that does not mean he should not intervene when things are going catastrophically wrong.

Robertson is entitled to demand the presence in his ministerial office of Summerhall chief executive Sam Gough. The culture secretary is perfectly within his rights to point out to Gough that Summerhall - a venue recently propped up with more than £600,000 of public money - must operate within the law and that failure to do so will mean the tap’s turned off.

The National Library of Scotland is funded by the Scottish Government and answerable to the Scottish Parliament. Robertson has the right - the duty - to act here, too.

Amina Shah, cowed by activists, removed a book from an exhibition that includes, satire fans, George Orwell’s “1984”. She's a censor and Angus Robertson should sack her and remove Sir Drummond Bone from the library's board.

Freedom of speech is under attack as never before in living memory. The culture secretary’s presence on the frontline of this battle would be very much appreciated.

On the pro side, preferably.