In the United States of America, the burning of the State symbol of the flag has led to enactment of a bill to prohibit it. This has come as a way of ensuring that the state symbol is not disrespected by the citizens or any other country (articles.cnn, paragraph 1). As it is common in all countries, a flag is symbol of the national unity of the people thus should be accorded the due respect. This has also led to a heated debate among the Americans which has led to lots of speeches being made against the bill prohibiting the burning of the flag. Freedom of speech is protected by the constitution of America thus the people openly criticizing the bill are protected by the law and recognized to be practicing their democratic rights.
Burning of a flag is not just desecration of the flag but also covers up to defacing the flag, using it in commercial advertisements or even marking any marks on it resulting in changing its initial outlook. Any of the outlined acts is against the law thus legal action should be taken against the offender (articles.cnn, paragraph 4.).
According the American constitution, freedom of expression and speech is one of the basic human rights. It is also recognized by the international human rights group thus one can do what he/ she feels up to a certain limit which is set by the individual countries. The rights allows a person to speak in whichever way he/she feels good for him/her provided he/she does not affect the national security or the peace of the others. They also allow a person to express his/her feelings openly in a manner which is not obscene or against some natural norms. It is in this expression of personal feeling that the US government found out that some politicians was burning the national flags during some of their rallies and political campaigns or even some other forms of rallies. The flags were bum publicly as a symbol of discontent of the people with a certain government ruling or opinion (Tocqueville, 48).
In the past, the American government has tried to regulate this but the result has been great opposition from politicians. They term it as a means of trying to deprive them of their freedom of expression. The government of US then decided to enact a bill which it wanted to be passed into law regarding the national symbol. In a bid to enforce respect for the national symbol, it drafted a bill in 2009 regulating the use of the national symbol. In the national assembly, the members raised several issues claiming that it was trying to restrict their freedom of expression. The bill had to be revised so as to gain favor in the eyes of the politicians who had to amend it before the presidential seal to make it enforceable by law. In the same time, a group of human rights people moved to court to challenge the bill terming it to be ill motive. The Supreme Court was forced to suspend the bill which up to date has not been approved (firstamendmentcenter.org/_ news).
It appears that a great struggle between the freedom of expression and burning of the national symbol. Looking at it from a realistic point of view, burning of the flag is show of total disrespect of the flag. The Supreme Court allowed the burning of the flag only by the flag owners and not any alien. This means that the citizens can burn the flag publicly as a symbol of aggression but does not approve any foreigner to burn the national symbol because the reason of burning it may not be as a result of any opposition to oppression only for fun and demeaning the country whose flag is burnt. The Supreme Court also ruled that private burning of the national symbol is a crime since it does not portray any public aggression or opposition to any bill or decision affecting the nation but may just be for leisure (firstamendmentcenter.org/_ news).
This is why the government officials in California did not stop people from burning their national flag during the public rallies against their former governor in the year 2006. The political rallies held after each four years are accompanied by widespread burning of the national flag to portray that some leaders are not qualified enough to hold some positions in the next government. Their leadership is what makes the flags to be burnt signifying that they are not qualified.
Another instance in which the law allows the burning of the national flag is during demonstrations. The burning usually symbolizes what the nation owners are going through due to some aspects in the leadership that are causing the demonstration.
In the past few years, there have been a number of reported cases on the offence of burning the American flag. In a particular case in 2005, a student was prosecuted for burning the flag for no apparent reason (nytimes.com, paragraph 3). This attracted a penalty on the student terming it a violation of the national symbol.
In conclusion, my personal opinion on this bill would be to limit the instances of burning the flag. From a realistic and patriotic perspective, it appears a violation of the law and unacceptable. It would be better for the politicians or demonstrators to use other means of expressing their feelings on any problem or searching for a solution in place of burning the flag. It is very demeaning for a country since it is the international symbol fro the existence of that particular nation. Burning it would signify the end of the nation or disaster in the national peace. Since it is not buried with any soldier or prominent political leader, it should also not be burnt in expression of any aggressive feelings whatsoever.
WORKS CITED
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-29/politics/flag.burn_1_flag-desecration-constitutional-amendment-first-amendment?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
www.firstamendmentcenter.org/_ news
Tocqueville, A. Democracy In America. New York, NY. Harper Collins. 1966.
