(no subject)
Feb. 20th, 2005 02:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labellementeuseOkay, I have a question (arising from a heated debate with floor-mates, unfortunately in which they all totally disagreed with me. But then, we can't have everything, and also their arguments were spurious, as I told them. I use deliberately obsucre words when I'm angry, probably because it's the only way I can think of to get the opposite party as frustrated as I am. It's probably a bad habit, but I was extremely angry, which is kind of unusual for me.)
So here it is: What do you guys think of the right to burn or deface the flag of your country? I, personally, feel that it's both an important part of freedom of speech and also the right to simple freedom to protest against your government. To separate and raise up the flag as an untouchable item to me seems to imply that, as the flag is untouchable, so is our country- that to burn the flag means you hate your country, based on the idea that the flag symbolises freedom and democracy.
To me, that's not what the flag of a country symbolises. I understand that to some people, that is what the flag symbolises, along with all good things about their country and so forth- it's very important to them. However, no matter how you feel about the flag, factually that is not what the flag represents. What a flag represents is a country- not the state of life in the country, not the people of a country, just the simple name. If you make the flag a holy or venerated item, you do the same to your country- making it itself unable to be criticised.
The reason flag-burning is such an effective protest is because yes, it means a lot to people. I understand that. But we must be free, I believe, to criticise and protest the country in whatever non-violent ways we feel are most appropriate. When criticising foreign policy, and especially war, the flag is almost the most effective way of doing so.
I was told- most strongly- that "My grandfather fought for the New Zealand flag. It symbolised freedom and democracy to him. You go to Afghanistan and tell me the New Zealand flag doesn't symbolise freedom and democracy!* If you brun the flag, youi're disrespecting my granfather and everything he fought for!'
I can't pinpoint why, but the argument "people fought and died for our flag, therefore it is sacred" holds very little water with me. For a start, New Zealanders were not fighting for the flag- they were fighting under it, and yes, having a flag is important in that sense as a symbol. Nevertheless, the flag itself does not stand for freedom, it does not mean freedom, nowhere on it does it say "yay for freedom!"** Therefore, all burning the flag does is criticise the country- and we must be free to criticise our country.
I also don't believe flag burning implies a lack of patriotism, or a lack of love for your country. Mind you I don't necessarily think patriotism is a good thing either- I mean, yes, to some degree, but then again, no.
So. What do y'all think?
*This last statement basically sent me apoplectic, coming as it did from a, well, an extreme conservative, put it that way. Like _she_ cares so much about liberation.
** Actually, I suppose some flags might have a symbol directly representing freedom on it. But I don't believe the New Zealand flag, at least, does so.
So here it is: What do you guys think of the right to burn or deface the flag of your country? I, personally, feel that it's both an important part of freedom of speech and also the right to simple freedom to protest against your government. To separate and raise up the flag as an untouchable item to me seems to imply that, as the flag is untouchable, so is our country- that to burn the flag means you hate your country, based on the idea that the flag symbolises freedom and democracy.
To me, that's not what the flag of a country symbolises. I understand that to some people, that is what the flag symbolises, along with all good things about their country and so forth- it's very important to them. However, no matter how you feel about the flag, factually that is not what the flag represents. What a flag represents is a country- not the state of life in the country, not the people of a country, just the simple name. If you make the flag a holy or venerated item, you do the same to your country- making it itself unable to be criticised.
The reason flag-burning is such an effective protest is because yes, it means a lot to people. I understand that. But we must be free, I believe, to criticise and protest the country in whatever non-violent ways we feel are most appropriate. When criticising foreign policy, and especially war, the flag is almost the most effective way of doing so.
I was told- most strongly- that "My grandfather fought for the New Zealand flag. It symbolised freedom and democracy to him. You go to Afghanistan and tell me the New Zealand flag doesn't symbolise freedom and democracy!* If you brun the flag, youi're disrespecting my granfather and everything he fought for!'
I can't pinpoint why, but the argument "people fought and died for our flag, therefore it is sacred" holds very little water with me. For a start, New Zealanders were not fighting for the flag- they were fighting under it, and yes, having a flag is important in that sense as a symbol. Nevertheless, the flag itself does not stand for freedom, it does not mean freedom, nowhere on it does it say "yay for freedom!"** Therefore, all burning the flag does is criticise the country- and we must be free to criticise our country.
I also don't believe flag burning implies a lack of patriotism, or a lack of love for your country. Mind you I don't necessarily think patriotism is a good thing either- I mean, yes, to some degree, but then again, no.
So. What do y'all think?
*This last statement basically sent me apoplectic, coming as it did from a, well, an extreme conservative, put it that way. Like _she_ cares so much about liberation.
** Actually, I suppose some flags might have a symbol directly representing freedom on it. But I don't believe the New Zealand flag, at least, does so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 02:15 am (UTC)Although I do think, should our country get a new flag, it should now proclaim in tiny letters "yay for freedom!".
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 08:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 07:36 am (UTC)It is possible to argue against Freedom and Democracy and if someone tries they should be greeted with reasoned debate not pointless wrath.
I don't think I would ever burn a flag, I actually do hope that our country and its people and the flag that represents us in many forums can live up to those ideals I hold dear.
But as the famous man said, I may not agree with your opinion but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.
As to our men fighting under the flag I think its much more likely that they were fighting for the union jack in those days.
And, an entire floor of UNIVERSITY STUDENTS that didn't agree with you? Whatever is the liberal pamby higher education circuit coming too?
(I second the call for Yay Freedom on a new flag.)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 08:24 pm (UTC)Pardon me, we're the liberal namby-pamby higher education circuit, thank you very much.
Jeeze, get it right..... :P
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 08:59 am (UTC)Agree with the rest so totally that I have nothing more to say.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 11:43 am (UTC)And your floormates have a couple of points on their side:
See http://www.mch.govt.nz/nzflag/index.htm (http://www.mch.govt.nz/nzflag/index.htm) and
http://www.mch.govt.nz/nzflag/faq.html (http://www.mch.govt.nz/nzflag/faq.html)
Further, the
"Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 (http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/1981/an/047.html) specifically states"
Which is not what you wanted to hear. But then, we can't have everything. (You just knew I was going to go legal on your arse, dincha?)
On the other hand, you may remember the Hopkinson story from last year (http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wpnz/aug14-04flagburning.htm) where"The court ruling on July 23 made clear that burning the flag is a legitimate form of protest".
See also http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3251063 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3251063) and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10009619 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10009619). Google is your friend. Also, your local law school librarian.
Having said all that, I echo the dismay that a bunch of students would be soooo conservative. But don't bugger up your dormlife over a flag, fer crissake. You have to live with these people very closely for the next little while...
Peace out, kiddo
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 08:19 pm (UTC)I totally agree about the university students. To be, um, to attempt to justify them, most of them (actually, all of them bar one) are either law, commerce or engineering students. Sometimes both at once. (And the one who wasn't is a Brit who managed to totally avoid ever stating her opinion, which might actually suggest sympathy but hey.) But it is... seriously unfortunate, I agree.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 07:08 pm (UTC)Also just as an interesting little tidbit of information, these days when New Zealand troops are conducting peace keeping missions for the UN instead of wearing the New Zealand flag on their shoulders they have a white Kiwi on a black backround as our flag is too easily confused with that of Britain (Which isn't very popular in most countries)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-21 03:13 am (UTC)GIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or
Shit, find cover it'll be raining napalm in a minuite.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-20 09:27 pm (UTC)Helps reinforce the idea that our country indentifies with black and silver.
I don't think they've used the fern symbol in that context though, have they? So it's still not the best option for a flag.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-22 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-22 09:40 pm (UTC)