If patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel to Dr Johnson, I wonder where on the scale of such refuges the great man would have placed the opposite passion.
At a guess, utter contempt for one’s own country would have appeared somewhere near the top. And Dr Johnson would have turned crimson with rage observing such feelings being expressed by supposedly loyal public servants.
As he conveniently died in 1784, the compiler of our first dictionary will be spared the sight of such infamy. We aren’t so lucky.
For the senior officials of Scotland Yard have banned the Met’s officers from wearing a Union Jack sleeve badge in tribute to their fallen comrade, PC David Phillips.
The reasons cited for the ban are two-fold: first, the sight of our national flag may cause “offence” to “some communities”; second, “the badge may be seen as some sort of political statement.”
Indeed, one could argue that any display of a national flag is a political statement. So is the national anthem. So is any document issued by a state, including a passport.
However, unless we object to England footballers belting out God Save the Queen before playing Lithuania last night, or to travelling with a document issued by Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State, we must agree that not all political statements are ipso facto objectionable.
The British flag symbolises the unionist nature of our commonwealth, which seems to be straightforward – when used in a straightforward way. It can of course be used offensively, for example if English fans at the Lithuania match had started singing “There ain’t no black in the Union Jack” every time a black player touched the ball.
However, the ban issued by Scotland Yard bosses suggests that they consider any display of our flag to be offensive, if only to “some communities”.
Which communities would they be? The Welsh, whose symbol isn’t represented in the pattern? The Scots, who wish theirs weren’t, referendum or no referendum? The Muslims? The Germans or the French?
As to foreigners of any nationality, one struggles to see how this is any of their business, and actually they know it isn’t.
The French used to have difficulties with the sight of the British flag flapping over the heads of those about to kill them, but not since 1815. The Germans have more recent memories, but not since 1945. And even if for some unfathomable reason they, or any other foreigners, were unhappy seeing our flag, why should we care?
That leaves British subjects representing “some communities”, where the sight of the Union Jack supposedly causes offence.
This calls for two comments. First, if any such communities of British subjects indeed exist, they’ve effectively renounced allegiance to Her Britannic Majesty and therefore are no longer entitled to the protection by her government.
In other words, they’ve forfeited their Britishness and should be summarily deported to any country whose national symbols they find more agreeable.
Second, I don’t believe such “communities” exist. Not all ethnic and religious groups of British subjects are equally patriotic, but I doubt that any group out there would be offended by the Union Jack en masse, even if they have mixed feelings about what the flag represents.
Nor do I believe that homosexuals en masse support homomarriage or that women and working classes en masse see themselves as oppressed minorities. What I do believe exists is a certain mindset going by the name of political correctness.
This is deliberately cultivated by our ruling elite because they know that power in Britain doesn’t come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from controlling the use of language, something I call glossocracy.
Our glossocrats have a vested interest in destroying social cohesion, turning various groups against one another, for a united society would certainly be united in its revulsion at the spivs who govern it.
Hence, rather than trying to allay petty grievances, our glossocrats encourage them. And if no grievances exist, they create them.
The Union Jack is one of the few factors in our life that still have a unifying value. That’s why our glossocrats must communicate to all the usual suspects that they ought to be offended by the sight – even if they harboured no such feelings yesterday.
I for one find an excessive and loud worship of national symbols, as practised in some countries, to be idolatrous and, even worse, in poor taste. But who in his right mind would regard policemen displaying a discreet sleeve badge as loud and excessive? Especially when they mourn their comrade killed in the line of duty, protecting the public from wrong-doers?
Nobody. Except the scoundrels loyal not to our country but only to themselves.
P.S. I first used the term ‘glossocracy’ in my book How the West Was Lost. Its second, paperback, edition, is now available for pre-order on Amazon UK.