A hate crime on Arran? No, just a sign of where we are now
The fact that my views have changed was underlined at the weekend when I heard that the police on Arran are investigating an incident with this year's Pride flags. The flags were on the main street in Brodick, as they were in 2023, but they were taken down some time overnight before the main Pride event on Saturday. There were reports on social media that some of the flags were later found dumped on the beach.
The Pride event itself was not affected and went ahead as planned, but Police Scotland announced they were investigating what happened. 'Between 2am and 7am on Saturday, 31 May, flags and banners for the island's LGBTQ parade were pulled down,' they said. 'This is being investigated as a hate crime.'
There are a few things that should worry us about that statement. First of all, the police should have said they were investigating a possible hate crime as they can't be sure who took the flags down and why. Secondly, it looks like the police still haven't realised that the idea of a hate crime defined and enforced by government is highly contested, thanks in part to the debacle of the SNP's law on the subject. And thirdly, even though we cannot know for sure what the motivation was, there's an implication in the statement that anyone who'd remove an LGBTQ Pride flag must be motivated by hate rather than just opposition to what the flag represents. All of this need to be challenged.
Read more
The best building in Glasgow, and what we can learn from its tragedy
I walked Glasgow streets with a 'heritage detective' and found clues to city's future
The Argyle Street Gap – what does it say about Glasgow?
One man who has challenged the concepts behind Pride and hate crime is the writer and broadcaster Andrew Doyle, who has a rather good new book out, The End of Woke. Andrew admits there will be some who object to the word 'woke' and/or deny it exists, but his working definition – a cultural revolution that seeks equity according to group identity by authoritarian means – is supported by 550 pages of evidence on the beliefs that form the core of 'woke' and the individuals whose careers have been damaged or ended because they do not subscribe to them. He also outlines his evidence that the end is coming, including the Supreme Court ruling on the word woman, the ban on puberty blockers, and leftist politicians, including the beloved AOC, quietly removing pronouns from their social media profiles. I hope he's right.
The critique Andrew offers of modern LGBTQ Pride and the concept of hate crime in the book is particularly applicable to the Arran situation. As Andrew points out, many conservatives have always opposed same-sex relations on moral or religious grounds, and it may be that the person or persons who took the flags down in Brodick were just old-school conservatives who don't much like the gays. Such people haven't gone away just because the Pride flag is ubiquitous.
However, it's equally possible that the flags on Arran were removed by someone who supports gay equality but objects to the particular beliefs with which the modern flag has become associated: gender-affirming care for example, or trans self-ID; as Andrew says in his book, this group of people includes many gay people. Andrew also points out that by flying the Progress Pride flag as it's known, corporations and government bodies are taking a side in a highly contentious cultural debate that alienates as many gay people as it attracts.
A Pride flag in Brodick (Image: Newsquest)
The point about Arran is that the response of the police – the portentous announcement that the removal of the flags is being investigated as a hate crime – indicates they do not understand, or are even aware of, the case Andrew is making. The Pride flag is contentious and someone disliking it, or even removing it as they did on Arran, may be driven not by hate but by opposition to what the flag represents. The police are perfectly free to pursue the person for theft or damage, but by using the term hate crime, they are suggesting that objecting to, or removing, or damaging the flag is more than that: it's hateful. They have taken a side.
Andrew Doyle's case is that the wider points in the debate are also poorly understood. In a free society, he says, we are entitled to think and feel as we see fit and so long as that does not interfere with the liberties of others, it includes the right to hate. He also points out that the European Court of Human Rights has admitted there's no universally accepted definition of the expression hate speech and as we saw with the SNP's attempt at a hate law, the lack of clarity renders the law useless or dangerous or both. We do not know the motivation of the person or persons who removed the flags on Arran. But no evidence of hatred is required for it to be seen or recorded as such, and a legal system that requires no evidence is a legal system we should be worried about.
I suspect the police investigation on Arran will come to nothing in the end, as so much of the furore around hate crime does. But I also fear we'll take the wrong messages from the fact that someone took the flags down. Some people, including the police it would seem, will believe it's evidence of hatred for LGBTQ people, but it's much more likely to be evidence of how divisive and contentious the debate over the T in LGBTQ has become, including for many gay people. So the question in the end is: was it a hate crime we saw on Arran at the weekend? No: just a sign of where we are now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court clears way for deportation of migrants to South Sudan
The supreme court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The decision comes after the court's conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision. The majority wrote that their decision on 23 June completely halted Murphy's ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight 'unenforceable'. The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket. Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. 'Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the supreme court on speed dial,' Sotomayor wrote. Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face 'imprisonment, torture and even death' if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. 'We know they'll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,' Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy's finding 'a lawless act of defiance.' The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the US. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic president Joe Biden, did not prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
July 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called "third countries" where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The court said that Murphy should now "cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order." Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, criticizing the court's actions. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the majority on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote in a brief opinion. Murphy's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-U.S. citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order "remains in full force and effect." Calling that ruling by the judge a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. Murphy's ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its "lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan," and disrupted diplomatic relations. Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Sotomayor in a dissent called the court's June 23 decision pausing Murphy's injunction a "gross abuse" of its power that now exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death." After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures." Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The Justice Department noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture." The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court paves the way for Trump to send migrants to South Sudan
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that a recent decision does not prevent President Donald Trump from trying to send eight convicted criminals to South Sudan, a move that had been blocked by a federal judge who accused the administration of defying his instructions. In an order, the court clarified its decision from June 23 that made it easier for the U.S. to deport migrants to "third countries" to which they have no previous connection. The Supreme Court said in the unsigned order that its earlier ruling applied to the eight men, who are being held in a U.S. facility in Djibouti. Two of the court's liberal members, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "What the government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death," Sotomayor wrote. The Justice Department had asked the court to clarify its decision, accusing Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of being in "unprecedented defiance" of the justices. Murphy had previously blocked the South Sudan deportations because he deemed them to be in violation of an earlier ruling he made. That ruling said the government must give migrants a 'meaningful opportunity' to bring claims that they would be at risk of torture, persecution or death if they were sent to countries the administration has made deals with to receive immigrants who cannot be sent elsewhere. The Supreme Court in June blocked Murphy's broad nationwide order, but both Murphy and lawyers representing the plaintiffs said the decision did not apply to the ongoing litigation over whether the eight men in Djibouti needed to have an opportunity to raise specific concerns about being sent to South Sudan. The men are from various countries, including Myanmar and Vietnam, and were all convicted of serious crimes in the United States. They were detained in Djibouti after Murphy ruled that the administration had defied his nationwide order by putting them on a flight bound for South Sudan. Some have had a "reasonable fear" of interviews with immigration officials as required by Murphy's order, but no adjudications have been made, their lawyers say. In its most recent filing at the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said it had received assurances from South Sudan that the men "will not be subject to torture" under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Murphy, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, has come under heavy fire from MAGA world as a result of his rulings in the case. The Supreme Court's original decision merely said that Murphy's nationwide ruling was blocked, but did not explain its reasoning or how exactly it should be applied. The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Sotomayor saying that Murphy's decision requiring due process for the eight men in Djibouti was not implicated. The majority did not dispute that.
