Poppies: Britain's star-spangled banner
Just as the American right fears flag-burners, conservatives in Britain turn their backs on democrac
By Yo Zushi Published 11 November 2011 15:05
In July, a local news arm of CBS reported a "disturbing and potentially dangerous trend in one New Jersey community". Days before the Independence Day celebrations, someone had set fire to several of the US flags hanging outside the homes of Roselle Park residents. "It was just shocking to me," one victim, Jill Stanton, said. "There was nothing left . . . It was burned down to the metal."
Predictably, the comment thread below the article soon teemed with disproportionate expressions of disgust, many of which deviated from the story to blame immigrants, Marxists, Islam, Obama (or "Obozo", as the retired John calls him) and liberals for the ills afflicting the home of the brave, if not the world.
Those who disagreed with the onslaught of paranoia and xenophobia were met aggressively: "Could you be a Muslim? Wife wear a burqa? Daughters afraid to cross you lest you cut her head off? Who was it that flew those planes into the WTC?" wrote Julia. J-man, meanwhile, suggested what can only be described as a final solution: "Were I the president of the US in 2001, I would have flattened [the] precious Muslim world with saturation nuclear strikes."
This extreme or, rather, extremist veneration of the national flag may seem absurd; yet the culture behind it has roots going back to the immediate aftermath of the American civil war. In a bid to protect that symbol of fragile national unity from southerners who preferred the Conferederate alternative, 48 states declared flag desecration a criminal act.
More recently, in 1968, Congress passed legislation that made it illegal to "knowingly cast contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it". This was overturned in 1989, when the Supreme Court ruled that such acts were constitutionally protected as forms of free expression. Justice William Brennan, who presided over the case, eloquently summarised his reasoning as follows:
We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own; no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns; no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by . . . according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for, in doing so, we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.
In the UK, where it was illegal to suspend the Union Jack without permission from the local council until 2006 (unless it was from a vertical flagpole), national flags seem to bear less of an ideological burden. Yet the recent controversy over the Islamist group Muslims Against Crusades, which burned Remembrance Day poppies last November in protest against western foreign policy, shows that the corrosive impulse to stamp out opposition is alive and well this side of the Atlantic.
Elsewhere on Newstatesman.com, Nelson Jones and Steven Baxter have written in depth about the self-defeating nature of Theresa May's decision to proscribe the organisation -- and I wrote about the banning of Islam4UK, its previous incarnation, for Pickled Politics in 2010 -- so I won't repeat the argument here. Instead, I'll cite the words of Robert Jackson, a US judge who, in 1943, struck down a law requiring schoolchildren to salute the stars and stripes:
Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
Fallen soldiers deserve respect, regardless of the moral ambiguities of the campaigns in which they served. The appropriate response to the attention-seeking idiocy of Muslims Against Crusades is, as Justice Brennan might have said, to counter that group's flames with a salute.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















12 comments
Whatever you think of the substantive argumement - to the extent that there is one to be made on this non-issue - the sub-head 'conservatives in Britain turn their backs on democracy over poppies' is just about as meaningless as it's possible to get. So yo, Yo! Get yourself a publisher with better subs, and people might pay attention to what you have to say. Which is not very much.
@Julian
Get a life...
Power to the white poppy.
I just returned from a trip to Africa where I did not hear one negative word or actions aimed at me as a visitor. I was welcomed warmley and with sincerity.
I returned to England to find the airways and some of our fellow Englanders engaged in their usual sport of hounding the immigrants, Muslims, in fact anyone who is not 'one of us'
Least we forget the saying; what goes around, comes around.
How come when I point out that so-called gay sex - i.e. same sex sodomy - is not just disgusting but also thoroughly unnatural, The NS always ban and remove such posts, eh?
Pot kettle and all that.
Hey "Yo" I bet If I wiped my asshole with your koran, you and your buddy choduray would be crying the blues.
"Julian
11 November 2011 at 21:55
Whatever you think of the substantive argumement - to the extent that there is one to be made on this non-issue - the sub-head 'conservatives in Britain turn their backs on democracy over poppies' is just about as meaningless as it's possible to get. So yo, Yo! Get yourself a publisher with better subs, and people might pay attention to what you have to say. Which is not very much."
The new Statesman is a UK magazine with a generally educated and well informed readership. We understand that the context to this story is the creating of an offence in law of burning Poppies as a protest.
Since we already have a law of "creating public disorder" Laws that could have been used in this case of Loony extremists threatening to burn poppies, the new law is an attack on freedom.
The article is therefore relevant and interesting,
Flashbuck
New Statesman is not the Government. That is the only reason why. I'm Australian and feel I have missed the opportunity to wipe my arse with a poppy of the colour of my choosing. Oh thats right, defending rights and freedoms does not mean you agree with any particular opinion or act, just the right. NS has the right to manage its own blog protocols. Different to not wanting governments banning disssent.
The best way to counter Andy Choudary's flames is to deprive him of the fuel of publicity. Unfortunatley the press and he have a symbiotic relationship so he will always get the attention he craves.
'The appropriate response to the attention-seeking idiocy of Muslims Against Crusades is, as Justice Brennan might have said, to counter that group's flames with a salute.'
Or, perhaps, to burn copies of the Koran, which is an meaningful and meaningless as a flag or a poppy, in response.
Freeman writes:
"Or, perhaps, to burn copies of the Koran, which is an meaningful and meaningless as a flag or a poppy, in response"
My point isn't that the burning of poppies, or US flags, for that matter, is "meaningless" -- it was that proscribing a group for doing so is far worse.
The implications of the ban are serious. Just because the majority abhors a political ideology, does it give that majority a right to prevent others from organising to promote it? There are laws in place to keep in check and punish ordinary criminal activity. If Choudary's group ever actually plans or commits a criminal or terrorist act, then it is the duty of the police and state to come down hard on it.
But to make a crime of an opinion, however repugnant, is to lose all claim to democracy.
People in the US no longer burn flags; the Scouts pointed out to them that it's actually encouraged by the USA's own Flag Code, enacted by Congress in 1912. You can't imprison someone for doing something that hundreds of Cub Scouts do every year without anybody doing anything but approve.
Get rid of your State Church. How about that-we did it 375 years ago-no problems.
Yes I tend to agree. This "points make prizes" mentality that seems to be driving the less well educated parts of our culture is probably best completely ignored - it's just a characteristic typical of children in some playground ie finding points to prove - noteably at the expense of the UK taxpayer.
It's all so predictable.
Perhaps for this reason I don't think it's useful or even true to say the government bans things anymore. Even the catholic church got rid of bans during the 1980's, I believe.
A ban is like waving a red rag at a bull. There's no point wielding the gourd unnecessarily or inappropriately.