I have given this BBC story the “Health & Medical” tag due to its description of traumatic events:
‘Trauma’ as Pride flags vandalised for fifth time
Pride flags vandalised for the fifth time in north-east London have left residents “traumatised”, a local LGBTQ+ organisation says.
The flags, which are on the pavement near Forest Gate railway station, were covered with white paint on Monday.
They were also vandalised on 9 March, as well as on 23 and 26 June and 19 July.
Rob DesRoches, founder of Forest Gayte Pride, external, said the organisation would work with Newham Council to repair or replace the flags, adding: “We feel that people have been traumatised by the repeated vandalism, which needs to be sorted out now. The healing process needs to take place.”
The Metropolitan Police previously said it was treating the vandalism as a homophobic and transphobic hate crime.
I send my good wishes for the progress of this deeply necessary “healing process” to the traumatised people of Forest Gate, especially to the approximately 25% of them who are Muslim. Despite my view that we would all be better off if there were no such thing as public property, I do not approve of individuals taking it upon themselves to inflict criminal damage on public property. But the line taken by the left since the toppling of the statue of Edward Colston is that it is fine to destroy street furniture of which you disapprove. So – anyone taking odds on how long it lasts till next time?
Our rulers do this with words as well – following the Marxist Herbert “Repressive Tolerance” Marcuse, our rulers (unelected and, now, elected as well) declare that words “harm” or “traumatise” homosexuals and other “marginalised” and “oppressed” groups.” By saying that the expression of “reactionary” opinions “harm” certain groups, our rulers, following Herbert Marcuse, take advantage of the loose wording of J.S. Mill in “On Liberty” (1859) that it is acceptable for the state to take action against people if what they do “harms” other people – Mr Mill did not mean to justify censorship (and Herbert Marcuse knew that very well) – but the loose wording “harm” was an open goal and the “Woke” Marxists see the opportunity and have taken it.
But why does this is not apply to the statements of Muslims against homosexual acts? The position of Islamic law on homosexual acts is fairly clear “kill the one who does it, and kill the one to whom it is done” (would anyone like to challenge the reliability of this hadith? if so there is plenty of other evidence of the Islamic position of the death penalty for homosexual acts), but the “Woke”, who are so “traumatised” by people pulling down “Pride” flags seem to have no problem at all with this Islamic position – indeed one sees “Pride” flags right next to Islamic flags in the “Gaza protests” that are in so many Western cities.
It appears that the “Woke” position is that it is an outrage to pull down “Pride” flags”, or paint over “Pride” flags on the roads – but, for some bizarre reason, perfectly fine to execute people for homosexual acts under Islamic law. As so often, it is very hard to understand the “Woke” Marxist position.
The only answer would appear to be that they, the “Woke” Marxists, do not care at all – do not care about homosexuals, and do not care about Muslims. That they are just USING these (and other) groups in their war to destroy what is left of Western society.
But, perhaps, ordinary people seeing these Pride flags were ‘traumatised’ first?
If only there was some rational political party or organisation willing to politely defend the ‘ordinary’ with as much fervour as those defending minorities. To achieve reconciliation. Or Free Speech.
The Alphabet Brigade wanted tolerance, as in we tolerate their existence and don’t have the cops just beat them and toss them in jail for their extra-curricular activates. Then it became acceptance, as in we accept they exist and are a part of the world and not just behind closed doors where they pursuit a love that we dare not mention. Then it became mainstreaming, as in they are open and out and about in the world and not just punchlines on tv and joked about. Now it’s celebrating them, as in we must celebrate their sexual identities and proclivities and marvel at how stunning and brave they are for being so open and free and on display and in our faces all the time and no one is allowed to say a word to the contrary.
Frankly, we never should have even started by giving them tolerance because that very slippery slope we were warned about has turned out to be true.
It’s horrific. It breaks all the rules of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.
Still no answer as to why it is an outrage to pull down “Pride” flags or paint over them on roads, but NOT an outrage for homosexuals to be executed under Islamic law.
Still no answer as to why it is an outrage to pull down “Pride” flags or paint over them on roads, but NOT an outrage for homosexuals to be executed under Islamic law.
Steven R writes, “Frankly, we never should have even started by giving them tolerance because that very slippery slope we were warned about has turned out to be true.”
Please do not include me in your “we”. I have written many times about how when the state is over-mighty, the question of which groups are tolerated is merely a matter of which clique is in power right now. There are other options beside seeking to swap oppressors and oppressees in the hope of getting a combination which happens to match your likes and dislikes.
American “justice” is no better than British “justice” – England where Sky News journalists openly gloat about what will happen to “far right protestors” when Islamic prison gangs get hold of them. That the “far right” people will be found guilty is just assumed, so why bother with trials at all?, and it is considered fine, indeed praiseworthy, for these “far right” people to be abused in prison by gangs.
People in the United States found guilty of “murder” (on the basis of distorting camera angles) and repeatedly stabbed in prison when no murder has taken place – Mr George Floyd died of the drugs he willing consumed.
People found guilty of the “crime” of reposting a meme they did not even invent (the “vote by text” joke was one of the few joke memes invented by the left) – a man was taken to New York City (hundreds of miles from where he lived) because a New York jury (like a Washington D.C. jury) can be relied upon to find a conservative “guilty” regardless of how absurd the charge is, and with total disregard for evidence and argument – the education system and media have served their function of producing corrupt populations – at least in many of the major cities.
There is also, in both the American and the English and Welsh systems of “justice”, the practice of “making a deal” – being told “the jury are bound to find you guilty of something as we have charged you with so many “crimes” and the process is rigged – but if you confess we will give you a reduced punishment”.
It is still possible to “beat the system” a tiny percentage of people do so – for example Stephen Chamberlain and Mike Lynch were found innocent of all 15 charges by a Federal court (with a San Francisco jury) an almost unheard of event (as K. Harris would know very well).
However, both Mr Chamberlain and Mr Lynch are now dead – freak accidents on just about the same day, in different parts of the world.
The international Corporate State is not known for being magnanimous on these rare occasions when it loses. Although, of course, I am certainly NOT alleging anything.
I am puzzled by how a painting on a pavement becomes a “flag”?
As to the treatment of gays, there should be no treatment. Gays exist, their private lives are just that. There should be no laws against gays, but there should be no forced celebration in the public space of their private sexual preferences. I expect this is what has caused an exasperated person to “desecrate the gay flag”, or, if you prefer, paint over an unwelcome road marking.
But the decision to paint a Pride flag on the pavement was not made by the public.
It might well be the case that a majority of the public approves of it; but, evidently, a minority strongly disapproves of it.
So the question is: what other way do they have to be heard? And that is not supposed to be rhetorical.
BTW the only thing that i can infer from the picture of the suspect is that he is a clever man; or possibly a clever woman.
I’m going to take a slight tangent here. I recently watched the movie “The Zone of Interest”. It was about the -rivate life of Rudolf Höss. It was on Amazon or Netflix or similar. Not a good film and nowheere near as clever as it thinks it is.
Anyway. Höss was commandant of Auschwitz. A very evil man. The movie had a disclaimer at the start about what viewers might find objectionable. Genocide, gas-chambers, arbitary cruelty? Nope. It said it contained scenes of “alcohol and tobacco use”. My flabber was gasted. And note actually much “alcohol and tobacco use” at that. Basically in a couple of scenes Höss enjoys a cigar and a small glass of schnapps after dinner.
If that had been the limit of the “sins” of the NAZIs then Central Europe in the ’30s and ’40s would have been a much happier place…
It might well be the case that a majority of the public approves of it; but, evidently, a minority strongly disapproves of it.
Even before considering the “25% and growing” local Muslim population you have got majority and minority the wrong way round. This is Forest Green we’re talking about, not Brighton.
Snorri – officially these decisions about flags are often taken by locally elected council leaders, and these people are so scared of being called “racists” (the black line on the Pride Flag is about black people) or “homophobes” (not just “being called” – if someone is an ist or phobe there are often punishments) that they agree to anything. A secret ballot of local people would give a very different result.
John – a painting or drawing of a flag is indeed sometimes referred to as a flag. Hence, for example, the “flags” that many people have on their Twitter (now X) profiles.
In general the mask of “liberalism” is coming off now – as, for example, Sky News journalists gloat about people whose political opinions they oppose, being abused in prison by gangs.
The establishment are not liberal – unless the word “liberal” has been turned round 180 degrees.
My favourite British politician is John Bright and my favourite American politician is Roscoe Conkling (both sadly long dead) – these men were liberals, the present British and American establishment is not liberal.
The international establishment is totalitarian and vicious – not liberal.
“Every man thinks that what things were like when they were young, is how things should be”
Perhaps. And when I was young Britain and the United States were not really free market capitalist societies (I freely admit that) – but they made a decent effort at behaving “as if” they were free societies, in spite of the vast level of government spending and taxation and the Credit Money and the Credit Bubble banking and-all-the-rest-of-it.
I will go to my death believing that people such as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan, CIA Director William Casey, Pope John Paul II (and so on) were, basically, “the good side” – that they really did stand for a society (for principles) that were worth defending.
As for our present rulers – they represent nothing but decay.
And before idiots pop up – no Mr Putin and Chairman Xi do NOT represent a good alternative.
“Still no answer as to why it is an outrage to pull down ‘Pride’ flags or paint over them on roads, but NOT an outrage for homosexuals to be executed under Islamic law.“
The Western left operates on the principle of a totem pole of victim groups, with the most oppressed group at the top and the least oppressed group at the bottom. The Muslims are at the top of the pole by being the most oppressed group in the eyes of the left, stemming from the Crusades and Islam’s thousand-year war against Christianity.
The rule is that a victim group can do anything it wants to a group lower on the pole, including rape, robbery, and murder — even genocide. In the question of “Who did what to whom?”, the “what” literally does not matter. Whether the “what” is speech, official action, or violence, it doesn’t matter. Only the “who” and the “whom” matter. In conversations among the left you will even hear them asking each other “who/whom?” to remind themselves to ignore the “what.”
So a Muslim beheading a gay man is OK, but that man objecting to being beheaded is not. Which is how you get a German police officer throwing the *victim* of a stabbing to the ground and arresting him instead of the stabber.
I hope this helps.
This is just the BBC regurgitating a pressure group’s claims again, without any attempt to do any actual journalism and maybe go and ask a few people on the street if they really are ‘traumatised’.
Perhaps because they’ve got a good idea of the response they’d get.