Council under fire for hoisting Intersex Progress flag at Guildhall

The flying of the Intersex Progress flag above the Guildhall is dividing opinion, with one objector saying it “risks damaging the reputation of Bath”.

So far there have been 17 objections and 15 comments of support following Bath & North East Somerset Council’s retrospective planning application to fly the flag.

The council has flown the Rainbow flag – commonly known as the Pride flag – for many years to commemorate events such as LGBT+ History Month in February and Pride Month in June as a visible demonstration of inclusivity and support for LGBTQ+ communities.

The application seeking advertisement consent says that in recent years, many civic bodies and organisations have adopted the Progress Pride flag.

Designed in 2018, the updated flag incorporates the original Rainbow flag and adds a chevron of black, brown, light blue, pink, and white stripes to represent historically more marginalised groups within the LGBTQ+ community, including people from black and minority ethnic communities and transgender people, plus a purple circle on a yellow background representing intersex individuals.

Liberal Democrat councillor Shaun Stephenson-McGall (Timsbury) has written in support of the application saying: “Unsurprisingly as B&NES Council’s member advocate for LGBT+ issues, I strongly support the application by the council to fly the Intersex Progress flag from the permanent flagpole on the roof of the Guildhall, Bath.”

He adds: “I agree with the applicant, B&NES Council, that this proposal involves no substantial changes beyond the updated flag design.”

Fellow Liberal Democrat councillor Ian Halsall (Oldfield Park) says in his letter of support that he is “proud to live in and represent such an inclusive city where we respect the values and individualities of all our residents, visitors and those who work here and the contributions they make to our communities and economy”.

He adds that “there is no politics in planning” and the application is purely to seek retrospective advertisement consent to consider the impact of the flag and its design on public safety and amenity.

“Whether there are morality issues over the meaning of the flag, and it must be noted that the state flag of Ukraine has been flying from the Guildhall for some time, the assessment of it can only be on planning grounds.

“Those who object to its display is a personal choice for whatever reason that I would not agree with and if deemed by those to be a political issue, it can be tested at the ballot box in 2027, not in unreasonably refusing this application.”

Another supporter said: “It’s disappointing that permission is required, and that this in itself provides an opportunity to those who support hate, bigotry, transphobia and homophobia to object.”

Comments of objection include: “The display of such a politically charged and divisive flag not only risks damaging the reputation of Bath but also risks reciprocity from objectors which would further damage the reputation of Bath.

“Bath is shrouded in history and is considered by many a good holiday destination but the inclusion of such a flag will deter many visitors who will object to the inclusion of such a political message.

“Having recently visited Munich during their Pride festival (unintentionally) I have first-hand experience of how a flag such as this clashes with the culture, history and appeal, and the inclusion of an intersex flag will have a similar effect.

“Pride-related flags also do not represent the vast majority of views or sexualities in Bath and is pandering to an extremely small minority. The pursuance of this does not come from an outcry from the community but is an act very evidently being used by the councillors in Bath to push an agenda they support to the detriment of residents.”

Another objector says: “The town hall is a civic space representing all constituents, and therefore the default should be nationally recognised symbols like the Union Jack or the St George’s Cross, unless there’s clear and widespread local consensus.

“Concerns may also be raised about politicisation of local government spaces or the risk of perceived exclusion if not all groups are equally recognised.

“It does not appear that flying flags promoting any specific interest group where there is no evidence to suggest that they are excluded is appropriate.

“Indeed it may antagonise groups who are not supportive to protest or feel excluded. This does seem to be the case here and on that basis I object.”

Another says: “I support the right for those of the same sex to marry, I also support the right for those who are trans adults to live their lives and receive surgery.

“I do not support any flags that are not officially recognised as regional, national or other similar flags to be flown from any public property, including a council legislature.

“If the flag is to be flown across the road at a private property with their permission, that would be fine.”

The deadline for comments is 31st July. A decision is expected by 19th August.