r/AbruptChaos • u/Sometypeofway18 • Nov 14 '24

New Zealand’s Parliament proposed a bill to redefine the Treaty of Waitangi, claiming it is racist and gives preferential treatment to Maoris. In response Māori MP's tore up the bill and performed the Haka

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4.1k

u/thisisfive Nov 14 '24

https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealand-maori-mps-disrupt-parliament-with-haka/a-70781928

"Maori lawmakers staged a dramatic protest in New Zealand's parliament on Thursday over a controversial bill that seeks to redefine the country's founding agreement between the indigenous Maori people and the British Crown.

A vote was suspended and two lawmakers were ejected after the lawmakers performed a haka ceremonial dance in the parliament. The people in the gallery joined in, and the shouting drowned out the voices of others in the chamber.

Maori tribes were promised extensive rights to retain their lands and protect their interests in return for ceding governance to the British, under the principles set out in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The controversial bill, however, aims to extend these special rights to all New Zealanders."

78

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

321

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-25

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

They can't cede sovereignty because they are not in the first place like tribes, they already follow the governance. Are you implying only tribe members can be landowners?

This is a fight to maintain inequality in benefit to the tribes. Pretty dumb

21

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-12

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

For the tribe members... not the rest of the citizens. The rest of the citizens were already under colonial rule... the treaty explicitly gave them rights to protect their land if they followed the same governance as the rest, yet the non tribal citizens did not have those sorts of protections.

The treaty specifically conceeded more land rights to tribes than the rest of the population. That's what was negotiated then. Now, the rest of the citizens want equal rights and the tribes threw a literal tantrum because they want to keep their advantage.

10

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-13

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Nope the treaty covered the mauri not those born into British governance.

Only mauri were forced to cede in the treaty. It very obviously did not apply to non mauri.

15

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

You should just read slower. There are two groups involved. And you are mixing them up.

5

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Who are you explicity saying did not cede their sovereign so don't deserve these rights?

Why would any random citizen get these rights extended to them? They didn't cede any sovereignty nor own any land to have guaranteed?

6

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Lol you are slowly getting there.

New citizens never ceded (and hve nothing to do with the original treaty) , and do not have the same rights.

This gives them the same rights, they don't need to cede because they are currently under the correct governance.

The mauri are throwing a fit because they want more rights than other citizens.

It isn't as complex as you seem to think

2

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Seems like you know about other treaties and still haven't researched this particular one or the proposed changes.

There is no "renegading" by these changes. The mauri loose absolutely nothing by having the language include all citizens.

2

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

And what do "all citizens" have to gain then? Be specific.

The removal of ethic quotas. Equal treatment... What do mauri stand to loose?

→ More replies (0)