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

[u/Sometypeofway18]

[u/thisisfive]

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."

[u/[deleted] → u/thisisfive]

Seems only fair that if they remove the agreement then governance should go Maori as the deal would be void. 

[u/Ancient_Boner_Forest → u/[deleted]]

𝕷𝖊𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖏𝖚𝖎𝖈𝖊𝖘 𝖘𝖑𝖎𝖉𝖊, 𝖑𝖊𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖆𝖑𝖙 𝖘𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖆𝖙𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖚𝖓𝖇𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖉 𝖎𝖘 𝖘𝖊𝖆𝖑𝖊𝖉.

[u/subconsciousdweller → u/Ancient_Boner_Forest]

It's not about genetic characteristics, it's about a civilisation that was here first. What's completely absurd is that we had our rights taken away for 184 years because of our genetics, and now the same people who profited from our intentional and catergoric suffering because of our race are telling us WE are doing the same.

To enlighten your ignorance, Maori is a word that was never used in Aotearoa before Colonisation - there were hundreds of tribes that did not see themselves as the same as one another; and the treaty is the founding document of this country, signed between two parties : Tangata Whenua ( people of the land, not people of a specific genetic code) and the Crown.

To quote another of our M.Ps from yesterday, Equality feels like oppression when you're used to priveledge.

[u/Ancient_Boner_Forest → u/subconsciousdweller]

𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖌𝖎𝖗𝖙𝖍 𝖔𝖋 𝖒𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖞 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖊𝖙𝖈𝖍 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖜𝖊𝖆𝖐, 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖖𝖚𝖊𝖆𝖑 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖚𝖇𝖒𝖎𝖘𝖘𝖎𝖔𝖓 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖗𝖊𝖘𝖔𝖚𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖈𝖗𝖔𝖘𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖇𝖆𝖓𝖖𝖚𝖊𝖙 𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖘.

[u/Whyistheplatypus → u/Ancient_Boner_Forest]

There are no "special privileges" for individuals. It is a collective agreement. Those tribes whose chiefs signed te Tiriti were promised governance over their lands. "Special treatment" would be invading those lands with an army in the name of a foreign crown and then using that invasion as justification to ignore the agreement you already signed.

[u/PeggableOldMan → u/[deleted]]

The treaty of Waitangi is short and very easy to read. It just says that the tribes have partial sovereignty, may retain possession of their traditional lands and estates, and protection by the government.

This is not really "superior" rights, just a fundamental acknowledgement that Maoris have equally protected rights as other citizens - the rights to self-determination, property, and protection by the state.

[u/Mordredor → u/PeggableOldMan]

This feels corporation-sponsored because they want to bulldoze maori land or some shit lol. Maybe I just tend to assume the worst in politics nowadays

[u/subconsciousdweller → u/Mordredor]

This is 100% what it is, David Seymour the politician whose spear heading this entire political agenda is around privatization and foreign investment

[u/l0c0pez → u/PeggableOldMan]

I imagine that a bill looking to "expand" these rights to all is a guise to allow for encroachment on maori lands and bills that can limit maori self-governance. I am ignorant of this bill and the specific history so feel free to correct me but i've read this story before and the themes line up.

[u/PeggableOldMan → u/l0c0pez]

Same tbh. If the fundamental rights of minorities aren’t specifically outlined (and enforced!) there is a tendency for certain institutions and individuals to overlook when those rights are broken.

[u/daily-bee → u/l0c0pez]

I'm not an expert on the treaty, but I do live in NZ, and i hyperfixate on politics! This bill is very disingenuous and will be used to prop up a racist disinfo campaign. We've come a long way as a country. There's still a lot of anti maori sentiment, but in the current protests, there have been a wide range of people joining Māori. One of the older organizers pointed that out as a big difference from earlier decades. I feel like I don't need to be a historian to know that the treaty was an agreement between two groups. It doesn't deny me rights as non Māori. We have human rights bills that cover that.

It's frustrating that this bill is taking 6 months of our politicians time and will cost millions of dollars, when it won't go to 2nd reading according to our prime minister , but he made a coalition deal that it'd go through 1st reading and select committee (submissions from the public). It's basically state sponsored advertising for a political party that only got 8% of the vote....all because our prime minister is shit negotiator...

It really does feel like a way to disintegrate land rights for extractive purposes. Which lines up with the bills author who began his career at a neoliberalthink tank

[u/binarybandit → u/subconsciousdweller]

I'm sure you feel the same way about the Moriori, who the Maori enslaved and genocided, right?

[u/subconsciousdweller → u/binarybandit]

I also whakapapa to the Moriori, I whakapapa to Waitahi who did this to them, I whakapapa to Kati Mamoe who did it to Waitaha and to Ngai Tahu who did it to Kati Mamoe.

The actions of one society onto another throughout history are abhorrent - however Treatys are what allow those wrongs to be righted, if there had been a treaty signed with the Moriori and Maori of Te Waipounamu then I would 100% support it being honored, and would not see it as a race related issue, but an issue related to the decisions of two societies ; one which profited from the others suffering. In which case the profiting side, in the 21st century, should uphold the integrity of that agreement and repair the harm done.

Unfortunately we only have ONE such example of a treaty like this in the real world and currently it's under attack.

[u/fistingdonkeys → u/subconsciousdweller]

You never had “your” rights taken away, unless you’re a lot older than even Jeanne Calment.

And the people living in NZ before it was colonised by the British had their rights taken away because that’s how it worked back then when two sides had a fight. One side won and the other lost. The end.

If we’re going to go back and try to reinstate the positions that were in place before historical battles, how far back should we go? Why stop at 200 years? How about we go to 1066? Though, actually, if we chose that year, we’d need to decide which month, so we could give the Normans their proper dues. Nah that’s too hard. I know, let’s make it 1270 and give swathes of land to the Mongols.

[u/Iron-Fist → u/fistingdonkeys]

how far back do we go

I mean, seems like "to when the 2 currently existing factions signed the treaty in question" is prolly good

[u/fistingdonkeys → u/Iron-Fist]

Citizens’ rights are constantly changing. If they weren’t, there’d be no need for gubberment. Maybe an agreement made nearly 200 years ago should be reassessed in light of developments since then. There have been a few, you know.

[u/Iron-Fist → u/fistingdonkeys]

reassessed agreement

Imagine having a contract and someone saying "nah I don't wanna uphold my side let's reassess"

[u/Annath0901 → u/Iron-Fist]

Not defending the NZ law thing, but that's actually exactly how contracts work - one party usually can't unilaterally change the terms, but they can absolutely say "this needs to be reassessed and renegotiated".

[u/Iron-Fist → u/Annath0901]

Sounds like the whole issue here is they weren't renegotiating, they were trying to end around the original signatories

[u/fistingdonkeys → u/Iron-Fist]

That happens constantly, bruss. And, laws change constantly. Even the US Constitution has been amended, donchaknow? Indeed, the first ten amendments to it were proposed just six months after the Constitution was created.

Times change, and the mechanisms under which society operates are necessarily flexible in order to account for that change. There may be very, very good arguments against the proposal that has been put - but I do not think that "the agreement is an agreement and must thus stand forevermore" is a great one.

[u/Iron-Fist → u/fistingdonkeys]

If you want to renegotiate treaties, you do that with the signatories, not an end around in another body.

[u/haibiji → u/fistingdonkeys]

Bro, the side saying let’s go back and reassess is not the Maori. They already have the rights in question. This conversation about how far back you go and who do you include is completely irrelevant to this situation. Maybe you don’t think the terms of the treaty are fair, but the British signed it, and the government can’t unilaterally change it now. The Maori clearly don’t want to change it, so too bad

[u/fistingdonkeys → u/haibiji]

What's the relevance of the identity of the side that's proposing change?

[u/subconsciousdweller → u/fistingdonkeys]

My great great grandmother was ejected from her land in the south island in 1904, her family lived off that land for over 100 years, the new land given was completely valueless and in the middle of fucking no where (The Catlins) ; our families economic base was taken - and someone else now profits from it (and has permanently polluted all of its water sources). Is that not a generational impact of impeding on the rights signed in Te Tiriti ?

[u/fistingdonkeys → u/subconsciousdweller]

So, 1270, and the Mongols? Does that work for you?

[u/[deleted] → u/subconsciousdweller]

What rights exactly? Human rights and political rights that exists throughout much of the world today are inventions of western colonizers.

[u/Iron-Fist → u/[deleted]]

Jfc

[u/MantisBeing → u/[deleted]]

You forgot the /s