Main Edition
US
FR
July 23, 2024 - 10:00am
Pride has turned into an almost surreal affair. Once an annual march to protest the unjust criminalisation of homosexuality, it has transformed into a month-long festival in which corporations can signal their support for gay rights now that it’s safe and profitable to do so. Police dance around in rainbow lanyards, and the “Progress Pride” flag flutters from the tops of schools, hospitals and civic buildings. Outside Forest Gate station in East London, the flags have even been painted onto the ground, giving commuters a daily opportunity to pay their respects to the new state religion.
Yet not everyone is happy about this. An unidentified vandal has painted over the flags at the station with red paint, and the Metropolitan Police is treating it as a “hate crime”. Naturally, officers are devoting all possible resources to bringing the perpetrator of this heinous act to justice, going from house to house in search of witnesses and undertaking forensic examinations of the crime scene. It’s not as though there’s a knife-crime epidemic which might require their attention or anything like that.
The investigation is being led by Detective Inspector James Rush, who has said that he stands “with the local LGBTQ+ community and will not tolerate these disgusting, inexcusable hate crimes in Forest Gate”. Is he aware that many gay people find the “Progress Pride” flag to be inherently homophobic? After all, it represents an ideology that seeks to eradicate the very concept of homosexuality and redefine it as “same-gender attraction”. It is the flag of those who believe that gender nonconforming youth, most of whom will grow up to be gay, ought to be medicalised and “fixed” to better conform to heterosexual paradigms. If Rush truly stands with gay people, he should be giving the vandal an award.
Perhaps the Metropolitan Police is taking its cue from the US, where last month three teenagers were arrested for creating scuff marks with their scooters on a Pride crosswalk in Washington state. They were charged with first-degree malicious mischief which, under the recently enhanced felony hate crime law, carries a potential sentence of 10 years in jail. Some might consider this an overreaction, but I suppose such delinquent behaviour must be curbed in case it escalates into something more severe. (Unlike defacing statues of the Founding Fathers, which is to be encouraged as a brave declaration of social justice.)
All flippancy aside, the defacing of the Pride flags in East London is still an act of vandalism and therefore illegal. But is it really a “hate crime”? It seems far more likely to be motivated by an irritation that money is being wasted on these pointless gestures in support of a community that already enjoys complete equal rights under the law — one of these crossings in Blackpool, also vandalised, cost £6,000 of taxpayers’ money. Yes, discrimination still exists in the UK, but this is unlikely to be rectified by painting the ground with these garish designs.
There are also practical concerns to the vogue for daubing these designs on the ground. Disability rights campaigners have repeatedly pointed out that the rainbow pedestrian crossings cause huge problems for the partially-sighted and their guide dogs. Police horses find the colours disorientating, and so in London they have been retrained to prevent them from recoiling in fright. Perhaps the vandal in Blackpool wasn’t a homophobe at all, but instead a militant hippophile who doesn’t like to see the horses spooked.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAndrew, you know full well that it’s a “hate crime” if it is perceived to be motivated by hatred, ill will, etc, by the victim or any other person. Objectivity doesn’t come into it.
How come the Palestinian demonstrators are not subjected to the same rules?
The authorities are scared of them.
Why do animal rights activists throw blood on mink coats but not on the leather jackets of Hell’s Angels?
You wonder what they’d do if the Hell’s Angels wore mink coats.
The mind boggles, but I am now imagining the movie version. Starring a younger Clint Eastwood.
I suspect Edward was being rather tongue-in-cheek.
Edward was stating the legal position. In practice the perception is only accepted if it is from a minority leftist perspective. Hate towards anybody that can be classified as right wing or even majoritarian is not regarded as a crime. So hate towards J K Rowling (typo edited) is OK because although she is a left wing figure she is espousing a majoritarian position regarding trans entering women’s spaces.
And who is “A J Rowling”
Typo edited although 34 at least clearly understood to whom the comment referred.
In other words, a thought crime, the sort of Orwellian thing I am assured is not happening.
Yes, it is criminal damage. But I don’t think anyone seriously believes “hate crime” extends beyond harm against another person. The only harm this action creates is the possibility of someone having their religion offended. And that is a harm one just has to suck up in a free society.
Have a read at the bible, quran, or hadiths. They incite their followers to kill, but that isn’t a hate crime
The New Testament doesn’t incite anyone to kill. On the contrary.
Is throwing orange paint/dust on cultural items or activities a hate crime towards those who enjoy such pursuits.
Exactly! It’s hateful to me so I demand the perpetrators be prosecuted accordingly.
Also notable are the trains striped in the rainbow colours.
There are high street banks who colour their logos rainbow.
One reason for retaining banknotes is that they could be rainbowed.
It’s a new blasphemy law.
All part of weaponizing the legal system against political enemies
He said Jehova! Stone him.
I was astounded by the terminology used by the police in this case.
They really need to get a grip of reality and their priorities right.
Wait a little, it will soon become a hate crime to claim you are straight
That’s why we have the alphabet soup after the LG B i.e. the TQ+ etc. There’s got to be a letter that will fit you if you look hard enough.
Anything but that!!! 🙂
Let’s use H for heterosexual, then the majority can be members of the alphabet soup too!
What about LGBTQWERTY? That should fit all
Here’s a question. Assuming that the original ‘artwork’ was created without the correct permission, then it is graffiti. How is painting over graffiti a crime?
It is odd, isn’t it?
It reminds of the trend of motorists and cyclists painting lewd graffiti around potholes as it seems to cause the council sufficient moral panic to fix them. Something potentially lethal to cyclists is okay, but graffiti breasts are beyond the pale.
I live in Forest Gate. There are two flags, one outside the station and the other on the opposite side of the road. Both were painted by the council. They have been over painted 3 times that I know of. The first time was with ‘Leave the kids alone’ the second time was a complete paint over in red paint and most recently with the word NO and a X. The only flag that should be painted is the Union Jack. Interestingly, the only election leaflet with a Union Jack I remember coming through my door in the past election was from the Labour candidate.
Were I a betting man, I’d put a nine-bob note on the perp being a gay of the old school.
Any number of things wrong with this . First it isnt a Pride Flag. It’s a Trans etc flag . Secondly it is illegal to discriminate a on grounds of sexual orientation. Third the flag is deeply offensive to many religions. So the Policeman is obliged to have regard to the sensibilities of those religions and also I suspect he needs to uphold both the rights of the flag painter and the flag coverer up.
Trans activists on the other hand are incapable of hatred. Nothing extreme or bigoted about them at all
I’m sure George had something to say about this sort of thing, something along the lines of “Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others”. I wonder what he might have been warning about ?
See longer post above
Is he aware that many gay people find the “Progress Pride” flag to be inherently homophobic?
No, of course, not. I’d say a fair segment of gays don’t see it that way, either, because they’re simply supporting ‘the current thing.’ Some lesbians are probably aware given the stories published about their reluctance to date ‘trans women,’ as if the definition of lesbian has magically changed.
It’s good to know that law enforcement is focused on the big issues. What was their stance when statues were toppled or artworks defaced by the climate cult? In both cases, the perpetrators were filmed in action; no real investigation required. Anyone arrested? Again, of course, not.
Is it a “hate crime” to deface the Union Jack? I genuinely don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t.
Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing until it offends those who must not be offended.
Please try defacing one at a Reform rally, and report back to us.
not a hate crime , just a simple stop the stupid advertising move…The pride flag is a joke since they added the stupid trans colors…what colors do the ? or people that thing they are dogs get??? The flag needs 3 colors L G B…kill the rest…you got a month and so did a real minority…can it with the flag stuff
A simple answer is to paraphrase the child observing the naked emperor and say it loud and clear : Transgenderism is a load of bo**ox. Hate, pride, distress, crime and many other words and the accompanying legislation would just disappear along with the half cocked phrase “gender identity”.
‘Police horses find the colours (of rainbow pedestrian crossings) disorientating, and so in London they have been retrained to prevent them from recoiling in fright’.
Whoever it was who said ‘I don’t care what anybody does, so long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses’ has never been more on the nail.
Pride is evidently becoming a cult, since any criticism of any aspect of it is now treated as blasphemy.
Brilliant article. Vandalism is an interesting term, because it implies that something is defaced or broken. Whereas a piece of ground, that presumably gets walked on, can take another layer of paint. Noone was harmed, nothing damaged,
Why paint a gross flag on such attractive brick paving in the first place.
If it was a St George flag, I wonder if the fuzz would consider it a hate crime against the English?
Thank you. There is no “LGBTQ+ community.” But there are a lot of lesbians and gays sick to death of being publicly, forcibly teamed with misogynistic, homophobic gender ideology.
Good for the painter. I have a strong urge to tear down this hideous authoritarian display of flags that infest our thoroughfares like a Nuremberg rally.
Agreed! Our growing obsession with the display & advertising of our appetites and preferences seems increasingly perverse. It reminds me of the Jennifer Anniston character in ‘Office Space’ who’s required to wear 37 pieces of ‘flair’ (much to her disgust). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChQK8j6so8
So yes, I suppose we all should do likewise. We can see by our outfits, then, that we are all cowboys….or conservative, duck-shooting plumbers….or Elementary School Teachers who are trans-allies and like yoga… or Librarians who have climbed Everest, who are grandmas of redheaded grandkids who live in Montana. The combination of flags & flair pins & group uniforms & patches is infinite!!!
I can hardly wait!
”We” write angry posts in Unherd. ”They” rule the streets.
As a gay man, I would just point out that as far as I am aware the rainbow flag and likewise the term LGBT did not come into existence until well into the 80s, therefore more than a decade after homosexuality was decriminalised. During the 70s I did attend the comparatively dowdy annual Pride marches of those days. Once they morphed into LGBT marches with all the associated glitter and gross commercialization I stopped going and wouldnt be seen dead at one nowadays – particularly the recent mind-blowing spectacle of “Queers for Palestine” at the recent neo-nazi pro-Hamas demos!
Can we prosecute the Councils for defacing public property in the first place – daubing our lovely bland but practical cobbles with offensive insignia.
Let us create a series of scenarios. In each we begin with a premeditation as a prelude to the act. Here are subsequent acts:
I shoot you because I know you and I hate you, personally.
I shoot you because I know you and you annoy me.
I shoot you and I don’t know you at all but you happen to be convenient.
I shoot you and you’re a member of a group but I shoot you just because.
I shoot you, and you’re a member of a ‘group’, and I hate that group.
If you’re the ‘YOU’ in each of these situations….which situation do you prefer? Which is worse, to you…or to your family?
Is there any actual difference, whatsoever?
In all cases you’ve been shot; in all cases you’re deceased. Why does hate, its presence, its absence, its focus on the individual, or its focus on the group make a difference?
In all cases, if I were the ‘you’ being hypothesized… I simply and very consistently wouldn’t want to be shot…and I wouldn’t care at all whatever the motive of the shooter might be. I’m indifferent as to motive.
Isn’t everyone?
And yet we spend ungodly amounts of time and money trying to define and diagnose and investigate and chase and prove HATE, as though being killed ‘hatefully’ is somehow worse than being killed ‘indifferently’.
I would suggest it is not.
Is vandalism any different?
Is theft any different?
Is fraud any different?
It is the criminal act itself which is wrong and requires punishment, not the state of mind of the criminal who commits the crime.
I think you mean “motive”, not “state of mind”. Generally, criminal liability does require both a “bad act” (actus reus) and a “guilty mind” (mens reus).
That’s an interesting question.
Actually no, though your point’s a good one. Certainly criminal liability requires, as you say, ‘mens rea’….but I believe (and could easily be wrong) that that speaks to ‘intent’ or a ‘criminal state of mind’. Personally I would distinguish between motive & ‘criminal state of mind’, but I suspect a lawyer would not.
Besides, motive…what actually moves us to commit any given act…seems always a cloudy/obscure kind of thing, as in: ‘Why’d you eat the last cookie?’ Well, I like cookies; I especially like chocolate chip cookies; I was hungry but not all that hungry; I saw it; it was available; I figured it would taste good and I would enjoy it; no one would see me take it; I didn’t have one for dessert last night; I just saw a commercial for cookies. What’s my motive? Truthfully they were all intermingled. Any one of which would not have triggered the cookie-eating…but together, absolutely they did.
My state of mind contained all those pieces & parts.
But my motive??? Even I’m not sure, and I ate the cookie.
If there is hate speech at all, then there will be crimes against symbols that will be construed as hate speech.
The picture shows the Trans Flag, not something called the Pride Flag. Perhaps the vandal is concerned about trans activism more than anything to do with gay rights
As a gay man you’d have to drag my ro**ing co*pse over one of these things. patronising. Condescending. Stupid virtue signalling of the upmost degree
The extreme reaction of Forest Gate police is truly sickening.
The Met has routinely stood by and witnessed serious criminal damage by assorted eco loons. Let’s hope their useless incompetence means the brave perpetrator will go undetected.