Oxfordshire County Council stamped down hard on Raise the Colours’ flag-flying operations this week. Having complained that flags on lamp-posts and painted on roads were a safety hazard and a source of intimidation, on Tuesday the Lib Dem-controlled body sought – and got – an interim High Court injunction against any flagging of street furniture or roads anywhere in the county. From now on, any Raise the Colours enthusiast who affixes a flag to a lamp-post, or for that matter anyone else who knowingly disobeys the order, will be in contempt of court – and could end up in prison.
It’s hard to see how a St George’s flag raised on a lamppost endangers anyone
There’s a lot that is deeply unattractive in this summary suppression of an unofficial and entirely spontaneous popular initiative with a good deal of local support. It happened at the behest of a combination of humourless officialdom and an uncomprehending establishment whose chief concerns seem to have been embarrassment at the sight of their own national flags – and the fact that no official authorisation had been obtained.
Occasional serried lines of Union Jacks and St George’s flags added a good deal of jollity to parts of an otherwise pretty dreary county; their removal will merely draw drivers’ attention back to the industrial parks, housing estates and regiments of pylons that make up a large portion of it.
Nor, one suspects, were Raise the Colours doing serious harm to anybody. It’s hard to see how a St George’s flag raised high on a street lighting post appreciably endangers anyone, save in the mindset of a bureaucrat used to being able to use the s-word to shut down any disagreement. There are plenty of places where things are unofficially affixed to street furniture with no apparent problems, and yet no-one seems to scream immediate demands to remove them as a hazard to the public.
One should also be sceptical about claims of intimidation and the like. Such claims come, one suspect, from a combination of uncomprehending respondents’ answers to loaded questions and the demands of middle-class activists determined to promote their perception of what is good for those unable to look after themselves. Both call for a cellarful of salt. Again, it’s all very well to talk of people being “intimidated.” But you can’t be intimidated tout court: you must be frightened of something. Just what are people allegedly fearful of here?
Added to all this is the sheer sanctimoniousness of the leader of the council that started the exercise. Flying flags, he said, was objectionable because it “puts people at risk or intimidates residents in their own communities.”
Having just boasted that the Council proudly flew both the St George’s and the union flags at County Hall, he didn’t explain why this official exercise in flag-wagging wasn’t equally intimidating. No doubt there’s some Lib Dem logic struggling to get out here.
Having said that, we should think twice before arguing that the court shouldn’t have granted the order once the council sought it. Even if (as seems pretty clear) the motivation of the council in going after Raise the Colours was an intense contempt for them and what they stood for, the basis of its legal claim was impeccable. It was, after all, protecting its property. It may have been acting unreasonably and dictatorially, but that is an owner’s prerogative, and the council had every right to have the court uphold it.
No doubt there’s some Lib Dem logic struggling to get out here
Nor, even for serious libertarians, is there much of a free speech argument here. By all means champion people’s right to say what they please, and fly what flags they please on land or fixtures they own, without worrying too much about what whether someone somewhere may feel offended. But free speech stops precisely at the point where others’ property starts. Go an inch further, and as much as you may like Raise the Colours you are in danger of giving aid and comfort to bodies like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil.
This matters. In future the boot may be on the other foot. Imagine a Reform-controlled council faced with anti-Israel activists intransigently festooning its street furniture with Palestinian or Iranian flags despite all objections. We should be relieved that as a result of Mr Justice Dias’s judgment in the Oxfordshire case the council will be able in short order to get the courts to put a stop to it.
Where does this leave you if you’re an Oxfordshire Raise the Flags supporter rightly angry with the council for not letting sleeping dogs lie (and your flags fly)? The answer is simple: come next election, vote for someone else. This is precisely the kind of matter best suited for local democracy.
The Lib Dems used to boast that their strength lay in their ability to harness public opinion at the local level. Next time there’s a council election in Oxfordshire, it might be time to put that to a serious test.
Comments