The High Court’s decision to censure Northumbria Police for marching in uniform at a Pride event isn’t a victory for neutrality. Once again we have a concession to reactionary politics cloaked in the language of “impartiality.” Let’s be clear: this was not about the police endorsing a “controversial ideology.” It was about visible support for an historically marginalised group still fighting for dignity, safety, and equality. The gender-critical backlash against that visibility is not a neutral position. It’s a deeply political one, demanding silence, erasure, and retreat.
Impartiality is not the same as indifference to injustice.
The claimant, Linzi Smith, characterises herself as a gender-critical lesbian, a term that now functions less as a defence of sexuality than as a weapon against trans people. The real objection here, is not that the police were “taking sides” it’s that they were not taking her side. That is, the side that wants trans people pushed to the margins, treated as dangerous interlopers in public life, and erased from the language of rights altogether. That she was “terrified” to see rainbow flags and slogans supporting trans liberation says more about the fragility of gender-critical ideology than the supposed politicisation of the police.
Yes, Pride is political. It always has been. So is policing. When the police decide to be present at remembrance parades, military celebrations, or even royal weddings, nobody cries foul over political endorsement. Only when the politics in question challenge entrenched norms (queer rights, Palestinian solidarity, racial justice) does the demand for “impartiality” suddenly arise. But neutrality in the face of inequality is not impartiality. It’s complicity.
The real “impartiality” being demanded here is the freedom to ignore, belittle, or deny the existence of trans people in public life.
Those fretting about flags and pronouns forget that the police were not forcing ideology onto anyone. They were standing in uniform alongside citizens who are statistically more likely to be victims of violence, discrimination, and hate crimes. The message was simple: we see you. We protect you too.
The judgment now risks empowering those who want to turn back the clock. Not just on trans rights, but on the entire principle of pluralism in a democratic society. Today it’s Pride. Tomorrow it will be the right to celebrate Eid, to march for Black Lives, to speak up for Palestine (which is already under threat). It sets a precedent where any reactionary can claim offence and demand withdrawal, silence, suppression.
Let’s not be fooled. This ruling isn’t about public trust in the police. It’s about controlling which lives get to be seen, and which don’t.
