The Encyclopedia Brittanica notes in its column on flags that they “originally were used mainly in warfare, and to some extent they have remained insignia of leadership, serving for the identification of friend or foe and as rallying points. They are now also extensively employed for signaling, for decoration, and for display.” That description effectively explains why the “Pride” flag has become such a flashpoint in the culture wars – and why LGBT activists apply such value to it.
The rainbow flag – since replaced by the even uglier “Progress flag” – was designed by Gilbert Baker, a gay rights activist, at the request of Harvey Milk, a San Francisco politician and LGBT icon. It was unveiled in June of 1978, and now flies on government, corporate, and military institutions around the world, a symbol of the LGBT movement’s rise from rabble-rousing activism to total cultural dominance. To object to the “Pride flag” is to question this dominance – and to provoke an instant and vicious response from those who rally around it.
As I noted in my essay on the ongoing targeting of a single church in a small town in Ontario over the local council’s decision to fly only civic flags from civic flagpoles, LGBT activists are, with the assistance of the press, engaging in a game of gaslighting. They hang Pride flags from every pole, and then call those who have the audacity to notice this sudden profusion of LGBT symbolism bigots. “How dare you notice the ideological flags we have hung all over your town and your government buildings and the school your child attends! Shut up and show you’re an ally – or the CBC will write an article about the ‘backlash!’”
When people object to this, the enforcers of tolerance emerge with a vengeance – nobody is permitted to question the regime. If you object to a flag that has never been flown before in your town being put up in front of your business, you will be told that to object to the flag is to make the area “unsafe” and that young people are likely to commit suicide as a result. Councillor Rhonda Jebenville in the Ontario municipality of Chatham-Kent put a motion forward in April which has since failed. Jubenville received a flood of hate, including two death threats, from LGBT supporters.
“I’ve been called words that I had to look up,” Jubenville noted. She even had “a witch’s spell cast on me, all because I feel our three governmental flags are what is needed outside municipal centres. Why would I now, as a councillor, feel compelled to support some of these groups that wish me death and hate over a flag? This should concern all of council.” The mainstream media ignored the story, because it doesn’t fit their narrative – those who oppose the flags are the aggressors; those who support them are the victims.
