Latest news with #colonialhistory
Daily Mail
02-06-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Indigenous leader Warren Mundine slams disgusting piece of 'artwork' that urges people to walk on the flag
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 said that officers were investigating 'several' complaints about the exhibition. 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.' 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. Warren Mundine said the artwork made no sense especially since New Zealanders had already voted against changing their flag in 2015. 'Like the Voice Campaign in Australia, New Zealand actually voted on their flag,' Mr Mundine told Sky News Australia. 'The vast majority of New Zealanders - all supported the flag. 'This is not going to fix race relations in New Zealand.' 'Some artist is just having a brain explosion.' 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, but prosecutions are fleetingly rare. 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. 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.'
BreakingNews.ie
30-05-2025
- Entertainment
- BreakingNews.ie
Protests over ‘please walk on me' flag artwork prompt its removal from gallery
A New Zealand flag printed with the words 'please walk on me' and placed on the floor of an art gallery has once again been packed away following a public outcry, 30 years after protests forced the removal of the same artwork. The Suter Art Gallery in the city of Nelson said it had taken down the work by Maori artist Diane Prince due to escalating tensions and safety fears. Advertisement The episode mirrored an Auckland gallery's removal of the work amid a public backlash 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 that officers were investigating 'several' complaints about the exhibition. The piece, titled Flagging The Future, is a cloth New Zealand flag displayed on the floor with the words 'please walk on me' stencilled across it. Advertisement The work was part of an exhibition, Diane Prince: Activist Artist, and was meant to provoke reflection on the Maori experience since New Zealand's colonisation by Britain in the 19th century. Ms Prince created the piece in 1995 in response to a government policy that limited compensation to Maori tribes for historical land theft. 'I have no attachment to the New Zealand flag,' she told Radio New Zealand in 2024. 'I don't call myself a New Zealander. I call myself a Maori.' 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's design. Advertisement 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 dishonour it is punishable by a fine of up to 5,000 New Zealand dollars, 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 Maori, it is a reminder of land dispossession, and loss of culture and identity. Protests against the artwork in the city of Nelson, which has a population 55,000, included videos posted to social media by a local woman, Ruth Tipu, whose grandfather served in the army's Maori Battalion during the Second World War. In one clip, she is seen lifting the flag from the floor and draping it over another artwork, an action Ms Tipu said she would repeat daily. Advertisement 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 defence of artistic expression and the right for us all to be challenged and confronted by art'. 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 judgment on the artwork or the artist's intent,' the statement said. Advertisement
The Independent
30-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Protests over ‘please walk on me' flag artwork prompt its removal from New Zealand gallery — again
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.
Associated Press
30-05-2025
- General
- Associated Press
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.
South China Morning Post
26-05-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
New book examines evolution of justice during Hong Kong's death penalty era
In 1904, Hong Kong's Supreme Court held a maiden sessions: no criminal cases were recorded for the whole month of November. Following an English tradition to mark the occasion, the chief justice, Sir Henry Berkeley, was presented with a pair of white gloves by the registrar 'in token of the spotless innocence of the whole population'. Berkeley replied how remarkable the achievement was in a place like Hong Kong, with its vast, transient class of villains. He attributed the success to 'dealing with criminals by deportation', i.e. sending them across the border to China. That month's maiden sessions was estimated to be the eighth in Hong Kong's history and there would be seven more. (The last was in 1960.) But, as Christopher Munn demonstrates in his book Penalties of Empire: Capital Trials in Colonial Hong Kong (2025), the black caps donned by judges to hand down death sentences greatly outnumbered the white gloves; and much grey uncertainty stretched between the two. Readers will come away with the uneasy sense that some innocents – not exactly spotless but almost certainly not guilty – went to the gallows condemned by cultural confusion, inept translation, blind racism and what the English author E.M. Forster would have called 'muddle'. Penalties of Empire: Capital Trials in Colonial Hong Kong (2025). Photo: courtesy Christopher Munn In fact, the phrase was first used by another chief justice, Sir Francis Piggott, in a 1908 murder case during which the defendants, who both spoke the Hoklo dialect, hadn't understood the Cantonese-speaking witnesses or the English-speaking lawyers. After 14 minutes, the jury – hedging its bets – had found them guilty of manslaughter. Their counsel then objected to the lack of an interpreter; the prosecutor, in his turn, objected to the potential nuisance of, say, three prisoners speaking three dialects, each requiring translations. Piggott stated that providing interpreters, inconvenient though it would be, was 'one of the penalties of Empire'. The Hoklo men were acquitted. 'It's one example – of many – how the colonists regarded themselves as victims rather than perpetrators,' says Munn. 'But I would say that the Hong Kong experience in criminal justice was not as extreme as some other places, particularly India. There was a reasonable concentration of fairly able lawyers who were, mostly, on the commercial side but did criminal work as well. And because there was legal aid in capital cases from a fairly early date, Hong Kong was not the worst.' Penalties of Empire tracks the colony's forensic experience across nine capital trials dating from 1857 to 1934. These, he explains, were chosen partly because of good source material and partly to illustrate judicial turning points, such as the legal-aid provision or the creation of the Court of Final Appeal. They are not typical of Hong Kong's capital trials, which mostly consisted of murders committed during robberies or quarrels; nor are they written in the breathless style of true-crime, cold-case-exhumed podcasts. 'I didn't want to retry any of these cases,' he says. 'I wanted it to be an exploration of how the justice system works in reality, not how it was said to work, so I focus more on what's going on in the courtroom and among the various people involved. I wanted it to be a more sober, rather than sensational, account and as matter-of-fact as possible.'
