World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I mean, personally I don't really agree with people here saying this punishment is racism.
For me this falls into the same category as walking up to other members of parliament and yelling loudly at them, or breakdancing, or doing anything that disrupts the parliamentary process. I don't think making exceptions for a Haka is reasonable. Parliament has these rules to ensure the room stays calm, collected and can do its work. The Labour party too believes some punishment is appropriate, though they suggested a censure instead.
Most articles refer to a previous suspension of 3 days, but I can't find what that was for. I can't judge if the severity of the punishment is therefore in line with precedent.
It should be mentioned, the bill they protested ultimately did not end up passing.
This comment right here is the essence of liberal thought
B..but much process! B..b..but muh decorum!!!!! Please abide the laws we set while we fuck you in the ass!!!!
No honey, fuck you and your procedure. Instead of hiding behind a veneer of professionalism fuck off and fix the issue.
Liberals WILL always silence the downtrodden when they no longer play by their rules.
But that same procedure ended up defeating the bill? I'm not sure the protest really achieved much.
You can fight a bill like this in a 100 ways within parliamentary procedure. If they had announced the protest it would be allowed too I believe.
Protest is for when the procedure fails. But it worked just fine here.
Also, arguments about the protest aside, my main point was that it's not racist to punish an unannounced disruptive protest, just because that protest happened to be a Haka.
That's the entire point of a PROTEST though...
Yeah, and it's pretty well established that protest has a cost for it's participants.
I agree. That's why it's called "having the courage of one's convictions". The people who are protesting are willing to accept the consequences of their actions in order to shake up the system.
But when the system makes up and applies consequences retroactively, it starts a very slippery dilemma where a person can't protest for fear of "hypothetical" repercussions.
You can't have the courage of your convictions if you don't know what the consequences of those convictions are going to be. And you can't know what the consequences of your actions will be if they're just made up ex post facto and applied punitively in order to stifle debate rather than following an already established protocol.
As far as I know, this is pretty standard for that level of disruption and (by the design of a haka) invective towards another member of the house. If they had been suspended for more than a few weeks it'd be fishy, but they will be back. And hopefully it's a political victory for them and not the closet racists they were responding to.
That looks like it was for the content of a statement Robert Muldoon delivered alone in 1987, though. It's not really the same thing.
(I did miss that bit of context, though. Oops, sorry)
Yeah but why bother? That same parliamentary process defeated the bill?
Would it have defeated it if they hadn't performed their protest and maybe made a few other legislators rethink how unpopular of a bill it was? If they hadn't protested, would legislative complacency just allowed the bill to pass unremarked on.
The purpose of a protest is to draw attention to something so that other that have the power to do something about it might do something about it.
I'm not saying the bill failed specifically because of the protest, but to think the bill was guaranteed to have failed anyway even without it is naive thinking.
That's all conjecture. I'm not sure lawmakers would be particularly swayed by the Haka, particularly not the proponents of the bill (who probably care even less about it).
Even then, an impassioned speech tends to be far more effective in parliament than disruptive protests (historically speaking).
The bill was already fairly controversial, so it probably wouldn't have passed through legislative apathy.
The world doesn't run on "probably". Nothing ever gets accomplished by assuming "it'll probably happen anyway."
They also should have directed it to the speaker.
It seems like a silly tradition, but it keeps things from getting too primally heated, and I would have been terrified in those lawmaker's shoes.
You would have been terrified? If you're that scared of brown people, that's your own issue.
Hakas are designed to be intimidating. If you don't know that, you might be a Great White Savior yourself.
You could argue that they should be afraid after introducing racist legislation, like they did, but that's not where anyone is going here (yet).
Sure, if you're willfully ignoring context. These were legislators wearing suits doing it in parliament to make a political point, not armed warriors doing it on a battlefield. The only 'fear' was entirely dishonest and performative, not real.
My goddamn family doing that to me in suits would scare me. They're effective, and they did a good job performing it.
Sure, at no point was there a literal threat of actual physical violence. If there was, I'd expect them to be barred for life.
With the element of surprise? Hell yes, I would be shook. I kinda think you would too.
Buds give your nuts a tug.
I think you guys are being tough on the internet, actually. IRL a good battle display gets audience reactions, although I've never been around the Maori kind.
Huh, sounds like you're projecting.
Nobody in that video looked in the least bit afraid, just annoyed.
They all look like they're doing poker faces to me, actually. But I dunno, maybe kiwis get used to hakas.
You can substitute in any kind of menacing display you want - viking foot stomping, boo-rah and air punches - it's not really appropriate to spring on someone you don't like. Here there's a cultural component as well, but they can't really argue it was just that with the way they directed it.