The New Zealand Parliament has voted to impose record suspensions on three lawmakers who did a Maori haka as a protest. The incident took place last November during a debate on a law on Indigenous rights.
New Zealand’s parliament on Thursday agreed to lengthy suspensions for three lawmakers who disrupted the reading of a controversial bill last year by performing a haka, a traditional Maori dance.
Two parliamentarians — Te Pati Maori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi — were suspended for 21 days and one — Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, from the same party — for seven days.
Before now, the longest suspension of a parliamentarian in New Zealand was three days.
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 know one person from New Zealand and she’s racist as fuck.
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.
Where i want congress to pick up the old tradition of thowimg raw chicken at each other
I’m missing out on a lot of context here.
Seems like as valid a way to protest vile revisionism and cowardly pandering to a foreign monarch.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Settler colonial government doing what settler colonial governments do.
‘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)
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.
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?
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.
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?
From the profile, Canadian. Oh the irony wanting to talk about the anti-indigenous practices
fragile ass white men
Yeah, because that’s it…
It is still a British colony. They need to ditch the British king Charles as fast as possible.
What!? But that haka was awesome! How can you not enjoy that?
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.
not appropriate to do in parliament.
Seems like it functioned exactly as intended. Power to the People.
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.
Tell us you’re racist without saying that you’re racist.
I dunno. This looks like signing a legal document that confirms they’re racist.
Here is a metal version of her really impressive protest. How is this not awesome?
OMG that was powerful. I literally am crying right now. How awesome. And often awesome is overused. But, that was awesome.
As an enjoyer of metal, top song! Good on Hana-Rawhiti for protesting.
Awesome!
Made my day.
Brits oppressing natives
“The only reason God created the natives was for us to have a bit of sport, old chap”
A tale as old as tea
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Nobody in that video looked in the least bit afraid, just annoyed.
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.
You would have been terrified? If you’re that scared of brown people, that’s your own issue.
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).
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.
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.
Buds give your nuts a tug.
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.
My goddamn family doing that to me in suits would scare me.
With the element of surprise? Hell yes, I would be shook. I kinda think you would too.
disrupts the parliamentary process
That’s the entire point of a PROTEST though…
Yeah but why bother? That same parliamentary process defeated the bill?
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’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.
The world doesn’t run on “probably”. Nothing ever gets accomplished by assuming “it’ll probably happen anyway.”
Yeah, and it’s pretty well established that protest has a cost for it’s participants.
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.
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.
Before now, the longest suspension of a parliamentarian in New Zealand was three days.
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)
