New York Post, on UK Politics, 22 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

'Woke nonsense': Museum slammed for 'stupidity and ignorance' after removing mummy over its lack of consent

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.1 finding

Dead man “wokeing.” Mummies might not curse defilers from the afterlife, but that doesn’t mean you should display their remains, apparently. A Scottish museum has been branded “woke” after reportedly removing a museum’s mummies because the individuals hadn’t given their consent. Indeed, visitors to Glasgow’s Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum will notice new signs at certain exhibits declaring that curators “removed human remains from this display as a mark of respect,” the Telegraph reported. 4 The Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum is seen in Glasgow on Thursday, July 17, 2014. cornfield – stock.adobe.com 4 A hands-on display explains ancient Egyptian funerary rites at Kelvingrove, Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009.

Jean-Pierre Dalbéra, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0 included a mummified male head , a mummified foot, a mummified right hand recovered from the Valley of the Kings in Luxor, Egypt and the remains of a priest called Nekt. Explore More New clues in Westminster Abbey mystery: Medieval skeleton buried in Roman-era sarcophagus finally identified Los Angeles braces as tornado alert issued Ancient treasure trove found after being hidden under former sports field for 2,000 years Glasgow Life, a publicly funded non-profit that oversees the Scottish city’s cultural institutions, claimed that the unorthodox move “reflects contemporary museum practice,” the Daily Mail reported.

“The International Council of Museums’ revised Code of Ethics, published in June 2026, states that museums ‘should uphold the inherent dignity of human remains and promote respect for their significance,'” a spokesperson declared. “Glasgow Life Museums’ draft Human Remains Policy proposes that human remains should only be displayed where there is documented and informed consent from the deceased individual or, in appropriate circumstances, their descendants.”

They added, “In the absence of such consent, we believe removing ancient Egyptian human remains from display is more respectful to the deceased individuals.” 4 A closed sign is seen on the entrance to Kelvingrove Museum as people are asked to work from home and socially distance themselves due to the coronavirus pandemic in Glasgow, Scotland, Wednesday, March 18, 2020. Getty Images

“I really struggle to see who benefits from this, or how it’s showing anyone more respect,” vented one X poster , while another fumed , “The HR-ification of our society is infuriating.” A third wrote, “The museum sector is ideologically possessed these days. [I] walked around a museum in Bath recently and every sign had a second sign under it where some victim group pertaining to the first sign had to be called out. Every single sign.” 4 “The museum sector is ideologically possessed,” lamented one X user while decrying the move by Kelvingrove Museum (pictured).

Getty Images Meanwhile, visitor Johnny McFarlane claimed that the removal robbed him and his daughter of a fun and educational experience. “My daughter has a book on the ancient Egyptians and has been quite animated by it so we took her to Kelvingrove Museum to see their mummy,” he lamented on X alongside a pic of the sign. “Except, it’s no longer there. All ‘human remains’ gone with the following sign up in place of exhibits that have been there for years.”

My daughter has a book on the ancient Egyptians and has been quite animated by it so we took her to Kelvingrove Museum to see their mummy. Except, it’s no longer there. All ‘human remains’ gone with the following sign up in place of exhibits that have been there for years. pic.twitter.com/DKGOx4VjpR — Jonny McFarlane (@jonnyrmcfarlane) October 17, 2026 Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education and a former adviser to the Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street, labeled the decision “virtue-signalling, woke nonsense.”

“It represents the triumph of educational stupidity and ignorance,” the official declared. “It is not possible to seek permission from those who died thousands of years ago.” See Also Parents should ask babies for ‘consent’ before changing their diapers: experts He added, “visitors to Scottish museums, children in particular, deserve better — they are being short-changed.” McGovern urged local institutions to follow the lead of the “great museums in Egypt” and “display mummies and human remains in a respectful way.”

Scottish Tory culture spokesman Murdo Fraser also condemned the move, labeling it a symptom of PC culture run amok. “Even Egyptian mummies are now being cancelled by a society so obsessed with modern sensibilities that it has lost all sense of perspective,” he said. “People visit museums to learn about ancient civilisations, not to see history hidden away because it fails to meet today’s ideological standards.” “Glasgow’s museums should be showcasing our history, not quietly removing it to appease the latest trend in political correctness.”

Despite the outcry, this is apparently just the beginning of the wrap battle. Glasgow Life said it also plans to remove other from Kelvingrove as well as the St. Mungo Museum of Religious Art and Life.

Read the original article on nypost.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (1)

The New York Post reports that Glasgow's Kelvingrove museum removed Egyptian human remains from display, and it quotes Glasgow Life's reasons at length alongside its critics. In its own voice it uses a few mocking words that tilt the reader against the museum: it calls the remains "so-called canceled" and "so-called problematic", and it turns three posts on X into appalled "culture vultures". None of this hides a fact about the event, and the criticism is attributed to the people who made it.

  1. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “Culture vultures were appalled at this alleged desecration.”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice the Post says "culture vultures were appalled" and mocks the museum's reasoning as "this alleged desecration".
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away believing that museum-goers in general were outraged.
    The context
    The only basis the article gives is a handful of anonymous posts on X, quoted in the next sentences. Nobody in the article calls the display a desecration.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“vented one X poster”
    • Elsewhere in the article“A third wrote”

    Show it in the article

    “The so-called canceled artifacts”

    Why this matters
    The Post calls the remains "canceled" in its own voice, with "so-called" suggesting that someone else used the term.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the museum has erased or disowned the items for ideological reasons.
    The context
    Glasgow Life says it took the remains off display out of respect for the dead and keeps them in specialist storage. "Cancelled" is Murdo Fraser's word, which the article quotes later.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “so-called problematic human remains”

    Why this matters
    The Post puts "so-called problematic" in front of the remains Glasgow Life plans to remove, as if it were quoting the museum's own word.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes Glasgow Life called the remains problematic.
    The context
    The article quotes no one using "problematic". The Glasgow Life policy it quotes ties display to documented consent, not to remains being problematic.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“human remains should only be displayed where there is documented and informed consent”

    Show it in the article

What it gets right

  • “Glasgow Life Museums’ draft Human Remains Policy proposes that human remains should only be displayed where there is documented and informed consent from the deceased individual or, in appropriate circumstances, their descendants.”

    The Post quotes the museum's policy in full, so a reader can see the actual reason for the removal and not only the critics' version of it.

  • “The International Council of Museums’ revised Code of Ethics, published in June 2026”

    It names the professional code Glasgow Life relies on, with its date, and does not leave the decision unexplained.

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from New York Post

Everything we scored from New York Post