New Zealand passes record suspension of lawmakers over haka

Cool. Thanks for the contribution to the discussion!

At keast once lawmakers started throwing raw chicken meat at each otger during a session to protest sone tarrif.

I'm missing out on a lot of context here.

I'm eager to see how this community will support the conservatives when they loudly disrupt the debate chamber and silence the Maori members of parliament, now the precedent has been set that this is acceptable behavior.

This comment is unrelated to my position. (Which, for what it's worth, is in favor of the Maori.)

Governments change agreements all the time. There is nothing illegal or unlawful about that. Whether you agree with it or not isn't the point. Just because somebody does something you disagree with doesn't give you the right to throw a fit about it.

this was a place of law and order

Clearly not, given what was being proposed. This was a legislative attempt to reneg on existing agreements between the Maori People and the British State. It was wildly illegal and provoked an appropriately outraged response.

What the legislators were protesting was the legislative equivalent of a mugging. The exact opposite of law and order. ACT New Zealand's delegates are lucky they got out of there with a bit of dancing. In other countries, that kind of blatant criminality is a hanging offense.

No it isn't. If this was on the street then it would be fine but this was a place of law and order where if you don't like something you talk about it like an adult. It was totally unprofessional and performative.

Maori lawmakers staged a dramatic protest in New Zealand's parliament on Thursday over a controversial bill that seeks to redefine the country's founding agreement between the indigenous Maori people and the British Crown.

Seems like as valid a way to protest vile revisionism and cowardly pandering to a foreign monarch.

Where i want congress to pick up the old tradition of thowimg raw chicken at each other

>When the Maori invade england and start forcing their customs on the people there, then maybe you might come somewhere close to pointing out a double standard.

But the framing is wrong. If Maori invaded Britain 250 years ago and over time, the two peoples mixed and created a well run multi racial liberal democracy where all it's citizens enjoy full rights, then the same standard applies. If a couple of politicians of British origin were being obnoxious and were disrupting the duties of the parliament, and the rest of the politicians decided to suspend them for their behavior, then I would be fully in favor of that too. Being of a specific ethnicity doesn't get anyone a pass to be obnoxious.

>also, berserker brits, lol what a concept

It's not a concept, it's actual history. The vikings were a big part of British history.

>We don’t have Trump because people started behaving poorly, we have Trump because there’s been half a century of constricting living standards and a wealthy political duopoly that just doesn’t care. Obama bailing out the banks rather than the people that lost their homes did more to kill civility than anything Trump has done.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they go together hand in hand. Think about it, who focuses the most on useless shit like culture wars that are meant to stir fear and anger in people in our political landscape? It's almost always either corrupt politicians or obnoxious idiots, often times it's both. The point is that the people who are making things worse are also the people who have no manners, ethics, or morals.

When the Maori invade england and start forcing their customs on the people there, then maybe you might come somewhere close to pointing out a double standard. (also, berserker brits, lol what a concept)

We don't have Trump because people started behaving poorly, we have Trump because there's been half a century of constricting living standards and a wealthy political duopoly that just doesn't care. Obama bailing out the banks rather than the people that lost their homes did more to kill civility than anything Trump has done.

I don't think you understand that norms and civility are a requirement for a peaceful, well functioning democracy. If you see them as a nuisance then you're either an authoritarian or an idiot. Like seriously, do you think society is going to function if every self righteous politician start being obnoxious when something doesn't go their way? That braindead mentality is literally how we ended up with Trump and MAGA in the US. It is THE first pillar to fall when on your way to authoritarianism.

These politicians can support or oppose whatever they want, it's their job to do so. However, disrupting the duties of the parliament is not a part of their job, and they know that. If a couple of white politicians in New Zealand started doing berserker rituals every time something doesn't go their way in parliament, will you still be making excuses? If not, then you hold double standards and you're racist. They're the same people, in the same country, and they should abide by customs that they set for themselves. The New Zealand parliament usually has 120, 117 members with vastly different opinions can conduct themselves just fine, 3 can't. Those 3 got suspended.

>These lawmakers were elected to be the voice of the people they represent.

https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealand-42000-demonstrate-support-for-maori-rights/a-70816454

>New Zealand: 42,000 demonstrate support for Maori rights

>

>Thousands turned out despite the bill having little chance of becoming law, saying it was important to show the extent of dissent

but feel free to keep jerkin it to 'norms and civility', i suppose !jagoff

You are being downvoted because, whether you realize it or not, what you wrote is _extremely_ racist.

These are Maori. It’s their land and their traditions, and they are being attacked for both by white, authoritarian colonists. It’s unacceptable.

From the profile, Canadian. Oh the irony wanting to talk about the anti-indigenous practices

Your logic doesn't make sense to me, you're saying people in the US cannot spot and criticize injustices happening in other places because those same injustices are happening in their home country? What about the people who do criticize them locally? Or the natives who are affected by them locally?

Where are you from bud?

How is that relevant to who can and can't discuss Indigenous rights though? Surely the more people in the world who care about Indigenous rights, the better.

To answer your question the US has about 5 out of 435 members, Canada has about 12 out of 343 members. New Zealand has about 33 out of 123 members which is obviously a much larger proportion of their total.

I will never understand why so many Canadians and Americans seem so unaware of one anothers' Indigenous rights movements. You are neighbouring countries and some of your Indigenous nations are cross-border.

Yes, but I just don’t see anything resembling reconciliation happening in the US vis-a-vis Indigenous peoples there. Like, in the US there doesn’t appear to be any reconciliation, not even symbolic gestures like land acknowledgements at events, or meaningful involvement of Indigenous people in settler politics. Are any elected officials in the US also Indigenous, like - at all?

>Not an American, so I can call out anti-Indigenous politics

Any decent human being can and should call out anti-Indigenous politics, no matter their nationality.

Same as always, power.

What else would it be at this point?

It is still a British colony. They need to ditch the British king Charles as fast as possible.

Yeah, because that's it...

I acknowledge the downvotes without any discourse. If you'd like to see how this actually unfolded, here's some context.

I'm curious to see how proponents of this behaviour would support the other side of the aisle perform similar theatrics.

Burning down the houses of parliament would also suspend voting on the bill. Do the ends justify the means?

The bill is now suspended; is the strategy to keep performing hakas to continuously silence members of parliament? The risk is that the next time, when the opposition wants to influence a bill, they also create a circus in the debate chamber. That is not a democratic process.

not appropriate to do in parliament.

A vote was suspended and two lawmakers were ejected after the lawmakers performed a haka ceremonial dance in the parliament. The people in the gallery joined in, and the shouting drowned out the voices of others in the chamber.

Seems like it functioned exactly as intended. Power to the People.

There are many enjoyable things that are not appropriate to do in parliament.

While I personally don't see how performing haka is constructive to include in a debate about the bill, I think it's unrelated to the discussion about what is or is not appropriate in the debating chamber.

No it's a document that _implies_ that they're racist but hiding behind rules to make it seem like they're not.

I dunno. This looks like signing a legal document that confirms they're racist.

Made my day.

OMG that was powerful. I literally am crying right now. How awesome. And often awesome is overused. But, that was awesome.

Awesome!

As an enjoyer of metal, top song! Good on Hana-Rawhiti for protesting.

Momentarily I thought maybe that's why my old boss thought I was mellow. But just remembered, the guy was Australian! Its a different musical system over there.

A tale as old as tea

"The only reason God created the natives was for us to have a bit of sport, old chap"

You expected more? She knew it was going to happen, she did it specifically so it would happen and history won't look fondly in their bullshit suspension.

But that same procedure ended up *defeating* the bill? I'm not sure the protest really achieved much.

You can fight a bill like this in a 100 ways within parliamentary procedure. If they had announced the protest it would be allowed too I believe.

Protest is for when the procedure fails. But it worked just fine here.

Also, arguments about the protest aside, my main point was that it's not *racist* to punish an unannounced disruptive protest, just because that protest happened to be a Haka.

They all look like they're doing poker faces to me, actually. But I dunno, maybe kiwis get used to hakas.

You can substitute in any kind of menacing display you want - viking foot stomping, boo-rah and air punches - it's not really appropriate to spring on someone you don't like. Here there's a cultural component as well, but they can't really argue it was *just* that with the way they directed it.

I think you guys are being tough on the internet, actually. IRL a good battle display gets audience reactions, although I've never been around the Maori kind.

With the element of surprise? Hell yes, I would be shook. I kinda think you would too.

My goddamn family doing that to me in suits would scare me.


Buds give your nuts a tug.

My goddamn family doing that to me in suits would scare me. They're effective, and they did a good job performing it.

Sure, at no point was there a literal threat of actual physical violence. If there was, I'd expect them to be barred for life.

Sure, if you're willfully ignoring context. These were legislators wearing suits doing it in parliament to make a political point, not armed warriors doing it on a battlefield. The only 'fear' was entirely dishonest and performative, not real.

Hakas are *designed* to be intimidating. If you don't know that, you might be a Great White Savior yourself.

You could argue that they should be afraid after introducing racist legislation like they did, but that's not where anyone is going here (yet).

You would have been terrified? If you're that scared of brown people, that's your own issue.

Nobody in that video looked in the least bit afraid, just annoyed.

The world doesn't run on "probably". Nothing ever gets accomplished by assuming "it'll probably happen anyway."

That's all conjecture. I'm not sure lawmakers would be particularly swayed by the Haka, particularly not the proponents of the bill (who probably care even less about it).

Even then, an impassioned speech tends to be far more effective in parliament than disruptive protests (historically speaking).

The bill was already fairly controversial, so it probably wouldn't have passed through legislative apathy.

Would it have defeated it if they hadn't performed their protest and *maybe* made a few other legislators rethink how unpopular of a bill it was? If they hadn't protested, would legislative complacency just allowed the bill to pass unremarked on.

The purpose of a protest is to draw attention to something so that other that have the power to do something about it might do something about it.

I'm not saying the bill failed specifically *because* of the protest, but to think the bill was guaranteed to have failed *anyway* even without it is naive thinking.

That looks like it was for the content of a statement Robert Muldoon delivered alone in 1987, though. It's not really the same thing.

(I did miss that bit of context, though. Oops, sorry)

Before now, the longest suspension of a parliamentarian in New Zealand was three days.

As far as I know, this is pretty standard for that level of disruption and (by the design of a haka) invective towards another member of the house. If they had been suspended for more than a few weeks it'd be fishy, but they will be back. And hopefully it's a political victory for them and not the closet racists they were responding to.

I agree. That's why it's called "having the courage of one's convictions". The people who are protesting are willing to accept the consequences of their actions in order to shake up the system.

But when the system makes up and applies consequences retroactively, it starts a very slippery dilemma where a person can't protest for fear of "hypothetical" repercussions.

You can't have the courage of your convictions if you don't know what the consequences of those convictions are going to be. And you can't know what the consequences of your actions will be if they're just made up ex post facto and applied punitively in order to stifle debate rather than following an already established protocol.

Yeah but why bother? That same parliamentary process *defeated* the bill?

Yeah, and it's pretty well established that protest has a cost for it's participants.

This comment right here is the essence of liberal thought

B..but much process! B..b..but muh decorum!!!!! Please abide the laws we set while we fuck you in the ass!!!!

No honey, fuck you and your procedure. Instead of hiding behind a veneer of professionalism fuck off and fix the issue.

Liberals WILL always silence the downtrodden when they no longer play by their rules.

disrupts the parliamentary process

That's the entire point of a PROTEST though...

They also should have directed it to the speaker.

It seems like a silly tradition, but it keeps things from getting too primally heated, and I would have been terrified in those lawmaker's shoes.

I'm glad it annoys you. You're still fucking wrong.

And yet, still annoying.

FlashMob there is exhibiting a common bias that the only reason to keep traditional group display behaviours around is if they’re religious. This means they are probably from a settler state where colonialism relied on suppressing local culture.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Describing a haka as a religious display is completely inaccurate.

I've performed them at weddings, birthday parties, and before every rugby match. It's a display of culture and history.

Haka isn't even religious, what are you on about?

Interesting! Do you have a link? My search is returning a bunch of stuff about praying for the supreme court or the supreme court on prayer in local council meeting openings.

They've recently established in the Supreme Court that pray ins are kosher

Lol, it appears protests happen during American proceedings so much that there's no actual list. Pray-ins are an established tactic, though, and the penalties are given out on a pretty much production-line basis, so I doubt any exception is made. But, I can't find a concrete example, sorry.

I'd love to see that be the case

New Zealand is over 50% atheist. "Pray ins" are not a thing there. It would be political suicide.

Its Parliament is Westminster system.

IIRC, people get in trouble for that in *the US*. This is New Zealand, where the standards of decorum are much higher and evangelical nonsense is much weaker.

Doubt

The ones that try the "it was a declaration of war!!" angle crack me tf up. What do they think buttfucking a treaty is?

I mean, a surprise pray-in also would have gone over poorly.

I love this guy! This is amazing!

He should be there for when they return, make an entrance.

What about this? https://youtu.be/JddEXEJ8_S0

For anyone used to American news especially, no.

Speaking truth when it could get your life ruined or sometimes even taken by the wicked and powerful will always be an act of bravery.

But I agree with you as well. It's terrifying to be surprised when journalists speak the truth, and to see the suppression of truth become "normal" before our very eyes.

It's normal for DW or any other global news service, since the added historical context is very important for their worldwide audience.

journalism has been weak for years, basically just a bullhorn for whoever is being interviewed in that moment

Normal journalism requires backbone.

It feels so weird, and a little scary, to see people praising brave journalism when they're basically just staying historical facts... It's that not normal journalism? 😅

Hey nice, journalism with a backbone!

If only more news orgs in America could import that.

But then, it would probably be blocked by TACO tariffs.

That woman is amazing. What a response.

It made them uncomfortable, and whatever the law actually says, nothing is more illegal than making rich white people uncomfortable.

Something something “when you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”

I think it is still pretty painful to acknowledge for a lot of people, honestly, so it's not surprising. At least they're only downvoting and not jumping into the usual rounds of whataboutism. The goal is to learn from history, not to justify anything that is done or make anyone feel bad, but I'm also not going to apologize for it if it *does* make people feel bad. To those downvoters: If it makes you feel bad, you know what will make you feel better about it? Do something to make things better. I'm not saying you have to, I'm just saying it might make you feel better about acknowledging the history. Your call.

Weird thing for people to downvote. Acknowledging a painful truth ≠ endorsing it.

Doing a racism is the well-known cultural tradition of the white people and our ancestors.

It's scary now that doing a racism is considered a little more uncouth

I bet they were, right up until they killed everyone.

Weirdly their ancestors weren’t intimidated when it came to colonizing and stealing their land.

They saw it as a threat because they’re threatening the natives way of life and they’re scared of being in the shoes of the oppressed

Yeah. This is the contentious part. Before Thursday, the longest suspension was for three days.

Except they didn't interrupt voting. Go and watch the video, Maipi-Clarke clearly gives TPMs vote before the haka started. The fact that the report claims they interrupted voting clearly shows how bullshit the process was.

I think it's you who are on your high horse. Claiming there needs to be some kind of "decorum" over a bill designed to strip rights from Maori is utter bullshit and frankly racist.

Did you miss the part about how disproportional the punishment was compared to any other given in the past?

If a white people... Dog-the article is literally that this is a greater than normal punishment.

Perhaps consider watching the recording or reading what actually happened before typing a massive rant claiming others are wrong?

Yeah, knowing how the bigots will react makes them jot bigots.

Like how sundown towns arent racist.

I don't see why people dont understand this.

Do you realize that half the rules and traditions of parliament are based on Christianity and western colonial culture? How come they’re not all being punished for following their cultural traditions? Why are only the indigenous cultural traditions “disruptive”?

Why aren’t you allowed to be disruptive when you’ve been colonized, your people murdered and raped, your race subjugated and your traditions silenced? Sounds like you’re on the side of the status quo, even if the status quo is a bunch of colonial racists

Im indigenous from Central America, you’re a fool if you don’t realize that every interaction the governments have with indigenous communities are painted with a racist brush. All deal begin from a position where the indigenous are looked down on as the lesser. Every time.

This does look like they are specifically singled out, true.

Did that really go right over your head? Unbelievable!

It was rhetorical but go on queen.

A tactic used when the person speaking has been recognized to speak according to the rules of the legislature. I don't really see why that's relevant here though?

Thank you, I've learned a new english word today. 😺

Conceptually it looks like a flaw in the system and in my opinion is undesirable, do you disagree?

K

My comment has more bite than yours about .world, nerd.

Ohhh nooo not “my instance” lol you dork

Hey! He's from .cafe, not .world.

At least your instance is shutting down.

Elaborate, what exactly do you think is wrong with my post?

I do not disagree with their action, in contrary it's refreshing to see politician with consciense that try to actually do what they are hired to do. Question is - what now? If other parties would do the same and just stop session without any reprecussion (because they hold majority, or due to other reasons).

::: spoiler Tap for spoiler

Please stop with personal attacks.

:::

Either you're a shill, a turfer, or a moron, or maybe you have legit said something stupid and dont understand why.

I dont know where you are from, or what culture you are but, what would you propose to do to indicate that something is unacceptable, after having stated that many many times, and the people who have traditionally murdered your people for being "savages"opt to ignore you many times, and are the people that hold power? Just say "this is unacceptable" and take the loss, while just allowing your constituents to get fucked?

Please, educate me what did I get wrong from reading the article? Or was your comment just for public shaming?

I don't understand; how is that relevant in any way to this discussion about the haka? Please explain specifically.

I see no one has ever rold you the anecdote about how a bar turns into a nazi bar.

Before Thursday, the longest suspension was for three days.

Thats okay, but disruption has consequences, so being banned or fined or whatever just happens

How disgustingly pitiful a position, to be so categorically incapable of understanding cultures other than your own, that you can only imagine comparing them to animals. How outdated you must feel. I suppose we should expect nothing less from someone with such a cringe-inducing self-concept that they literally call themselves a 'warrior of kek'. I gag in sorrow at your impotence and turpitude. Perhaps it would be better if you stopped your own 'mooing', you sad, lost child.

Sorry bud, comparing the haka to animal noises is not “tone”, so fuck off with the disingenuous bullshit.

Protest MUST disrupt something or it will be ignored. That’s why riots and boycotts get shit done while normal protests fizzle out.

Every major social policy change I’m aware of was accompanied by riots.

Disrupting parliament is far less violent than a riot yet still makes the point effectively.

...animal noises?

“Animal noises“… Damn that’s some racist shit

What does protest mean to you?

This is an extremely vague statement that focuses on me instead of showing me and _people like me_ where exactly we are wrong. Majority rule absolutely is common denominator in most democratic systems, so show me how it isn't.

I think as long as the colonizers maintain an economically superior position, and keep the political power, there can be no real integration.

A good democracy has checks and balances to protect minorities from mob rule /tyrrany of the majority.

That is actually what this protest is about - the ruling party wants to remove some of those legal safeguards.

New Zealand's political system has proportional representation. Maori will most likely be in partial control after their next election.

democracy can be viewed as a dictatorship of the majority

No. If you had even the most basic theoretical background on the subject you'd know how wrong this statement is. Yet people like you dangerously believe this surface level third grade understanding of democratic systems somehow makes them an expert.

Maori people arent only a single party. This is 3 MPs from a single party being temp suspended. Maori are 27% of parliament and have MPs in all majority parties. They will still be represented.

If you have 1 seat you have political power.

Well, until you conveniently get the longest suspension in history right as parliament is about to decide the budget, anyway.

As far as I can see 26% of New Zealand's politicians identify as Maori, including the man who was Deputy Prime Minister during this haka.

Indigenous people are not monolithic.

New Zealand also has a carve out of Maori seats which is meaningful because it has proportional representation. This is what Australia could have eventually done with Indigenous Voice but there is no political appetite for it in Australia, plus the Aboriginal and Torres Straits people make up a far smaller percentage.

Regretfully, democracy can be viewed as a dictature of majority over minority. I don't think that there can be any clear cut answer to it. As for colonizers vs colonized, how far back do you consider this should go? As in any person of european descent forever in the future will be considered colonizer instead of people born on this land?

Thats not true at all. 19% is plenty of political power. You dont need 50% of the votes to get political power in our system. If you have 1 seat you have political power.

Even if all Maori voted for them, they only would have 19%. That means they would still not be able to have political power.

The system is rigged, giving the huge number of colonizers an advantage over the native population. Australia has a similar problem.

What percentage of parliament should they hold?

If they are underrepresented, why other Maori don't vote for their party? Is there some kind of voter suppression scheme going on? If there is that's probably was a right move that can move this problem out of unspoken/shadow consensus, if there isn't then it's just one party disrupting parliament because they can't get what they want.

These people are underrepresented and standing up for their constituents, suspend them so they can stop doing that!

I think the issue is more that they went from a 3 day suspension being the record high for disruptive behavior to suddenly 21 for these minority members.

A lawmaker during the arguments said that they had previously given zero suspension to a fistfight, someone driving their truck onto the buildings steps in protest, another member crossing the floor to bump another members desk. But this dance is 21 days.

So don't comment with ignorant babble then.

Do you believe that every party in every parliament in the world should be able to just stop parliament from working instead of trying to actually vote for laws/bills the way they think is right because they are sure that they are right and their voice aren’t being heard (even if they are minority in the said parliament or don’t have quorum)?

My legislative body has the filibuster and I think it has a useful function, so *yes!*

----

BTW, there's no good reason whatsoever the NZ parliament couldn't have resumed business after the haka. None at all.

The only reason they didn't was because the leadership decided to feign performative fear and end the session in order to manufacture an excuse to punish the native legislators and exclude them from influencing the budget.

Do you believe that every party in every parliament in the world should be able to just stop parliament from working instead of trying to actually vote for laws/bills

Plenty of parliamentarians getting kicked out of western parliaments for wearing t-shirts with slogans, holding up signs, suchlike. Suspensions generally are extraordinarily short and little more than "ok we'll give you some time to change into respectable attire". Also make a scene? Add a day. Make them watch from the visitor's benches. Pay attention they don't miss (relevant) votes.

That would have been the proper reaction: The proper way to handle ritual stunts (and they're a ritual, also the t-shirt thing) is with ritual slaps on the wrist.

The NZ reaction? They're suspending parliamentarians for unprecedented amounts of time, and on top of that *while the budget is being passed*. That is, they're fucking with the distribution of votes, which is fucking with the foundations of democracy. That is, for a parliament, nothing less than a declaration of bankruptcy.

You sound like Hillary Clinton talking about being pragmatic (while completely missing the point.) Like people who complain about protesters blocking roads because it inconveniences their commute. Maybe that's your intent or maybe you don't understand that civility can be a form of oppression?

What's a filibuster?

Good lord dot world is filled with the most pathetic fucking losers imaginable

But fillerbusters are appropriate process of disturbing voting that are not a treats to democracy, right?

There is more to voting than casting a vote.

No, see, it should be allowed when we agree with the people making the disruption. Otherwise absolutely not!

God people are stupid and one sided on this

They were suspended for disrupting the democratic vote process.

It's not about the haka. Its about a time and a place for democratic voting policy. Democracy is paramount it's not about any one person, people or groups of people trying to intimate the vote. That happens outside. No one is complaining about doing the haka for or against anything at any other time.

But when it cones to voting you got to behave.

>It is highly disorderly for members to interrupt a vote while it is being conducted. The right to cast one's vote without impediment goes to the heart of being a member of Parliament. The threshold at which an interjection during a vote may be considered a contempt is where the interruption could be considered intimidatory

Thats the wording of the report. But Lemmy is already on their wokey high horse. Minorities can do no wrong.

The fact of the matter is intimidating voting process is not okay. You are stopping democracy. If a white people acted that way there would be no outcry. The outcry is only about people not being given special treatment for being Maori, if I white person done it the result would have been fine and everyone here would say it's justified. It sounds like everyone here is racist but NZ actually made a decision not based on race.

Are you aware they went into this knowing the consequences? This is why we even know what happened, because it was a protest with real world consequences.

This is what makes what they did so powerful.

Any other "race" would face similar consequences.

Racism isn't dictating every decision. So tired of that take.

Do you believe that every party in every parliament in the world should be able to just stop parliament from working instead of trying to actually vote for laws/bills the way they think is right because they are sure that they are right and their voice aren't being heard (even if they are minority in the said parliament or don't have quorum)?

It was a performance point of which was disruption of parliament session, which was achieved. (I have 0 stakes in this, NZ might as well be in another universe)

“Are our voices too loud for this house? Is that the reason why we are being silenced? Are our voices shaking the core foundation of this house? The house we had no voice in building ...We will never be silenced and we will never be lost,” she said.

Fucking powerful.

Despite the signing of the treaty in 1840, there were many bloody conflicts between the colonial government and Maori tribes in ensuing years, resulting in the confiscation of large amounts of Maori land. Tensions remain to this day between New Zealand's Indigenous people and the descendants of the Europeans who colonized their country.

Hey nice, journalism with a backbone!

Well that sounds like some quality racism over there.

"a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the house."

Oh go fuck yourself. Can the haka be intimidating as hell? Oh ***god yes.*** But you should also be able to recognize the difference between active intimidation and a powerful protest. Especially when YOUR COUNTRY IS KNOWN FOR IT.

I can probably count a million little “traditions” that parliament follows that are based on Christianity and western colonial culture. But a haka is unacceptable

Tell us you're racist without saying that you're racist.

Racist fucks

Brits oppressing natives

And, in 2025, the Pākehā keep deciding what happens to indigenous land and indigenous resources, without letting Maori have any voice in it. Toitū te Tiriti!

fragile ass white men

I get chills every time I've watched this haka being performed. It is such a poweerful statement and this reaction is complete garbage. When the people of your country speak, surely government should be open to listening?

Here is a metal version of her really impressive protest. How is this not awesome?

https://youtu.be/JddEXEJ8_S0

Settler colonial government doing what settler colonial governments do.

What!? But that haka was awesome! How can you not enjoy that?

Just made it cooler. Didn't even think that was possible

'If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.'

Shame. Wtf is wrong with your shitty shitty politics New Zealand?!!?! (Not an American, so I can call out anti-Indigenous politics)

I don't know anything about New Zealand, or Maori culture, or history, or parliamentary procedure, or the Treaty Principles Bill, or the hearings that led to this decision, or the Haka, or sociology, or anthropology, or race relations, or indigenous issues, but I think...

why don't they just have everyone do their hakas at the start, like in the rugby?

I really hope we do not get another national term.

As someone who is half-Maori this just embarrasses me. I don't have a problem with people celebrating their heritage and culture just do it in a more appropriate time and place. I wouldn't have a problem with Irish people celebrating the Saint Patrick's Day just as long as they don't do it during a meeting at parliament.

Unpopular opinion but interruption is interruption no matter the form. I do agree with the native protest here but I wouldn't read into this ruling too much as any governing body would take this position. Weak governing rule set creates these loopholes like the American filibuster which imo is a bug not a feature.

I mean, personally I don't really agree with people here saying this punishment is racism.

For me this falls into the same category as walking up to other members of parliament and yelling loudly at them, or breakdancing, or doing anything that disrupts the parliamentary process. I don't think making exceptions for a Haka is reasonable. Parliament has these rules to ensure the room stays calm, collected and can do its work. The Labour party too believes some punishment is appropriate, though they suggested a censure instead.

Most articles refer to a previous suspension of 3 days, but I can't find what that was for. I can't judge if the severity of the punishment is therefore in line with precedent.

It should be mentioned, the bill they protested ultimately did not end up passing.

I support the suspensions. If all the other members abide by the same rules except for these ones then it makes sense reprimand them for disrupting the duties of parliament. These lawmakers were elected to be the voice of the people they represent. If they're not using their voice to explain why they oppose the bill or what their proposed alternatives are then they're not doing their job. Screaming and tearing up papers is just annoying and wasting everyone's time.

With all due respect to Maori people, these displays are annoying to watch, but I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be any religious displays in government proceedings.

At least until one of these supposed gods mskescan appearance.