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.
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.”