𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

This seems rather unlikely. Ukraine for example takes care to inform journalists and simply asks them not to compromise their locations, checking phones and cameras where necessary.

They don’t hold journalists at gunpoint, delete all images off of each device, then threaten the journalists if they dare come back.

Israel has committed crimes in Syria too, which they seem keen to cover up. Intimidation of the press fits in that pattern. They wouldn’t behave like this if it was jusy opsec.

The judges were personally sanctioned I believe.

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.

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

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.

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.

True, it’s not a perfect measure. But surely an instance with fewer users also tends to have fewer active communities, no?

It might be better than nothing at least.

I suppose we should normalize lemmy instances closing new registrations, to keep the user count at a manageable level for the admins.

It’s insane, the basic fucking concept of why human shields “work” is that it’s morally wrong to kill them. Totally bizarre.