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.
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.
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
Institutional violence is constant intimidation.
In case you’re actually curious https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Mate
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
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