Colin Kaepernick and “active citizenry” (op-ed)

In August San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick did not stand during the national anthem before a preseason game. Afterwards Kaepernick said he wasn’t going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses people of color.

The press immediately dubbed Kaepernick’s action a protest but is that accurate?

Two months ago, before the NFL preseason a letter was written to the editor of the Kaieter News, a daily newspaper in Guyana, South America. It began, Guyana has a rich heritage and it is right to showcase it so that the children can learn to be patriotic.

Then the letter pointed out “some disheartening desecrations of our nation’s symbols. Our golden arrowhead is all over the place and is being trampled. This is an insult for our flag. I heard a group of foreigners singing the national anthem with off note screaming … I felt they were insulting our national anthem. Pity is that they live in Guyana and insult the land they presently dwell. My question is; do we have a law against people who intentionally insult or desecrate our national symbols?”

The letter sounds in favor of government measures like India’s Prevention of Insults to National Honor Act, passed in 1971. This act prohibits desecration of or insult to the country’s national symbols, including the national flag, the constitution, Indian map, and National anthem. Whoever intentionally prevents the singing or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment or a fine.

In 2010 the Philippines made a law against off-key singing of their national anthem and to curb unpatriotic displays of the Philippine Flag. Violators could be handed jail time or fined over $2,000. The bill’s sponsor said the law was necessary to preserve the respect, love, and patriotism for the country.

In 2013 the Egyptian government passed a law that criminalized disrespecting the national flag and not honoring the national anthem. Disrespect was officially defined as “not standing up in respect for the national anthem in a public place”.

Now if Kaepernick sat during the national anthem because he disapproved of poor treatment of citizens in one of these countries he would have been imprisoned. His act of civil disobedience would have correctly been defined as a protest.

But how did Kaepernick’s American employers respond to what he really did?

The NFL stated players are encouraged, but not required to stand, and the San Francisco 49er’s said, “The national anthem is a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognized the right of an individual to choose to participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.”

Based on statements from Kaepernick, the NFL, and the 49er’s an accurate news story should have begun: NFL player chooses not to participate in a voluntary ceremony that honors the country because he’s not proud of present conditions in the nation.

And that’s “active citizenry” President Obama said in China at the G-20 summit when asked about Kaepernick. (2014 China instituted new rules for its national anthem. When singing anthem people must dress appropriately, stand still, sing song in entirety, and enunciate every word.) President Obama continued, “My suspicion is, over time he’s gonna refine his thinking about it, and maybe some of his critics will start seeing that he has a point … and that’s how we move forward. Sometimes it’s messy, but … that’s the way democracy works.”

And American democracy works that way because the greatest legal principle isn’t “Thou shall not” it’s “Congress shall make no law”, infringing upon the liberties the San Francisco 49ers said the national anthem ceremony celebrates.

First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 9/14/16