A split in the ranks
May 25th, 2004 at 3:58 pm by David FarrarNormally the NZ section of the vast right wing conspiracy stands united on important issues like Winona Ryder’s innocence, but a big split in the ranks has appeared on flag burning.
Stepehn Franks started it by stating that flag burning is not speech and should be banned (as the current law does).
The Whig disagreed and thought one should defend what the flag represents, not the piece of cloth itself.
PNN backed Franks. He argues the flag does not represent a government, it repreents the land, its people etc.
Thr normally demi-libertarian Kiwi Pundit also backed Franks. Nigel thinks it goes from being speech to action.
And NZ Pundit also backs Franks, while acknowledging reasonable people can disagree on this.
So poor old Whig is not only whigetteless, but his only support is from No Right Turn which is like being helped out by the French Government!
Never fear, help is here. I’m with Blair (the Whig) on this one, and if you want to read on, I’ll explain why they are all wrong and we are right 
Nigel (Kiwi Pundit) says the ban is not content based, as it is only banned in public and compares to to banning naked protests in Parliament or grafitti.
But it is entirely content based. It is not illegal to burn the US flag, the Crusaders Flag, the Australian flag – only the NZ flag. That is content based.
PNN says that the flag does not just represent the Government, but the people. Well that is true (otherwise I would burn one every day), but it should be legal to protest against the people and the country also. Not everything is done by the Government. People may not like New Zealand for a number of reasons, and that is theri right. In the nz.general Internet newsgroup there is one elderly UK immigrant who seems to sneer at and hate all New Zealanders, our culture, our intellectual ability etc. God knows why the man lives here, but he doesn’t protest just the Government, but the whole country.
PNN also compares it to passing on military data to our enemies. Sorry but that act actually harms New Zealanders and may lead to people dying. Burning a flag (as long as done safely, unlike the Crusaders fans at Jade Stadium who burnt a Highlanders flag in front of me in the middle of the packed bank) does not harm anyone. It might upset people but not harm them.
NZ Pundit makes possibly the best case, saying icons of our history and our fight against tyranny should be above desecration and juvenile (and it is juvenile – I personally despite flag burners) activism. However I believe the best monument to our fight for freedom is to allow those who feel they wish to burn the flag, to do so. That is after all a very very very small part of the great freedoms we should enjoy in a civilised country.
No tag for this post.
May 25th, 2004 at 4:37 pm
Ultimately, it’s a piece of cloth. If someone feels they’re ‘making a statement’ by setting a piece of cloth alight and waving it around, they should only be subject to whatever laws apply when waving around a burning piece of fabric. Possibly things about public safety, or inner city fire bans.
Being of a decidedly libertarian bent, of any law I try to ask the question “what harm is prevented by enforcing this law?”.
In this case, the only harm prevented is to the delicate sensibilities of those who are offended by a burning flag. I’d argue that people who let themselves be ‘harmed’ by the destruction of a symbol are inflicting the harm upon themselves.
Vote:May 25th, 2004 at 4:51 pm
I agree with Malach, ultimately the flag is just a piece of cloth. But this doesn’t stop me personally wanting to change our current flag to something that (again to me personally) more accurately reflects what New Zealand has become.
I guess flag burning is, at the end of the day, just plain impolite. It’s clearly *intended* to prove a point/be offensive, so maybe in this case we can point the finger of hypocrisy at the Lefties for burning a flag to prove a point, and then coming over all precious and barefacedly denying that any offence could possibly be taken from the gesture?
Vote:May 25th, 2004 at 4:59 pm
Fine. Ignore the libertarian. Boo sucks to you! :p
http://runningblogcapitalist.blognz.com/archives/006550.html
Vote:May 25th, 2004 at 8:04 pm
David you are right,
Vote:I did feel that NRT was rather overstating the case when they claimed burning the flag was the ultimate example of political speech, second only to BURNING YOURSELF (if it is I don’t think it is a very close second)- lets be honest most of those who burn the flag do so because it makes for a quick, ‘shocking’ picture bite, guaranteed to get you on the news that night. Who is really hurt by the behaviour of those juvenille enough to do this? But we are all harmed by the enforcement of an unnecesary law that allows the state to further control the actions of its citizens.
Hey if one day I have a breakdown, and decide that the only thing that will return a sense of purpose to my life is too burn a New Zealand flag, then I will, and I must be able too as a free citizen in a supposedly free country. – Obviously as long as I set fire to the flag in such a way that other people/property are not physically harmed by my actions.
(and being from Christchurch I feel I must apologise for the actions of the Crusaders fans. We are such plebs here. sigh.)
May 25th, 2004 at 9:30 pm
Ouch – sorry Glenn. I thought I had checked all the VRWC blogs for comments but missed you out. Glad to know Blair and I are not alone
Actually judging by comments on this post, there are quite a few of us who are in agreement.
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 10:22 am
What harm is done by plastering huge 10 meters high nude ladies on your building? Should we do that as well? Plastering a swastika? Walking nude on the street?
Certain things are offensive to others. In a society we try to live together. Bullying at school (or at work for that matter) should be allowed because no physical harm is involved? What happened to respect and civilized behaviour?
Burning your own flag is extremely offensive to those who were prepared to give their live to defend it. Just a piece of cloth is such an utterly simplistic view on your flag that there is almost no point in arguing with someone who believes that.
You are allowed to burn flags of other countries? So you should be allowed to burn your own flag as well? Perhaps we should not allow burning of flags of other countries.
Just a piece of cloth? Why is it often overwhelming when Olympic gold medal winners see the rising of their own flag and hear their national anthem?
If you are not prepared to defend the symbols of your country, I’m afraid you started downhill to the point where no one is willing to defend the country anymore.
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 10:52 am
Nudity is slightly different due to children being able to view it. Having said that I fully support there being some public areas where people can be naked – such as designated beaches.
I don’t think it should be against the law to display a swastika, and yes my relatives were killed in the Holocaust.
Many things are offensive to a group of people. But banning them just because of the offence caused can be a slippery slope. I’m not saying one should never ban anything, but I prefer to limit it.
The flag is of course more than a piece of cloth, but the symbolism of our flag survives the cloth being burnt.
Finally you can defend the symbols of your country without resorting to legislative bans.
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 11:00 am
Nudity may or may not be an offence – depending on the proportions of the lady in question.
I recall some protestor getting done in Australia for flag burning – or more to the point lighting a flag during a fire ban. Most amusing.
I’m afraid my conservative streak wins out on this one, mainly for the reasons that NZPundit has set out.
The only way to avoid making it legal that I see is to make it a statutory defence to stop (and pummell) hippies and lefties who start burning flags. After all – stopping someone from disecrating something you hold dear is simple freedom of expression…
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 11:21 am
David and Glenn: I agree with you both. If only I had a blog you guys and the whig wouldn’t be alone.
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 11:26 am
Nevermind the downhill slope towards the possiblity of a culture that is unwilling to defend our country.
Nazi insigia is banned – what’s next? Anti-immigrant politics, Biblical and Quranic passages, people who advocate smacking their children? It only takes a decade of economic recession, reactionary politics and world affairs to turn sour and we could face a government who is lead by offspring of Sue Kedgley and Jim Anderton. Laws in place that enforce subjective topics and legislate against the THOUGHT behind the act are dangerous; they set in forth the framework and thinking for further laws to pass and this could be taken up by future politicians. Banning the flag is a cheap way to garner support, as it would appeal to the public (eg. the US), it can be politically devastating to oppose.
Franks uses language in his press release that is worrying – I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a champion of censorship: “offensiveness”, “destruction of others’ freedom”. Flag burning does not offend to the point of serious emotional damage (unlike a kid watching sexually explicit material or hearing offensive language), you should be able to see the actions as thoughtless without the help of the government.
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 11:36 am
I see no reason for it to be banned. It says more about those who do the burning than really offending the majority of people, I think.
The majority response would be like it is to most other protests:
“Silly buggers.”
Jordan
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 1:21 pm
Berend and others seem to be for the criminalization of flag burning in principle, regardless of public or private property. Do they not accept that the owners of private property should set the terms of conduct on private property (so long as those terms do not cause physical or economic harm to others?) If not, you
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Some people’s replies are a bit over the top. We’re talking about burning in public. This is not a free speech issue. No one is advocating that you can’t burn your own flags on your own property as often as you want.
Please respond to the arguments, don’t knock down your own strawman.
There are things we do not do in public. And unfortunately not everyone agrees with those rules. So we have some laws to cover that. Saying that there always people who don’t obey the law, and therefore we shouldn’t have laws is not an argument I can take seriously.
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
I was under the impression that prohibiting flag burning would extend beyond public property and include private property.
Anyway, there is no reason not to allow flag burning on public property unless it results in a genuine fire hazard. The rules you are talking about that apply in public are there for reasons that don’t involve the criminalising of thought.
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
Glenn has unwittingly aided my argument.
He says:”Do they not accept that the owners of private property should set the terms of conduct on private property (so long as those terms do not cause physical or economic harm to others?)”
And who are the owners of public property? The public. Therefore the public should set terms of conduct on public property.
The flag is the symbol of the “public”. Hence to burn it is inherently offensive to the public. Therefore burning the flag (in public) should be banned.
I don’t think anyone reading this is suggesting flag-burning on private property be banned. I certainly am not, and said as much in my original post.
BTW DPF, of course I’m not suggesting flag burning is as damaging as passing on military data, I merely used that example to illustrate that free expression has limits, just as free speech does. I probably said it badly.
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 5:37 pm
The problem I have is that the term
Vote:May 26th, 2004 at 5:53 pm
PNN – I’m a member of the public and burning the flag isn’t particularly offensive to me. And even if it was, why does it follow that it should be banned? Do we ban everything that one or more members of the public find “offensive”?
Yes, I suppose you could argue that “the public” has set the rules of conduct on public property by virtue of the existence of the legislation in question, but then you tie your argument to the whims of government of the day. If a Labour/Green government repealed public-flag-burning legislation tomorrow, you’ve got no argument. That
Vote:May 27th, 2004 at 7:42 am
Glenn, within reasonable limits we have laws on acceptable behaviour. As society changes, those change as well. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
In a public place we try to get along all together, regardless of our deep differences.
I’ve never heard of flag burning being done when nobody sees it. The point of doing it is so that it can be seen, and so that it can offend and hurt people.
And the argument is not about the flag burning itself, but about the deep offense it causes. That’s why we’re not particularly upset when someone burns the Australian flag. Which therefore never happens, so we don’t need a law for that.
Perhaps the best way forward is to have a referendum on issues like this. If let’s say 20% finds flag burning deeply offensive, we should ban it. If only 1% cares, than we should abolish the law.
We of course already have had some kind of referendum expressed in elected politicians. And that they come forward to express the feelings of their electorate should give already some indication. Politicians are not defending things their voters do not care about.
Vote:May 27th, 2004 at 8:29 am
Berend if decisions to ban things should be based on 20% of thge population finding them deeply offensive, then we would probably ban homosexuality, public displays of affection, unions, the business roundtable, and barney the dinosaur.
Hell I find socialism deeply offensive, but I don’t want it banned. I do find flag burning offensive but again do not want it banned.
Vote:May 28th, 2004 at 12:04 am
What? Barney the Dinosaur is still legal? Why do we even bother having laws!!
Vote:May 28th, 2004 at 7:54 am
DPF, please, we were talking about behaviour in public places. And the number is just an example.
But it is just my point. Most of the people here knock down their own strawman. Big deal.
Vote:December 10th, 2004 at 1:03 pm
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m strongly opposed to flag burning legislation. The day that flag burning is criminalized, I will burn a flag.
Vote: