&w=3840&q=100)
How a Maori haka protest brought New Zealand's Parliament to a halt
A Maori haka performed in New Zealand's Parliament has triggered one of the most heated political standoffs in recent years.
At the centre of the storm: A November 2024 protest by three Maori Party MPs, including New Zealand's youngest lawmaker, who used the traditional Maori dance and chant to voice opposition to the controversial Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. The government has since proposed the harshest suspensions ever handed down in the Parliament's history, reported The Associated Press.
What exactly is the haka?
The haka is a traditional chant and dance from the indigenous Maori people of New Zealand. Known through the All Blacks rugby team's iconic pre-match performance, the haka is more than a sports ritual.
It is a sacred expression of identity, emotion, and unity — often performed to mark important life moments like births, funerals, graduations, and major public ceremonies. While it originated as a war dance, today the haka is performed in both celebratory and solemn settings.
While it is rooted in Maori culture, the haka can be performed by people of any race — as long as they are taught the correct movements, words, and cultural significance by Maori custodians.
What happened in New Zealand's Parliament?
On November 29, 2024, tensions flared inside New Zealand's House of Representatives during debate over a bill that would have changed the country's founding treaty — Te Tiriti o Waitangi — an agreement made in 1840 between Maori tribal leaders and the British Crown.
Te Pati Maori, the Maori Party, strongly opposed the bill, saying it undermined the rights of indigenous people.
During the session, 22-year-old MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, the youngest ever elected lawmaker in New Zealand, stood up, tore a copy of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and performed a haka. Two of her party colleagues joined in, walking across the chamber floor toward government MPs while chanting.
The protest stopped proceedings, interrupted the vote, and immediately drew criticism from some lawmakers who called it disruptive and intimidating.
????Unprecedented & simply magnificent. That time in Nov 2024 when a haka led by Aotearoa's youngest MP 22yo Hana-Rawhiti Kareariki Maipi-Clarke erupted in the House stopping the Treaty Principles Bill from passing its first reading, triggering the Speaker to suspend Parliament.… pic.twitter.com/pkI7q7WGlr
— Kelvin Morgan ???????? (@kelvin_morganNZ) November 14, 2024
Why was it so controversial?
Haka has been performed in Parliament before — typically during celebrations or the passing of significant legislation. But this instance was different.
This haka was used as a form of protest— a live disruption during an official debate, involving movement across the parliamentary floor. Critics say this broke established rules and created an atmosphere of confrontation.
Supporters, however, view it as a powerful, peaceful act of dissent rooted in cultural identity — a form of protest deeply connected to Maori heritage.
What penalties were proposed?
A special Parliamentary Privileges Committee reviewed the incident and, in a rare move, recommended formal suspensions:
- Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: 7 days
- Two other Te Pati Maori MPs: 21 days each
These are the longest suspensions ever proposed for MPs in New Zealand. The previous record was just three days.
The committee noted that Maipi-Clarke had submitted a letter expressing regret, which is why her penalty was lighter.
Why hasn't Parliament acted yet?
Usually, disciplinary measures are agreed upon quickly and quietly. This time, that hasn't happened.
Opposition parties, led by Chris Hipkins, argue that the punishment is disproportionate and unfair, especially when compared to past incidents. Hipkins pointed to previous protests where MPs brawled on the floor or drove a tractor up Parliament's steps, yet were not suspended.
National MP Judith Collins, who chaired the committee, disagreed. She insisted the issue was about rule-breaking, not culture.
'This is not about the haka,' Collins said. 'It's about behaviour. This was the most serious breach I've ever seen in the chamber.'
Why was the debate delayed?
Meanwhile, a special debate on the suspensions began on Tuesday, but it was unexpectedly adjourned within minutes.
The reason? The government allowed the Maori MPs to remain in Parliament for the week's budget session, a critical part of the legislative calendar. That move avoided immediate conflict, but only temporarily.
The debate will now resume on June 5, and unless all parties reach a consensus, it could gridlock Parliament again.
What is the public reaction?
Outside Parliament, support for the Maori MPs has been strong and vocal.
On Tuesday, hundreds of protesters gathered in Wellington, performing a haka of their own in solidarity. Signs, chants, and social media posts have framed the suspensions as an attack not just on individuals, but on Maori identity and freedom of expression.
Activist Eru Kapa-Kingi, speaking to the crowd, said, 'The haka is a source of fear in Parliament — even though when the All Blacks do it, it's a good thing.'
What happens next?
The disciplinary debate will pick up again on June 5, and unless parties agree on what constitutes a fair penalty, it could cause further delays in government business.
The government remains firm on pushing through the sanctions, while opposition MPs insist the punishment is excessive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
32 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump's expanding use of emergency powers raises alarms among experts
Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's levelling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president, said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. The temptation is clear, said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Programme and an expert in emergency powers. What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit, Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action. The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces an unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. In analysing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Centre for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-September 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges, said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act. Trump, Yoo said, has just elevated it to another level. Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. We believe and we're right that we are in an emergency, Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies, Vance said. I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain. Vance continued, These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a path toward autocracy and suppression.
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Drought, rising prices and dwindling herds undercut this year's Eid al-Adha in North Africa
Drought, rising prices, dwindling herds undercut this year's Eid al-Adha in North Africa (AP) Morocco: Flocks of sheep once quilted Morocco's mountain pastures, stretched across Algeria's vast plateaus and grazed along Tunisia's green coastline. But the cascading effects of climate change have sparked a region-wide shortage that is being felt acutely as Muslims throughout North Africa celebrate Eid al-Adha. Each year, Muslims slaughter sheep to honor a passage of the Quran in which the Prophet Ibrahim prepared to sacrifice his son as an act of obedience to God, who intervened and replaced the child with a sheep. But this year, rising prices and falling supply are creating new challenges, breeders and potential buyers throughout the region say. At a market in suburban Algiers last week, breeders explained to angry patrons that their prices had increased because the cost of everything needed to raise sheep, including animal feed, transport and veterinary care, had grown. Slimane Aouadi stood watching livestock pens, discussing with his wife whether to buy a sheep to celebrate this year's Eid. "It's the same sheep as the one I bought last year, the same look and the same weight, but it costs $75 more," Aouadi, a doctor, told The Associated Press. Amid soaring inflation, sheep can sell for more than $1,200, an exorbitant amount in a country where average monthly incomes hover below $270. Tradition meets reality Any disruption to the ritual sacrifice can be sensitive, a blow to religious tradition and source of anger toward rising prices and the hardship they bring. So Morocco and Algeria have resorted to unprecedented measures. Algerian officials earlier this year announced plans to import a staggering 1 million sheep to make up for domestic shortages. Morocco's King Mohammed VI broke with tradition and urged Muslims to abstain from the Eid sacrifice. Local officials across the kingdom have closed livestock markets, preventing customers from buying sheep for this year's celebrations. "Our country is facing climatic and economic challenges that have resulted in a substantial decline in livestock numbers. Performing the sacrifice in these difficult circumstances will cause real harm to large segments of our people, especially those with limited incomes," the king, who is also Morocco's highest religious authority, wrote in a February letter read on national television. Trucks have unloaded thousands of sheep in new markets in Algiers and the surrounding suburbs. University of Toulouse agro-economist Lotfi Gharnaout told the state-run newspaper El Moudjahid that Algeria's import strategy could cost between $230 and $260 million and still not even meet nationwide demand. Thinning pastures Overgrazing has long strained parts of North Africa where the population is growing and job opportunities beyond herding and farming are scarce. But after seven years of drought, it's the lack of rainfall and skyrocketing feed prices that are now shrinking herds. Drought conditions, experts say, have degraded forage lands where shepherds graze their flocks and farmers grow cereals to be sold as animal feed. With less supply, prices have spiked beyond the reach of middle class families who have historically purchased sheep for slaughter. Moroccan economist Najib Akesbi said shrinking herds stemmed directly from vegetation loss in grazing areas. The prolonged drought has compounded inflation already fueled by the war in Ukraine. "Most livestock farming in North Africa is pastoral, which means it's farming that relies purely on nature, like wild plants and forests, and vegetation that grows off rainwater," Akesbi, a former professor at Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, said. For breeders, he added, livestock serve as a kind of bank, assets they sell to cover expenses and repay debts. With consecutive years of drought and rising feed costs, breeders are seeing their reserves drained. Pressed herders With less natural vegetation, breeders have to spend more on supplemental feed, Acharf Majdoubi, president of Morocco's Association of Sheep and Goat Breeders said. In good years, pastures can nourish nearly all of what sheep flocks require, but in dry years, it can be as low as half or a third of the feed required. "We have to make up the rest by buying feed like straw and barley," he said. Not only do they need more feed. The price of barley, straw and alfalfa -- much of which has to be imported -- has also spiked. In Morocco, the price of barley and straw are three times what they were before the drought, while the price of alfalfa has more than doubled. "The future of this profession is very difficult. Breeders leave the countryside to immigrate to the city, and some will never come back," Achraf Majdoubi said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Canada's new Bill C-3: How ‘Lost Canadians,' Indian diaspora may finally reclaim citizenship
By amending the Citizenship Act and addressing long-standing restrictions on citizenship by descent, Bill C-3 is set to provide a revolutionary change in Canada's citizenship regulations. For the Indian diaspora and other immigrant communities, this legislative action is especially important since it aims to address the issues experienced by "Lost Canadians" and extend citizenship rights beyond the first generation born outside. According to the existing Citizenship Act, Canadian citizens can only give their citizenship to children born outside of Canada if they were born in Canada or became citizens before the child was born. This "first-generation limit" has inadvertently kept many people from obtaining citizenship, especially those whose parents were also foreign-born and lived in Canada. As a result, many persons of Indian and other ethnic backgrounds have been left without a clear path to citizenship, despite having family in Canada. Read more: Best of the Gulf: 8 iconic landmarks in the GCC that will blow your mind Key provisions of Bill C-3 Bill C-3, which was introduced by Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab, intends to remove the first-generation limit, enabling Canadian residents to provide citizenship to their children who are born or adopted overseas, regardless of where they were born. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo The bill states that the Canadian parent must have been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 cumulative days (three years) prior to the child's birth or adoption in order to guarantee a true connection to Canada. The measure also aims to grant citizenship back to "Lost Canadians"—people who were denied citizenship or lost it as a result of out-of-date provisions in earlier includes those affected by the earlier Section 8 of the Citizenship Act, which had stringent requirements that led to unintentional exclusions. Read more: 3-year citizenship no more? Germany's new migration, visa freeze rules explained This legal amendment will have a substantial positive impact on the Indian community. The elimination of generational barriers will strengthen relationships and give their descendants simpler paths to citizenship, especially considering the large number of Indian-origin people living in Canada and their international family ties. This is particularly relevant given the difficulties Indians encounter in other nations, like the US, where immigration laws have gotten stricter. For Bill C-3 to become law, it must undergo the standard legislative process, including three readings in Parliament and receiving royal assent. Given the positive reception from immigrant communities and experts, there is optimism about its eventual enactment. Once passed, the bill will not only rectify past oversights but also reinforce Canada's commitment to inclusivity and recognition of its diverse populace. One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
