An independence advocate was found guilty on Feb. 7 of inciting others to burn the national flag, in a ruling that overturned a previous acquittal.
The first ruling determined that Lee Chia-yu’s (李嘉宇) actions were constitutionally protected, while the second found him guilty of destroying the flag “for the purpose of insulting the nation,” and argued that his method of expression was “unnecessary and irrational.” Given the divergent perspectives of the two judges, it is worth considering whether desecrating national symbols is constitutionally protected free speech.
National University of Malaysia researcher Helen Ting wrote in a 2008 paper, “Social Construction of Nation,” that the idea of a “nation” is “a mental construct,” and national identity is “a dynamic, contentious historical process of social construction.” National identity means different things to different people at different times, even within the same borders.
Ting wrote that social actors generally only engage with the “figured world of nationhood” when they are interacting with agents of state institutions or reading about national politics, and these actors internalize and reproduce meaning in this world when they carry out socially constructed activities. This is only one of many figured worlds that constitute the self, and is not the most conspicuous aspect of an individual’s life, except in the case of those in professions that closely follow national affairs, she wrote.
While the nation is an imagined and dynamic concept, the flag is a symbol that is understood to represent “the nation’s core values, condensing the history and memories associated” with it, and “embodying what the nation stands for,” researchers from Queen’s University Belfast wrote in a 2017 paper, “What Do National Flags Stand For?”
Flags represent “group memberships and strong emotional attachments,” and subjectively represent “the soul of a society in terms of symbolic representation of national consciousness,” the researchers wrote. Therefore, it is understandable that people who identify strongly with those symbols would seek to protect them from desecration, while others consider their destruction in protest to be a constitutionally protected form of expression.
The issue of an individual’s right to “insult” national symbols has drawn attention in the sports world. Since August 2016, some NFL players have knelt during the US national anthem out of protest against police violence toward African-Americans. These actions caused an immediate uproar, with some critics arguing that it was insulting to members of the US armed forces, or presenting similar allegations.
NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy in 2016 said that “players are encouraged, but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem.” Legally there are also no repercussions for not standing during the anthem, even though it is mentioned in the US Code, but the statute is worded as “should” stand, which stops short of “shall” or “must,” a Sept. 26, 2017, Birmingham News article said, citing law experts.
Neither the US nor Canada have laws prohibiting flag desecration — amendments have been proposed in the US, but never passed — and in both countries, flags have been frequently burned, often during anti-war or anti-government protests.
There is no definitive answer as to whether people should be allowed to desecrate national symbols, but not everyone adheres to the same imagined communities or same values espoused by those communities. If citizens are prohibited from protesting a nation through destroying its symbols, it risks opening the floodgates for further suppression of free expression.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under