Monday, October 30, 2006
Flag Burning Law?
Police Chiefs are apparently calling on the government to enact new legislation on demonstration which would include making flag burning illegal, stopping demonstrators for covering their faces, and others measures to prevent "inflaming tensions".
Firstly I must object against the obvious 'political nature' in the intent, in that the idea is fuelled not be any necessity but by spin and damage control. Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur told Radio 4: "There appears to be a growing public perception that policing of demonstrations is unduly lenient". Thus the driving force for the law is to nullify a percieved (I think wrongly percieved) grievance against the government. This is akin to making public policy via opinion poll. My view here is supported by this glaring paradox: Ghaffur wishes to target extremist demonstrators, obviously with Islamists in mind, yet plans an exemption in the prohibiting of concealing your face from police to wearers of the Muslim head scarf! It is clear that there is no real desire to actually make the new measures effective, and we can see that the whole thing is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
The more fundamental objection must address itself to the severe civil liberty implications. Flag burning is an act of political expression, and it is completely outrageous that anyone should think the State has any right to legislate against it. Those who squeal "it is disrespectful to all those who have died for Queen and Country" badly miss the point, indeed, it is highly unlikely that the Queen would have been in danger of personal harm or that the country of Great Britain - a convienient national organisation - would have been dissoved had Hitler marched through the streets to Westminister. I'd actually think it would have been in his interest to protect 'Queen and Country'. Rather, they fought for freedom from arbitary government, and it is lunacy to say it is you who are upholding their honour by trying to impose on us exactly that.
Firstly I must object against the obvious 'political nature' in the intent, in that the idea is fuelled not be any necessity but by spin and damage control. Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur told Radio 4: "There appears to be a growing public perception that policing of demonstrations is unduly lenient". Thus the driving force for the law is to nullify a percieved (I think wrongly percieved) grievance against the government. This is akin to making public policy via opinion poll. My view here is supported by this glaring paradox: Ghaffur wishes to target extremist demonstrators, obviously with Islamists in mind, yet plans an exemption in the prohibiting of concealing your face from police to wearers of the Muslim head scarf! It is clear that there is no real desire to actually make the new measures effective, and we can see that the whole thing is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
The more fundamental objection must address itself to the severe civil liberty implications. Flag burning is an act of political expression, and it is completely outrageous that anyone should think the State has any right to legislate against it. Those who squeal "it is disrespectful to all those who have died for Queen and Country" badly miss the point, indeed, it is highly unlikely that the Queen would have been in danger of personal harm or that the country of Great Britain - a convienient national organisation - would have been dissoved had Hitler marched through the streets to Westminister. I'd actually think it would have been in his interest to protect 'Queen and Country'. Rather, they fought for freedom from arbitary government, and it is lunacy to say it is you who are upholding their honour by trying to impose on us exactly that.
# posted by Chris Hughes @ 2:15 am 
