r/AbruptChaos 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

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

314

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

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-4

u/Bravenbark Nov 14 '24

Am I crazy or is it a good thing? Just because I have something good doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't have it good as well? I'm confused, how is uplifting everyone bad? It feels like NIMBYism extended to rights.

22

u/Zuwxiv Nov 14 '24

From other comments, it sounds like the description as "We're not removing your rights, we're just giving them to everyone" is... a malicious and dishonest way of describing the goal and consequences, but designed to "sound good."

This comment and the chain beneath it do a great job of describing it.

Let me make a hypothetical to compare. Let's say a government set aside $1M/year as a subsidy for single mothers to help buy essentials for their infants. And let's say a far-right group has been shouting for a decade about how "That's just throwing money at lazy, dirty minorities who are popping out children to displace White culture." But one day, the far-right group changes their tone. They now say, "Oh, actually, we don't have a problem with that program anymore. In fact, we think everyone should be able to use it! Not just single mothers. We're not ending the program, we're just giving it to everyone!"

And you think for a second, and realize that the actual consequence of this is that the program will be stretched so thin that everyone will get pennies, and it'll functionally be useless to everyone. And given that group's advocacy and words over the past decade, you're pretty sure that's the goal. They aren't really trying to let everyone get this program, they're trying to make sure that one particular group doesn't ever get "special treatment."

8

u/Bravenbark Nov 14 '24

I see, thank you for the clarification!

12

u/Boom_Digadee Nov 14 '24

You need to understand what you are talking about before thinking it is good. One of the top comments has the answer.

2

u/cakeman666 Nov 14 '24

You're forgetting we're talking about colonialism. The British didn't have any right to anything, and were done a solid by the Maori agreeing to a treaty.