Protests over ‘please walk on me' flag artwork prompt its removal from New Zealand gallery — again
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — A New Zealand flag printed with the words 'please walk on me' and laid on the floor of an art gallery has once again been packed away following public outcry, 30 years after protests forced the removal of the same artwork.
The Suter Art Gallery in the city of Nelson said Thursday it had taken down the work by Māori artist Diane Prince due to escalating tensions and safety fears. The episode mirrored an Auckland gallery's removal of the work amid public backlash and complaints to law enforcement in 1995.
This time, the flag was meant to remain on display for five months. Instead, it lasted just 19 days, reigniting long-running debates in New Zealand over artistic expression, national symbols and the country's colonial history.
Police told The Associated Press on Friday that officers were investigating 'several' complaints about the exhibition.
What is the artwork?
The piece, titled Flagging the Future, is a cloth New Zealand flag displayed on the floor with the words 'please walk on me' stenciled across it. The flag features the British Union Jack and red stars on a blue background.
The work was part of an exhibition, Diane Prince: Activist Artist, and was meant to provoke reflection on the Māori experience since New Zealand's colonization by Britain in the 19th century. Prince created the piece in 1995 in response to a government policy that limited compensation to Māori tribes for historical land theft.
'I have no attachment to the New Zealand flag,' Prince told Radio New Zealand in 2024. 'I don't call myself a New Zealander. I call myself a Māori.'
Prince couldn't be reached immediately for comment Friday.
New Zealand's reckoning with its colonial past has gathered pace in recent decades. But there has been little appetite among successive governments to sever the country's remaining constitutional ties to Britain or change the flag to a design that doesn't feature the Union Jack.
Why did the art strike a nerve?
New Zealand is among countries where desecrating the national flag is considered taboo and prohibited by law. Damaging a flag in public with intent to dishonor it is punishable by a fine of up to 5,000 New Zealand dollars ($2,984), but prosecutions are fleetingly rare.
As in the United States and elsewhere, the country's flag is synonymous for some with military service. But for others, particularly some Māori, it's a reminder of land dispossession, and loss of culture and identity.
Protests of the artwork in the city of Nelson, population 55,000, included videos posted to social media by a local woman, Ruth Tipu, whose grandfather served in the army's Māori Battalion during World War II. In one clip, she is seen lifting the flag from the floor and draping it over another artwork, an action Tipu said she would repeat daily.
A veterans' group also denounced the piece as 'shameful' and 'offensive.' City council member Tim Skinner said he was 'horrified' by the work's inclusion.
But others welcomed it. Nelson's deputy mayor, Rohan O'Neill-Stevens, posted on social media 'in strong defense of artistic expression and the right for us all to be challenged and confronted by art.'
Why did the gallery remove it?
The work was perhaps expected to provoke controversy and in the exhibition's opening days, The Suter Gallery defended its inclusion. But a statement on its Facebook page late Thursday said a 'sharp escalation in the tone and nature of the discourse, moving well beyond the bounds of respectful debate' had prompted the flag's removal.
'This should not be interpreted as a judgement on the artwork or the artist's intent,' the statement said. The gallery didn't detail specific incidents of concern and a gallery spokesperson didn't respond to a request for an interview on Friday.
New Zealand's Police said in a statement Friday that while officers were investigating complaints, they weren't called to any disturbances at the exhibition. Prince said when she revived the work in 2024 that threats of prosecution by law enforcement had prompted its removal from the Auckland gallery in 1995.
The Nelson gallery didn't suggest in its statement that police involvement had influenced Thursday's decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pennsylvania lawmaker proposes green-lighting vehicles with self-driving capabilities
(WHTM) — A Pennsylvania lawmaker plans to introduce a bill allowing drivers to use passenger vehicles with self-driving technology. The bill, circulated by state Rep. Napoleon J. Nelson (D-154), would allow Pennsylvanians to use passenger vehicles equipped with Level three autonomous driving capabilities. Level three autonomous driving capabilities, also known as conditional automation, give vehicles the ability to handle all driving tasks, provided the driver can take over when the system allows it, according to Imagination Technologies. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now According to the memo, the bill would allow drivers to use this technology as long as they are behind the wheel and can resume the task of driving at any point. Several U.S. states have already implemented vehicles with this technology, the memo says. Rep. Nelson said he believes the bill would help significantly reduce DUI incidents in the state and improve roadway safety for other motorists, bicyclists, and other forms of transportation. 'It is essential that Pennsylvania continue to lead in the advancement of transportation technology,' he said. The bill has not been submitted for introduction yet. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
E&E News
12 hours ago
- E&E News
New Zealand greens sue government over climate plan
A coalition of climate attorneys is suing New Zealand's climate minister in what is being billed as the first case in the world to challenge a government's reliance on tree planting to achieve climate targets. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative filed suit Tuesday in the High Court of New Zealand, alleging that the country's emissions reduction plan isn't aggressive enough to meet the requirements of a 2002 climate law. 'The world's leading scientists have made clear that this is the critical decade for climate action — but the New Zealand government has been quietly cutting climate policies, and relying on planting pine trees as an alternative,' Lawyers for Climate Action NZ said in a statement. Advertisement The groups argue that since taking office in 2023, the government led by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has canceled 35 climate policies and actions which were part of a recent emissions reduction plan — without consulting the public, as required by law.
CNN
16 hours ago
- CNN
New Zealand government sued over ‘inadequate' plan to reduce emissions
Climate lawyers are taking the New Zealand government to court, alleging its plan to reduce planet-heating pollution contains 'glaring holes,' which will have 'huge consequences for our country.' Two groups, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative, argue that the government's plan to reach net zero before 2050 is 'neither credible nor capable' of reducing emissions. The groups, which represent about 300 lawyers, filed for judicial review in the Wellington High Court on Tuesday against New Zealand's Minister for Climate Change, Simon Watts. In the claim, they argue that, contrary to New Zealand law, the right-leaning government has slashed dozens of climate policies without consulting the public, and is relying on 'high-risk' strategies such as tree planting to offset the country's emissions. 'We're filing this case because it's critical our government is held to account,' Lawyers for Climate Action NZ said in a statement. 'The world's leading scientists have made clear that this is the critical decade for climate action - but the NZ government has been quietly cutting climate policies, and relying on planting pine trees as an alternative,' the statement said. In a statement to CNN, a spokesperson for Watts said the minister was 'aware' of the legal proceedings. 'As this matter is now before the courts, the Minister will not be commenting on the judicial review,' the spokesperson said. The government released its second emissions reduction plan in December, which sets out a 'a technology-led approach' to reducing emissions while growing the country's economy. A major part of the plan is investment in carbon capture and storage, afforestation and gas capture from organic waste, management and landfill. In April, the government projected that 700,000 hectares of land will be converted into forest by 2050. At the time, Watts said New Zealand 'remained committed to the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees' and that the government was on track to meet its emissions budgets up until 2030. With just 5 million people, New Zealand is a small player when it comes to global carbon emissions. But like many other island nations, the country is feeling the impacts of the climate crisis, which is eroding its shores, destroying its biodiversity, fueling extreme weather and threatening to displace entire communities. And New Zealand's Climate Change Commission has warned of an 'urgent need' to strengthen the country's climate policies. Central to the legal challenge are two claims. The first is that the right-leaning government, which took office in November 2023, threw out 35 climate policies, including a clean car discount and a fund for investing in decarbonizing industries, without proper public consultation. The second claim is that the government is relying too heavily on offsetting emissions though forestry or controversial and expensive methods such as carbon capture and storage, which has yet to be proven at scale. While climate scientists generally agree that planting trees and restoring forests to absorb carbon dioxide is needed to meet climate obligations, many experts warn that tree planting is not a quick or complete fix and won't go far enough to reduce the needed emissions. 'This will be one of the first legal cases in the world challenging a government's pursuit of a climate strategy that relies so heavily on offsetting rather than emissions reductions at source,' the Environmental Law Initiative said in a statement. 'As it stands, the Government's emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country,' it added. New Zealand's Green Party supports the litigation, saying the government's current climate plan is 'not worth the paper it is written on.'
