The National Library of Scotland: When curation becomes censorship
The head librarian at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh most likely didn’t anticipate that a public call to nominate favourite Scottish books for the institution’s 100th anniversary would ignite a national controversy. But when The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht, a collection of essays by feminist writers including JK Rowling and former MP Joanna Cherry, was voted into the top 200, it sparked a long, fierce internal debate.
The book, which critiques gender self-ID reforms brought forward by Nicola Sturgeon’s government, is polarising. For some, it represents a defence of women’s rights; for others, it feels like a rejection of trans identities and a challenge to the legitimacy of their lived experience.
Faced with this tension, Amina Shah, the National Librarian, sought an equality impact assessment. The advice was mixed. Including the book might lead to protests from LGBTQ+ staff and allies. Excluding it could be perceived as censorship. Concerns had been raised by LGBT+ staff network about the book’s inclusion, and in consultation with the chair of the library’s board Drummond Bone, Shah ultimately decided the book would not be included in the display.
That could have been the end of it. But an FOI request filed by the book’s editors brought the decision-making process into public view and turned a quiet decision into a news story.
Much of the subsequent debate has turned on language. Some headlines have referred to The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht as a “banned book” – a claim others have taken issue with. After all, the National Library of Scotland has said the book is still available in its open reading room. Others have wrongly claimed it was removed after the exhibition began in June, rather than not being part of the display to begin with.
In this kind of charged environment, misinformation spreads quickly. So let’s be clear: the public was invited to select Scottish books for the Dear Library exhibition, created to mark the centenary. Apparently 523 books were nominated and the 200 that received the most nominations would make the main display. The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht made the cut with four votes. It was the only title (as far as we know) excluded from the display after qualifying. That’s not an impartial act of curation. It’s a deliberate exception. And exceptions based on viewpoint deserve scrutiny.
At Index, we’ve just reprised our role as the UK lead for Banned Books Week. We don’t champion books because we always agree with them, or even because we find them palatable. We champion them because books must be a space where ideas – even deeply uncomfortable ones – can be explored.
In recent years, we’ve seen how frequently books on LGBTQ+ themes are targeted for removal, particularly in the United States. In the UK, too, we’ve seen troubling signs: last month a Reform MP urged libraries in Kent to remove books on trans issues. We called it out. In that case, as here, defenders said it wasn’t censorship – the books were still available, just not in the spotlight.
Curation is never neutral. What gets displayed, what doesn’t, what is “safe” enough to be seen, these are all decisions that shape the cultural landscape. These decisions matter. A book moved from the front shelf to the back is a signal.
Some say the book in question promotes “hate”. They’re entitled to that view and indeed entitled to protest its inclusion. It’s also important to acknowledge that for many LGBTQ+ readers and staff, this isn’t just a political disagreement. It’s personal and painful. In a liberal democracy though, even speech that offends or unsettles us deserves protection, especially in books, where the whole point is to wrestle with complex, often conflicting, ideas. Books that are deemed “dangerous” or “offensive” have always existed. Many are now considered classics. Others remain debated. In all cases, open dialogue – not quiet removal – is the better path forward.
Ironically, the decision to exclude the book has only amplified its reach. In what some are calling a classic case of the Streisand Effect, sales have surged on Amazon. People are talking about it more than they ever would have otherwise.
And now, the consequences have broadened. One of the exhibition’s funders is reportedly unhappy. There’s speculation that Shah could face professional consequences. That, too, would be a mistake. This is, after all, a very fraught space. Shah was clearly trying to do, with the backing of her chair, what she thought was right, balancing the concerns of staff, readers and the broader public. She was between a rock and a hard place, a damned if do, damned if don’t situation. Instead of continuing with the message that you can face professional risks either way, we should be asking how we can hold space for difficult conversations, without silencing people on either side. Because this isn’t just about one book, or one exhibition. It’s about a moment in which institutions are being pushed and pulled by opposing forces, and trying, often imperfectly, to chart a course through it all.
Ultimately, we need space for discomfort, for disagreement, and above all, for empathy. That’s how democracies grow – not by hiding books away, but by reading them, debating them and understanding why they matter.
What to expect from Trump and Putin’s special relationship
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.
In April 2022, two months after the invasion of Ukraine, a bill designating the USA as “the main enemy of the Russian Federation” was submitted by several deputies of the Russian Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament). It was political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann – deemed to be a foreign agent by the Russian authorities – who told Index about this “strange bill”, as she described it. It was meant to amend the law on countermeasures in response to hostile acts by foreign states, which was passed in 2018.
In July 2024 – four months prior to US president Donald Trump’s election victory – six of the seven deputies who had submitted the bill withdrew their signatures.
“Usually this happens when [legislators] realise that their initiative is not going to pass, or that the timing is bad – or that it is politically risky,” Schulmann said.
It seems that the deputies got wind that “the outcome of the election would be such that the US would no longer be [Russia’s] foe – but a friend, if not the best friend”, she added.
In April 2025, the Council of the Duma, an organisational body within parliament, suggested dismissing the bill.
“The political situation changed – and the [bill’s] initiators were nowhere to be found,” said Schulmann.
Trump and the Russian narrative
The re-election of Trump was also pivotal in shaping the Kremlin’s rhetoric. In July 2022, Dmitry Kiselyov, host of Russian political show Vesti Nedeli (News of the Week), dedicated a whole segment to then US president Joe Biden’s poor health, speaking of his “cognitive problems”, according to independent news outlet Verstka.
And in February 2025, the host praised the new US president, saying: “Putin perceives in Trump his own quality – restraint.”
Vladimir Putin himself called Trump a “courageous man” after his victory. As for Trump, he publicly refused to call the Russian president a dictator (he had said Putin was “genius” and “savvy” on other occasions).
What’s more, Trump seems to be repeating the Kremlin’s claims about Ukraine’s responsibility for the aggression. “You don’t start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,” he said in April.
And when he called Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “dictator without elections” in February, he was echoing rhetoric from the Kremlin.
Trump’s criticism of the Ukrainian government is, in turn, used in Russian propaganda, which brainwashes people into supporting Putin’s politics. For example, in February, Kiselyov called Zelenskyy “a mediocre comedian”, according to Verstka, which mirrored Trump’s words about him being “a modestly successful comedian”. Kiselyov reportedly said that Trump “tolerated Zelenskyy for a long time, but now his disgust is obvious”.
Not only does Trump give credit to Putin’s official narrative but, since he took office, the White House has been debating lifting sanctions on Russian organisations and oligarchs, according to Reuters.
In an interview with the independent media outlet Zhivoy Gvozd in April, 83-year-old dissident-in-exile Lev Ponomaryov said that if the sanctions on the Kremlin’s officials were lifted during peace talks, it would allow for the “semi-fascist” regime to remain in place after the war ended. In fact, he is worried that the repression “will only become more severe” when the war is over, because Putin will need to reinforce his position domestically.
An end to Russia’s pariah status?
Talking to Index from Russia, independent politician Dmitriy Kisiev said that, for him, “it’s hard to imagine things getting worse” than they are today. He was the head of the team which stood behind the campaign of Boris Nadezhdin, the pro-peace candidate barred from running in the presidential election in March 2024.
According to Kisiev – and he admitted this might sound surprising – Trump’s presidency could ultimately benefit Russian civil society. He argued that Trump established “some sort of dialogue” with the Kremlin, which could eventually result in Russia becoming more integrated with the rest of the world. In that case, its civil society would be “freer and more protected”. He is concerned about Russia potentially “heading in the wrong direction”, like North Korea, which he described as “a very closed country and a totalitarian state”.
He used the example of Western companies, the majority of which left Russia at the beginning of the war. Their presence acted “as a kind of limiting factor” on the government and helped to deter the creation of overly harsh laws or regulations. This also applied to student exchange programmes and international tourism, which are no longer there either, he said.
Kisiev added that when Trump began talking about peace, speaking about it became safer in Russia. Whereas previously “peace politics” were supported by less than half the population, “today it feels as though more people are for peace”.
In a recent survey by the independent Levada Centre, more than half the respondents said they were in favour of peace talks. The number of people who believed peace negotiations “should definitely begin” (30%) has never been higher. The survey was conducted with 1,617 adults across Russia.
Kisiev underlined that Trump brought hope for peace to people in the face of despair. The pro-peace stance being voiced by more people, he said, could eventually lead to the end of the “special military operation” in Ukraine. When that happens, he believes Russia could evolve in a more “humanistic direction”.
“Some laws would be revised as there would be no more need for such harsh punishments,” he said, referring to legislation passed when the war began – the censorship law which criminalises “discreditation” of the Russian armed forces.
He tries to remain optimistic, saying that if he didn’t believe things could change for the better then he wouldn’t be taking the risk of being an opposition politician in Russia today.
When asked whether Russia’s repressive legislation could be amended or even abolished if the war ends, political scientist Schulmann said the Russian state system was “flexible”, which is “one of the main features of modern autocracies, [making] them different from the totalitarian systems of the 20th century”.
“They are the ones setting the norms,” she said. “A change in the political context can result in changes in the legislation … even though I don’t think that the system would want to get rid of such a convenient instrument as the war censorship law.”
Faint hopes for peace
An independent parliamentary deputy from Moscow, who requested anonymity, spoke to Index about the “faint hope” for peace raised by Trump, echoing Kisiev. But, alluding to the difficult peace negotiations, he said it was “hope which rises and falls, again and again”.
He highlighted that it was not only the public and the opposition in Russia who were fatigued by the war but also deputies from the Kremlin’s United Russia party.
He hopes that a peace agreement would allow his country to “go back in time to a more democratic era”.
But he said that repression remained as severe as it was at the beginning of the war and pro-democracy movements were still being crushed.
One recent example was the request by the Ministry of Justice to liquidate opposition party Grazhdanskaya Initsiativa (Civic Initiative) in May.
The same month, Grigory Melkonyants, co-founder of the election watchdog Golos (Voice), was sentenced to five years in prison after he was found guilty of working for an “undesirable organisation”.
Meanwhile, Trump’s politics continue to affect Russian refugees and opposition movements abroad.
Index spoke to LGBTQ+ activist Nadezhda Shchetinina, who fled Russia for the USA after the LGBTQ+ movement was labelled extremist in November 2023. “Since Trump took office, the [Customs and Border Protection] programme that allowed me to get to the United States safely is no longer operating,” she said.
Trump’s war on immigration and international aid
The second Trump administration has implemented harsh anti-immigration policies. One of its executive orders states that admitting refugees is now considered “detrimental” to US national interests.
Shchetinina said that Russians arriving in the USA have not been welcomed, especially since the invasion of Ukraine. And with Trump as president, “there is less hope that this situation will improve”.
“Everything is being done to prevent Russian political refugees from getting here, even though we have every right to [seek political refuge],” she said.
Many Russian immigrants – including those who have fled to the USA for political reasons – are kept in detention centres, she added. People are deported back to Russia despite the risks of being arrested as soon as they cross the border.
On top of this, the Trump administration has tried to dismantle multiple pro-democratic media outlets through funding cuts, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are funded by the federal government. These outlets historically broadcast to countries behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Since then, they have continued reaching and covering authoritarian states, including Russia, countering state propaganda. Although some funding for these media outlets has been restored, their future is bleak under Trump amid his administration’s attacks, cuts to services and the resulting mass staff layoffs.
The president’s shuttering of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also severely affects campaign groups, NGOs and independent media that oppose Putin abroad. Those impacted include Kovcheg (The Ark), which supports Russians who have fled because of their anti-war position; international human rights organisation Memorial; and also Golos, whose co-founder was jailed in May.
The human rights non-profit Free Russia Foundation has also had its funding heavily impacted, according to independent media outlet Meduza. Founded in the USA in 2014, FRF supports Russian political prisoners, refugees and civil society.
In 2024, it was labelled an “extremist organisation” by the Russian government. Its vice-president – dissident and former political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza – was released in the prisoner swap between Russia and the West in 2024. He became one of the key figures of Russian opposition abroad. In his speech in April at the opening of an exhibition in Paris dedicated to Russian political prisoners, Faces of Russian Resistance, he stressed that discussions between Trump and Putin had centred on economic issues rather than human rights.
“We hear [Trump and Putin] talk about minerals, [frozen] assets; American businesses coming back to Russia; direct flights – anything but the people,” he said.
He stressed the importance of releasing hostages of war, including children kidnapped in occupied Ukraine, and Russian political prisoners. “The only reason they [political prisoners] are imprisoned is that they spoke against this criminal war,” he said.
Olga Romanova, director of civil rights organisation Russia Behind Bars, recently said in an interview that Trump was not concerned about Russian political prisoners – including minors.
Dozens of teenagers have been imprisoned for their anti-war actions or words, such as 16-year-old Arseny Turbin, who was sentenced to five years in a correctional colony for “participation in a terrorist organisation”.
In May, Ukraine and Russia exchanged 1,000 prisoners of war each. But Russia’s commissioner for human rights, Tatyana Moskalkova – a key interlocutor in the swaps – does not work with independent human rights defenders, few of whom are still in Russia, Ponomaryov told Zhivoy Gvozd.
Moskalkova has also promoted the Kremlin’s narratives – including that the Russian armed forces are “successfully fighting neo-Nazism” – and has rejected the term “political prisoners”.
The USA on the global stage
Ponomaryov and other members of the Council of Russian Human Rights Defenders wrote an appeal in April, highlighting that human rights are not being prioritised in the current peace talks. Recognising human rights as “the necessary condition” for world peace and security was an important breakthrough of the post-World War II era, the appeal reads, referring to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The statement acknowledges how the USA has played a key role in this “movement towards progress”. But today, Ponomaryov says, “the US no longer sets an example for democracy, human rights and so on – and that is a catastrophe for the entire world”.
The Trump administration has created chaos for Russians opposing Putin abroad and reinforced the Russian leader’s position at home. At the same time, Trump’s relationship with Putin has raised a faint hope for peace.
But, even if the war ends it might not lead to the loosening of the Kremlin’s iron grip. As the human rights defenders’ appeal stresses, an unjust peace would “give a green light” to further aggression – and to even more repression in Russia.
In the face of this new reality, where the US president aligns with Putin rather than acting as a counterpower to him, there is a need for global unification. As Ponomaryov says, rights defenders across the world must come together around the issue of human rights and “start influencing what’s happening in the world arena”.
The week in free expression: 9 August – 15 August 2025
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the targeted killing of four Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza, and the arrest of hundreds of protesters in the UK.
A targeted strike: Five Palestinian journalists killed by Israeli missile in Gaza
Four Palestinian journalists working for Al Jazeera, as three other media workers, were killed in a targeted Israeli strike on 10 August, bringing the total number killed in Gaza to at least 184 journalists since 2023 according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Anas al-Sharif, one of Al Jazeera’s most prominent reporters on the conflict in Gaza, was one of those killed in the strike. Having consistently reported on the ground since 7 October 2023, al-Sharif was subject to numerous death threats online. Israeli officials have repeatedly made unverified claims that al-Sharif was the leader of a Hamas terrorist cell, claims vigorously denied by Al Jazeera, the CPJ and others. The IDF gave this as justification for the targeted strike on al-Sharif’s location, however no such justification was given regarding the lives of the others killed.
With foreign journalists banned from entering the Gaza strip, the only reporting from the ground is coming from Palestinian journalists.
Spare no protestor: More than 500 demonstrators arrested in one day for supporting Palestine Action
A demonstration in London’s Parliament Square in support of proscribed group Palestine Action saw 522 arrested on suspicion of breaking terrorism laws in one day – more than doubling the amount arrested on these terms in the entirety of 2024.
Taking place on Saturday 10 August, the demonstration organised by Defend Our Juries asked participants to hold up signs or placards stating “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Such a statement is a criminal offence, as the UK government banned Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws after two members of the group broke into RAF Brize Norton airbase and defaced aircraft.
An age breakdown by the Metropolitan Police revealed that of those protesters arrested who could have their ages verified, 49.9% were over the age of 60, with nearly 100 being in their seventies. Over 700 people have been arrested for supporting Palestine Action since its proscription, bringing widespread condemnation. UN human rights chief Volker Türk, argued that the proscription was an “impermissible restriction” on freedom of expression, while former cabinet minister Lord Peter Hain said the government were “digging themselves into a hole” by proscribing Palestine Action.
Gang violence: Two journalists attacked, one killed, while investigating gang activity
Two journalists were violently attacked on consecutive days while investigating gang activity in the city of Gazipur, Bangladesh, with one of the journalists being killed in the assault.
Reporter Anwar Hossain, 35, was interviewing rickshaw drivers about allegations of extortion on 6 August when he was brutally attacked by seven to eight men in broad daylight, one of whom repeatedly beat Hossain with a brick, injuring him severely. A video of the assault went viral on social media, with police seen nearby taking no immediate action. The following day, journalist Asaduzzaman Tuhin, 38, was filming armed men chasing a young man through a market, when the men turned on him and hacked him to death with machetes.
Following the death of Tuhin, five people have been arrested in connection with his murder. Attacks against journalists for their reporting have become more common in recent months in Bangladesh – in July, journalist Khandaker Shah Alam was assaulted in retaliation for reporting on a case that landed the assailant in jail. He later died of his injuries.
Art under attack: Pieces removed from Bangkok gallery under pressure from China
An art gallery in Bangkok has been forced to remove or alter a number of works by Hong Kong, Tibetan and Uyghur artists, following a visit from Chinese embassy officials.
The exhibition, titled Constellation of Complicity: Visualising the Global Machinery of Authoritarian Solidarity, was curated by the Myanmar Peace Museum, and aimed to lay out the interconnected nature of authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia and Iran. Held at The Bangkok Art & Culture Centre, the exhibition opened on 24 July – but just three days later, Chinese embassy officials alongside Bangkok city officials “entered the exhibition and demanded its shutdown”, according to the co-curator of the exhibition.
The gallery was reportedly warned that the exhibit “may risk creating diplomatic tensions between Thailand and China”. Under this pressure, they removed a number of works, including a multimedia installation by a Tibetan artist, and censored many more – removing the words “Hong Kong”, “Uyghur” and “Tibet” from artworks, redacting artists’ names, and taking down any content featuring Chinese president Xi Jinping. They also insisted that the gallery enforce the “One China policy” that iterates that the People’s Republic of China is the only government representing all of China, including the self-governed island of Taiwan.
A long struggle: Colombian presidential hopeful dies two months after being shot
Two months after he was shot at a campaign rally in Bogotá, Colombian senator and presidential candidate Miguel Uribe has died in hospital from his injuries, his wife has confirmed.
Uribe was shot twice in the head and once in the leg at the rally on Saturday 7 June. Colombian President Gustavo Petro launched an investigation into the incident as it was revealed that Uribe’s protection team had been reduced from seven to three people on the day of the attack for unknown reasons. The alleged gunman, a 15-year-old boy, was among six individuals arrested regarding the murder – the boy reportedly stated he acted “for money, for my family”.
Uribe was a member of the right-wing Democratic Centre party. He stated his inspiration for running for public office was his mother, journalist Diana Turbay, who was herself kidnapped and killed by a gang alliance in 1991 over her reporting. Uribe’s death brings back unwanted memories of a nation that was fraught with gang violence.