If you’ve driven through Temple Fortune in northwest London recently you’ll have noticed (as in many other places) a rather uplifting sight. Flying from many of the kerbside lampposts are Union Flags.
If you are – forgive my repetition of that awful word – ‘othered’ and made to feel unwelcome by the national flag, perhaps you are the one with the problem
I’m not the only person who thinks they make a wonderful addition to the neighbourhood. When I’ve spoken to local friends, one of the first things they’ve mentioned has been the flags – and how refreshing it is to see a bit of pride in our country that we can all get behind. It is ridiculous that the flag of St George has, in some quarters, come to be seen as nationalist and divisive. But the Union Jack has never been anything other than a symbol of unity – of our four nations and all of us who live here.
You’ve doubtless guessed the turn this piece is about to take. Last week, the local MP, Sarah Sackman – a minister of state in the Ministry of Justice – shared her thoughts on the flags. Sackman is not one of those knee jerk lefties who despises her country. She’s a moderate within the Labour party and has always struck me as relatively sensible.
It seems I was wrong. In a piece for her local newspaper, Sackman wrote that while the flags were permissible during the World Cup, they are fundamentally ‘a source of division and intimidation… unsettling, intimidating and othering.’ This is not the flag of St George she is talking about – this is the Union Jack, our national flag. Sackman writes that, ‘In a community as diverse and inclusive as ours no member of this community should be made to feel unwelcome.’
Well, no. If you are – forgive my repetition of that awful word – ‘othered’ and made to feel unwelcome by the national flag, perhaps you are the one with the problem. And perhaps that problem is a microcosm of the wider issue of British citizens and residents who feel no pride or even loyalty to their country.
Sackman writes – correctly – that the flags are unauthorised: ‘People are entitled to fly whatever flags they wish on their own property, but our public places must belong to all.’ Certainly, a free-for-all which allows anyone to hoist anything they choose is in no one’s interest. But that’s not her real argument, which is that there is something alienating about the Union Jack in particular.
That becomes clear when you consider another development in Golders Green, also in her constituency. One main road has been festooned for weeks with a display of Iranian (and some Israeli) flags, calling for a free Iran. It is no more authorised than the Union Jacks, but I can find no trace of Sackman demanding they be taken down. There are certainly people who will be ‘othered’ by these flags – the Iranian regime’s supporters, for one. But Sackman presumably supports the free-Iran protesters, so her objection to unauthorised flags suddenly vanishes.
If her real objection is indeed to the hoisting of unauthorised flags, the best response to the Union Jackson our streets would be to suggest that the council authorises them, and joins in the display of pride in our nation, rather than the shame Sackman seems to feel when the flag is displayed outside of football tournaments.
Comments