"The Anthem Must Be Respected"

The Washington Post ran an article about two weeks ago telling the story of a Tokyo School teacher who is being punished for refusing to stand and sing the Japanese national anthem at school functions. In 1999 a world war II hymn which calls for an eternal reign of the emperor was designated as the national anthem. Kimiko Nezu describes herself as a pacifist and says that she does not stand and sing it because she fears the implications of glorifying militarism.

While at first she was greeted with only a few stares and angry looks from students and parents, eventually the school board itself felt the need to get involved. It issued an order declaring that "the anthem must be respected." When she still refused to comply, Nezu was punished with frequent transfers to other schools and pay cuts. In May she was warned that one more "offense" could mean dismissal from teaching altogether, despite the fact that she has been a teacher for 34 years.

Such is the treatment doled out to those who refuse to worship at the altar of the state. They are marginalized and punished by any means available. In extreme cases this includes imprisonment and death, but in the more "liberalised" countries it often involves being slandered, fined, fired and harassed among other things. I find it interesting that modern society looks down with disdain on the religious persecutions of the middle ages. We are taught how oppressive religion has been in trying to stamp out opposition and prevent the rise of new, controversial ideas.

Yet we so often refuse to apply this same logic to the state. A closer look at the history of religious persecution will show that it is at its most oppressive when there is little or no seperation between church and state (the church is the state or vice versa). Thus viewed we can see that it is the state itself, whether under guise of religion, or whether replacing God with itself, that is the source of violent and repressive intolerance.

I find it ironic that most modern states claim to be tolerant, sensitive and caring when it means getting votes and garnering support, but when it meets opposition and resistance, intolerance is the reaction we can expect. People can think whatever they want and can say pretty much whatever they please, as long as they don't "disrespect" the state or its symbols.

Nezu is not threatening anyone. She is not stealing, hurting or defacing anyone's person or property. She is not in violation of any of the rights the state is supposed to protect. Instead she is speaking out against past and possible future actions of the state which have and will continue to result in misery, death and mass injustice. She refuses to praise the war machine, to glory in mass murder, to forget the atrocities commited by her country and others in the name of nationalistic expansionism. For this she must be punished.

The state does not deal well with insubordination. And in violating Nezu's right to refuse in order to protect its own image, the state is revealing its true character. It is confirming what so many of us already know. It does not exist to protect our liberties. As Ludwig Von Mises once said, "Government is the negation of liberty." It exists primarily to protect and expand its own power and it will only respect our rights as long as we are not perceived as a threat to itself.

Now, this may seem like a very trivial thing. These issues generally do not draw much attention from the general public because they don't seem relevant in comparison to so many of the important issues we are currently dealing with. But the issue is not whether or not we agree with refusing to stand and sing a national anthem or whether we think people should be allowed to burn a flag. Those are specific examples of a much broader issue. The question is not about specifics, it is about principles.

We live in a world of near complete relativity. It is rare indeed that we come across a principle of conduct that is still held to be inviolate. Even the principle that it is wrong to kill another person (unless in self-defense,) is relative. It applies to private citizens in most cases, but for the state's minions it is infinitely flexible (as evidenced by modern warfare tactics among other things). The reason we need principles that are rigid and inviolate is to protect us from the arbitrary will of men who desire to harm, control and plunder us. Without the protection provided us by such principles, we are like a ship without an achor and we are liable to be tossed around with every wind and wave of the sea.

It is not a small thing to violate such principles no matter how insignificant we may think the violation is. If we think that principles should be flexible and subject to change depending on situation or majority opinion, then we really do not believe in principles at all and we have given ourselves up to the arbitrary will of judges, politicians, policemen, soldiers and special interests. This is the reason why wise and just men have always sought to impose carefully defined limits on the actions of government by means of a constitution or other document that was firmly grounded in just principles. It is also the reason why those in power pay lip service to such restraints, while at the same time trying to erode and destroy them.

Do we really believe that people should have the freedom to think and say what they wish or do we believe that each case is open to debate? Do we really believe in the principle itself or are we willing to violate it if we disagree with what is said or done? Do we believe that "patriotism" trumps liberty, or do we believe that patriotism is simply an expression of gratitude and appreciation for the freedom our principles allow us? It is imperative that we learn to see human behavior and world events in terms of principles rather than attempting to judge each individual case based on nothing more than emotion-driven opinion and propoganda from those who would deceive us. The seemingly insignificant story of Kimiko Nezu's passive resistance and subsequent punishment should be seen as a very mild example of what happens when principles are abandoned and the arbitrary judgment of power seekers and ignorant, self-seeking majorities is allowed to operate unrestrained.