It’s seldom difficult to work out what message is being conveyed. There is a long tradition of flag-burning for political effect. Yes, he could have written a letter to the editor, which may or may not have been published, or held up a wee sign, which may or may not have attracted attention. He destroyed a symbol of our state because he was so disgusted with the government associating itself with that war, and he wanted to invite us to notice and share his outrage. I think Hopkinson’s message was pretty clear. After taking great care to ensure that the burning did not endanger anyone, Hopkinson torched a flag to protest against the NZ government’s hosting of Aussie PM John Howard, given Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war. ![]() He was condemning Paul Hopkinson’s burning of the NZ flag outside Parliament. It is the suppression and destruction of others’ expression.Īs someone with respectable libertarian credentials, Franks ought to know better. The effect of flag-burning derives solely from its power to shock and offend. One of them, somewhat extraordinarily, is Stephen Franks: ![]() Some people think flag-burning is offensive. Budget leak: Nats’ behaviour “entirely appropriate”?. ![]() When free speech creates disorder or hate.NZME admits it misled listeners by buying into Trump’s ridiculous election fraud claims – but BSA somehow finds broadcasting standards not breached.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |