Why we decided not to fly the rainbow flag
IT WAS hugely disappointing to read (Opinion column, Monday 12 September) that the decision by my colleagues on the Committee for Home Affairs and me to decline the request to fly the rainbow banner from the States prison, police headquarters and fire station last Saturday has been dismissed as both mean-spirited and a mistake. It was neither. When the committee was asked for a decision – and we may well have been the sole committee whose members were even aware there was a decision to make – the easiest thing to do would have been unthinkingly to jump on a seemingly popular bandwagon and give our consent.
To have done so would have been foolish. Instead, the members did the intelligent thing; they gave the matter careful thought before concluding that they would not set a precedent that could only lead to difficulties down the line as other pressure groups, charities and movements requested their government to show that it identified just as strongly with their causes, too. Such a precedent would have seen the committee having to make a succession of subjective judgements about the relative merits of this or that cause to have its banner flown on property for which the committee acts as stewards on behalf of the entire community. When politicians are tempted to exercise their authority according to their personal tastes and preferences, the democratic alarm bells ought to ring, loudly.
In my opinion the decision – by whom I do not know – to give blanket approval to fly the rainbow banner from government buildings was of questionable wisdom, albeit the motive for doing so was good. It has given a clear signal to all causes, some more controversial than others, to demand equal treatment. Politicians are now likely to find themselves having to respond to similar requests to fly this or that banner at Sir Charles Frossard House and any causes which have their request refused will henceforth be entitled to ask that their refusal be explained. And that, of course, leads us to the pathetic scene of politicians having to explain their personal approval of this cause but their disapproval of another and to pronounce their subjective judgement as to whether a particular march is a deserving demonstration, protest or celebration.
It is regrettable that the decision by the Committee for Home Affairs has been misinterpreted – by some misguidedly, by others wilfully and predictably. Let me make it clear, my colleagues and I were not opposed to the rainbow march in St Peter Port. Far from it. A less mean-spirited team than my colleagues could not be found anywhere among States members, and, as far as I am concerned, my decision would have been the same had the request come from the League for Motherhood and Apple Pie. There is in this episode a sad irony which I hope is not lost on the writer of last Monday's Opinion column: the prejudice and lazy type-casting which lie behind the rush to see only the worst of motives behind the committee's decision to act in a non-discriminatory way are part and parcel of the very same pious, judgemental culture against which the rainbow movement itself rightly campaigns.
As members of a government committee, my Home Affairs colleagues and I simply met our responsibility to take the sensible decision to treat all causes equally and we will continue to do so. In our case, we will be consistent and non-discriminatory by declining all such requests. If the Policy & Resources Committee intends to be equally consistent and impartial in the future by granting requests from all causes, then watch out for some interesting banners being flown on high in the Charroterie. In the meantime, those expecting the Committee for Home Affairs to take only those decisions that are popular and uncontroversial are likely to be disappointed.
DEPUTY RICHARD GRAHAM,
Vice-President,
Committee for Home Affairs,
Veue du Guet, Rue de la Lande,
Castel, GY5 7EH.
