Parliaments have rules dictating behaviour for good reason. If they don’t then discussion break down into chaos. So should they be punished? Absolutely.
The severity of that punishment depends on the type of haka and what was intended by it. In all the coverage I’ve seen no translation of what was said. A haka can be anything from expressions of joy to a declaration of war.
If the point was to intimidate or worse, then throw the book at her. Just as someone using intimidating or violent language would be ruled against. Doing it in a way specific to a particular culture does not get you protection.
If it was just a display of Maori culture at a poignant moment, expressing grief at the decision, then more leniency can be shown. However I doubt that’s the case given the physical actions involved.
If I recall correctly it was in response to a bill that would nullify the treaty with the indigenous people. In my mind, trying to gut the agreement that you’ll work together and respect each other instead of trying to kill each other is an act of war, any response less than killing people is being respectful.
The Maori party favour theatrics over results, and always have. One of the most notable examples, there was a motion in the house to change the dress code, which the speaker asked if anyone wanted to second. Nobody did.
The next day, one of their MPs was ejected from the house for not wearing a tie.
You seem to have a very simplistic view of the world, and don’t seem to be willing to take other points of view on board, so I don’t see much point engaging with you any further.
Begging for attention or doing something that is reasonable can be good.
Getting attention by being disruptive and manipulative is the problem.
Hence the fact they threw the book at her.
Knowing is one thing. Context and intent is another.
Parliaments have rules dictating behaviour for good reason. If they don’t then discussion break down into chaos. So should they be punished? Absolutely.
The severity of that punishment depends on the type of haka and what was intended by it. In all the coverage I’ve seen no translation of what was said. A haka can be anything from expressions of joy to a declaration of war.
If the point was to intimidate or worse, then throw the book at her. Just as someone using intimidating or violent language would be ruled against. Doing it in a way specific to a particular culture does not get you protection.
If it was just a display of Maori culture at a poignant moment, expressing grief at the decision, then more leniency can be shown. However I doubt that’s the case given the physical actions involved.
If I recall correctly it was in response to a bill that would nullify the treaty with the indigenous people. In my mind, trying to gut the agreement that you’ll work together and respect each other instead of trying to kill each other is an act of war, any response less than killing people is being respectful.
Institutional violence is constant intimidation.
Nah you racist. This is her culture and he land and the cunts trying to pull bullshit will get Haka’d out of parliament
Fuck your decorum
In case you’re actually curious https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Mate
Thanks. That does give me more context. Not as bad as it could have been, but certainly has some venom in parts.
She has done this before. She knows Hakas gets attention. So she is aware of want she is doing.
I agree with you.
THATS THE PURPOSE
the fuck you mean she’s aware of what she was doing? Fucking commie morons
The Maori party favour theatrics over results, and always have. One of the most notable examples, there was a motion in the house to change the dress code, which the speaker asked if anyone wanted to second. Nobody did.
The next day, one of their MPs was ejected from the house for not wearing a tie.
You’re speaking of criticism of the party I don’t care.
This woman did nothing wrong I don’t care if it is theatrical, politics is theatrics.
You seem to have a very simplistic view of the world, and don’t seem to be willing to take other points of view on board, so I don’t see much point engaging with you any further.
You misunderstood, you wank.
Begging for attention or doing something that is reasonable can be good. Getting attention by being disruptive and manipulative is the problem. Hence the fact they threw the book at her.
Knowing is one thing. Context and intent is another.
I am not a commie. You commie.
there’s no difference but perspective you dope
They did this right before Parliament was set to vote, and managed to disrupt and delay said vote.
So yes, it was pretty bad.
The video is less than two minutes long