Read on Twitter
1/ I transcribed this morning's interview on BBC Radio 4's Today ( @BBCr4today) programme regarding the abolition of honorary titles at the Booker Foundation ( @TheBookerPrizes) in the wake of Baroness Nicholson's ( @Baroness_Nichol) recent tweets. The transcript can be found below
2/ but I encourage anybody interested to listen to the full interview, starting at 49:42, here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000kft4
3/ Mishal Husain: As the widow of the man who helped establish the Booker Prize, Emma Nicholson has been closely associated with it for many years. Since stepping down as a trustee in 2009, she has been the honorary vice president of the Booker Foundation. Until a few days ago,
4/ that is, when it abolished her role and other honorary ones in the wake of comments she made about transgender people. We will talk to her in just a moment. But first Mark Damazer, who’s the Chair of the Book Prize Foundation, good morning.
Mark Damazser: Good morning.
Mark Damazser: Good morning.
5/ MH: What exactly was it that Emma Nicholson said that made you abolish her role?
MD: Well, I think it would be useful if I just put on the record what it was not about, given how much has been written and said about it. It was not about her voting record on issues to do with
MD: Well, I think it would be useful if I just put on the record what it was not about, given how much has been written and said about it. It was not about her voting record on issues to do with
6/ gay marriage. Nor is it to do with her stance on the relationship between trans rights and the issues of how spaces and facilities, which I know many, not least amongst them J.K. Rowling, think should be for biologically determined, as it were, women only. All of that is not
7/ for the Booker Prize Foundation to have a role in deciding. But what Baroness Nicholson did, not withstanding her distinguished career in public life, but I’m afraid what she did was tweeted in a manner that you can quite understand caused considerable offence to trans people.
8/ She called a trans activist a “weird creature”. Now, she has recently withdrawn it, um, and apologised, but she didn’t do on the night that it was revealed or indeed on the subsequent day, and she justified that tweet by a reference to Shakespeare. Now, I think she’s changed
9/ her mind about it but you can see that that in itself was troubling. That is not, of itself, the reason why we abolished the honorary positions. But because that position was seen by many, and not just on Twitter, as in some way symbolising the Booker’s position, and it isn’t,
10/ Baroness Nicholson is more than entitled to her own views, but that tweet caused some confusion in the perception about the difference between an honorary title and something that symbolises the Booker. And Mishal if I may say so, I think in your introduction, you yourself
11/ suggested that the title carried some close association with the Booker and frankly it doesn’t.
MH: Well, I said she has a close association with it, because she’s the widow of the man who established it.
MD: Oh, certainly, historically she has an association.
MH: And she
MH: Well, I said she has a close association with it, because she’s the widow of the man who established it.
MD: Oh, certainly, historically she has an association.
MH: And she
12/ was a trustee for many years so there’s clearly a close association. But just on the nub of what you have said, it still remains the case that essentially you abolished her role because of a single, troubling tweet.
MD: No Mishal, I just want to go from the tweet to say
MD: No Mishal, I just want to go from the tweet to say
13/ that the reaction to the tweet indicated that there was confusion about what her role is and I want to reiterate, she’s had no meaningful role since 2009, these positions are purely honorary. But some people thought, and quite a few, that they symbolised the Booker rather
14/ than simply being honorary positions.
MH: OK, and you could have set them right on exactly that, couldn’t you? You could’ve reiterated that these are honorary positions that are not to do with the day-to-day running of the Foundation.
MD: Well, the fact is, if you look at
MH: OK, and you could have set them right on exactly that, couldn’t you? You could’ve reiterated that these are honorary positions that are not to do with the day-to-day running of the Foundation.
MD: Well, the fact is, if you look at
15/ the reaction it was perfectly clear that many people thought, and indeed Mishal, I think that your introduction reveals this, that her position was more active than it actually is. And further, in another tweet, Baroness Nicholson said something about one of the judges this
16/ year, which I don’t think was appropriate for anybody in any way associated with the Booker, to say. Now, if you take all of that together, it seemed to us that these honorary positions were causing far more confusion when they were not actually meaningfully engaged with the
17/ Booker and we decided to abolish them all, not withstanding that the other people who held those titles have never said or done anything at all that’s put the reputation of the Booker into question.
MH: OK, but you’re still taking a major decision, which I’m sure, I mean,
MH: OK, but you’re still taking a major decision, which I’m sure, I mean,
18/ she’ll speak for herself in a moment, but I’m sure it’s been incredibly hurtful to her. You’ve acted on the basis of the controversy, and yet you are an organisation that is all about ideas and thought and should be about freedom of speech. Why isn’t she free to hold those
19/ views and remain in an honorary position?
MD: Well, part one, absolutely right, she’s completely free to hold those views. They’re not the views of the Booker, but she’s absolutely entitled to have those views. I repeat, the Booker doesn’t have any particular position on
MD: Well, part one, absolutely right, she’s completely free to hold those views. They’re not the views of the Booker, but she’s absolutely entitled to have those views. I repeat, the Booker doesn’t have any particular position on
20/ the policy issues currently very, very much contested around certain aspects of trans rights and spaces which many women think should be for biologically born women. I understand that. The question is whether therefore, the Booker therefore, has the right to determine whether
21/ these honorary positions, plural, not just Baroness Nicholson’s, are in fact obstructing the meaning of what contemporary Booker is about. And the contemporary Booker is about exactly what you suggest it’s about. It’s about being open, it’s about a huge range of literature
22/ and it’s about freedom of expression in the way that the text is presented to the judges, who then judge what they think is best. And the Booker has a splendid contemporary record in doing all of that.
MH: OK, Mark Damazer, thank you very much. And Baroness Nicholson is with
MH: OK, Mark Damazer, thank you very much. And Baroness Nicholson is with
23/ me now. Just on the particular point and your comments about the transgender activist and model Munroe Bergdorf, you did, didn’t you, you did call her a “weird creature”?
Baroness Nicholson: I have, um, issued an apology today to Munroe Bergdorf, for upsetting her. I never
Baroness Nicholson: I have, um, issued an apology today to Munroe Bergdorf, for upsetting her. I never
24/ meant any tweet to cause sadness and misery and it’s clear that inadvertently that has done so. I have to say I didn’t know her and didn’t recognise her eminence, her past with L'Oréal, her past with the NSPCC, and the major work she has done to help other people. I respect
25/ that and I’m asking her if we could have a meal together. Maybe we might find a lot in common, you never know. So, that’s easy.
MH: Do you wish you’d said that earlier because perhaps that would’ve taken some of the heat out of this?
BN: Erm, I’m not sure that the Booker
MH: Do you wish you’d said that earlier because perhaps that would’ve taken some of the heat out of this?
BN: Erm, I’m not sure that the Booker
26/ Trustees are calling me in public, in writing. I see racism and homophobia and transphobia. I’m not transphobic. I’ve worked with all sorts of people everywhere and I fully support their rights and everyone else’s rights, and I haven’t had any evidence of these accusations.
27/ These are very, very heavy accusations to make.
MH: Well, just to be clear, in their statement they said “we deplore racism, homophobia and transphobia”, they did not accuse you of those things, they said that the views you expressed about transgender people are your own
MH: Well, just to be clear, in their statement they said “we deplore racism, homophobia and transphobia”, they did not accuse you of those things, they said that the views you expressed about transgender people are your own
28/ personal opinion. Do you think they have come to the wrong decision in removing you from your honorary position? I mean, they say that they were essentially outdated, those positions.
BN: Well, the… I have a lifetime commitment to equality and diversity. I’m a feminist in
BN: Well, the… I have a lifetime commitment to equality and diversity. I’m a feminist in
29/ the broadest sense of the word and I have been saddened by the fact that the Booker has declared that this is not how they would see me. They have said that, um. They have actually declared that I’m, err, made it plain, that I’m homophobic, racist and transphobic by
30/ declaring that’s their view and that I have an opposite view. So, yes, this is rather an important matter. And, um, that is what has truly disturbed me. You shouldn’t say that about people unless you’ve got some fairly hard evidence. In my background of 40 or 50 years working
31/ everywhere, you would actually find, I think, the reverse evidence. I’ve never discriminated against anyone and rather the reverse, I tend to look for the person who’s in the most difficulty and that very often is small minorities. So, no, I wouldn’t say that, um, Booker
32/ have acquitted themselves in the way that they should have done. I, in fact, I co-founded the present Booker, the Booker Trust, when the Booker organisation itself, the company, went very low and had to scrap the Prize, I stepped in, with one of the other now-defunct Vice
33/ Chairmen and suggested we turn it into a charitable foundation and that was my idea, so maybe there wouldn’t be a Booker at the moment if I hadn’t done that.
MH: Baroness Nicholson, thank you very much.
---
MH: Baroness Nicholson, thank you very much.
---
34/ This is a transcription as I heard it but, again, I encourage anybody interested to listen to the interview in full starting at 49:42, here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000kft4
I will also ask the @threadreaderapp to unroll this thread in a tweet below.
I will also ask the @threadreaderapp to unroll this thread in a tweet below.
