The problem with a 9-year-old’s anthem protest

CONVICTION about a particular issue is one thing, but overt disobedience when given an inoffensive, inside-the-rules alternative course of action is another, writes Jane Fynes-Clinton.

TAKING a stand on an issue of deep personal or societal importance is admirable in a person of any age.

But when it was revealed that a 9-year-old Brisbane girl was refusing to back down against her school’s code of conduct around the national anthem, the country’s attention was piqued.

A primary schooler sticking up for her well-grounded but recalcitrant beliefs in a society paralysed by political correctness and mob thinking: well, fancy that.

Kudos to her for intestinal fortitude and independent thinking.

But young Harper Nielsen’s now-well known stand is that she refuses to stand, and that is where her argument and stance come unstuck.

The stand-off over standing is said to have begun at the start of the term, when Harper refused to ascend to her feet for our anthem at school assembly, saying she believed Advance Australia Fair to be a song only for white Australians as evidenced by its wording.

The school told her that she needed to stand for the anthem or leave the assembly space.

She refused to do either and has continued to do so. Her parents support her, ahem, stand.

She received a detention and is now threatened with school suspension.

The now-protracted story broke in this newspaper yesterday and the public has assembled, virtual popcorn in hand, to watch what happens next.

For my money, taking a knee, lowering her eyes and bowing her head in protest would at least show solemnity and respect. Staying seated does not.

Harper Nielsen says she doesn’t think the national anthem is for all Australians. (Pic: Annette Dew)

And while taking a stand by not standing has overtones of a Monty Python or Little Britain skit, Harper digging in her heels has superseded her position on the anthem where the school is concerned.

Conviction about a particular issue is one thing, but overt disobedience when given an inoffensive, inside-the-rules alternative course of action is another.

Harper’s refusal to obey a teacher’s direction leaves the school with no choice but to mete out a punishment, lest the other students interpret it as a sign that all teacher’s directions are loaded with optional responses.

As if there is not enough anarchy and rebellion already in our schoolyards, parade grounds and classrooms. Good grief.

Little Harper should leave the assembly hall when the anthem plays.

It still registers her particular objection to the national song.

It still makes her point.

And it would not spit in the eye of the teachers’ requests and would obey the school’s rules.

In discussing this case, let us now not make it into something it is not.

Harper’s stand against the school is not a case of David vs Goliath. Neither is it Indigenous Australians vs others.

And it is not even about the anthem’s syntax, arrangement or word choices.

Harper’s parents, Mark Nielsen and Yvette Miller, support their daughter’s decision. (Pic: Annette Dew)

What it is about is disrespect. This is our nation’s premiere song and in our nation’s culture, it is impertinent to keep bottom on seat when it plays.

The song was only proclaimed our national anthem in 1984.

It has no lengthy tenure in our history, nor a lofty position as forging in melody our battlefield spirit or character in political or cultural conflict.

It is in many ways a poor choice of song for our nation.

Like many Australians, I am not a fan of Advance Australia Fair, considering its phrasing to be tortured, its words to be not particularly representative of us as a people and its melody to be ho-hum.

But just because my soul is not stirred, does not mean I do not get to my feet and remove my headwear when its opening bars ring out.

It is a mark of civility; it is right. Standing up and being silent shows respect for my nation, not the song itself.

Its place as the Australian national anthem may not be long-lived.

But if a change of our nation’s song to something more suitable, inclusive and stirring is a burning desire for more than just one schoolgirl, there are better, more respectful ways to stand up and bring about change.

Dr Jane Fynes-Clinton is a journalist and University of the Sunshine Coast journalism lecturer.

@Janefynes