Glad (?) to see that the US isn’t the only country with nationalists who demand that people hop-to and make proper compulsory displays of patriotic respect or else be punished.
In this case, it’s Australia, and the target is a 9-year old girl (and her parents).
Originally shared by +Washington Post:
Australian lawmakers attack 9-year-old girl who refused to stand during their national anthem
81 view(s)
The pay-walled Washington Post can get knotted. Here is the real story from the ABC:
https://plus.google.com/109506673868555049550/posts/AWAUkJaxKVs
If you haven't already, meet Pauline Hanson.
She's right, to this extent: the child is parroting her parents' views.
This should have been a private matter for the family and the school to settle, without media posturing by anyone.
More to the point why is this even an issue?
Why do people keep electing autocratic snowflakes?
+Travis Bird , does Australia have an equivalent to the US freedom of speech guarantee? (Although I will be the first to admit that these freedoms are often curtailed in US schools – just ask anyone who works on a school newspaper.)
+Travis Bird And there’s the chance that she isn’t necessarily parroting her parents’ views. She could have read the words on her own and independently questioned their validity. Usually such behavior is found in older children, but it’s possible that a nine year old could have done it.
+John E. Bredehoft There is no law explicitly protecting speech for the average citizens.
Members of parliament have the protection of parliamentary privilege for their own speech.
The High Court of Australia (the court of competent jurisdiction for constitutional matters) ruled in 1992 and 1994 that there is an implied right of speech for the public with regard to political matters. This has curtailed the use of defamation law by MPs to attack critics. This is a concise description:
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx
However, it's a qualified privilege and is best not put to severe test:
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/free-speech-denied-in-the-high-court-of-australia-in-bernard-gaynor-case-20170824-gy3enh.html
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/free-speech-denied-in-the-high-court-of-australia-in-bernard-gaynor-case-20170824-gy3enh.html
+John E. Bredehoft As to the political precocity of the child, it's possible she absorbed these sorts of ideas through the Internet.
As an aside; Colin Kaepernick's story is well-known in Australia and his example may well be followed by adults. I can imagine an Aboriginal footballer taking a knee at the impending grand final. The national anthem is not played at many sporting events and the opportunity for that type of protest is limited.
I found the young lady to be very concise in her speech and not deferring to her parents when explaining her position. I reckon she figured out there was a problem by herself and asked her parents for their thoughts, just as our kids used to (before they worked out that they knew everything about everything).
+Travis Bird Political precocity? Or social precocity? I suspect the latter, tempered with her parents' political leanings later, though I am assuming their stance.
"It's about who we are as a nation, it's part of us,” she said in a video Wednesday. “Here we have a kid who's been brainwashed. And I'll tell you what, I'd give her a kick up the backside.”
Let's be clear, training kids to deferential behavior towards symbols, that's brainwashing. What the child showed was resistance to ritual brainwashing.