Are liberals starting to see a downside to multiculturalism?
A US city's ban on Pride flags prompts an awkward question: what do you do when one minority starts marginalising another?
Back in 2015, Hamtramck in Michigan became the first American city to elect a Muslim-majority council. Naturally, liberals celebrated this milestone for multiculturalism, while leading media outlets hailed it as a triumphant success. "Residents in Hamtramck from different religious and cultural backgrounds coexist in harmony," beamed the BBC.
Sadly, however, this verdict may now need to be reconsidered. Because Hamtramck's Muslim council has just voted to ban Pride flags: the rainbow-coloured symbols of the LGBT community.
For the Guardian - which had previously run articles hailing Hamtramck's "multicultural populace" - this development appears to have come as a terrible shock
telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/06/20/muslim-council-hamtramck-bans-lgbt-pride-flags/
American liberals are being forced to contemplate an awkward dilemma. Their whole purpose in life is to defend marginalised minorities. But what should they do when one marginalised minority marginalises another marginalised minority? Whose side should they take?
Logically it should be the side of the minority being marginalised. Which in this case is people who are LGBT. But if liberals fight the ban on the Pride flag, the Muslim council could accuse them of marginalising Muslims