WELLINGTON: The haka, a chanting dance of challenge, is sacred to New Zealand’s Māori people but it’s become a beloved cultural institution among New Zealanders of all races. Spine-tingling performances at sports events, funerals and graduations often go viral online, a non-partisan point of pride for the country abroad.
But one haka performed in protest in New Zealand’s Parliament by three legislators last November has provoked fierce division among lawmakers about whether it was an act of peaceful dissent, or disruptive and even intimidating to their opponents.
A vote to approve unprecedented, lengthy bans from Parliament for the Māori party lawmakers who enacted the protest was unexpectedly suspended on Tuesday. Debate will resume in June, when it threatens to gridlock the legislative agenda until politicians from all parties reach consensus on what the punishment should be.
Hundreds of protesters against the sanctions waited outside Parliament’s front doors in New Zealand’s capital, Wellington, on Tuesday to greet the Māori party lawmakers with a haka when they emerged.
What is the haka?
The haka was once viewed as a war dance, but that understanding has changed in New Zealand as it has been embraced in a range of celebratory, somber and ceremonial settings. It’s an expression of Māori identity and while sacred, it can be performed by people of any race who are educated by Māori in the words, movements and cultural protocols.
Emotional haka have generated news headlines in the past year when performed by soldiers farewelling a New Zealander who died fighting in Ukraine, and in Paris by athletes from New Zealand’s Olympic team. While the best-known haka is “ka mate,” the chant often performed by the All Blacks rugby team before games, there are many variants.
Why was this one controversial?
Last November’s protest wasn’t the first time a haka has rung out in Parliament. Performances regularly follow the passage of laws important to Māori.
But some lawmakers decried this one for two reasons: because the legislators from Te Pāti Māori, the Māori Party, left their seats and strode across the floor toward government politicians while performing it, and because it disrupted the vote on a proposed law.
When asked how the Māori party would vote on a bill they said would dismantle Indigenous rights, Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke – New Zealand’s youngest parliamentarian, at 22 – tore up a copy of the law and began the haka, joined by two of her colleagues.
The law, an attempt to rewrite New Zealand’s founding treaty between Māori tribal leaders and the British crown, was widely unpopular and has since been defeated. But for six months, a committee of the lawmakers’ peers have fought furiously about how — or whether — their protest of it should be punished.
Why is debate about it still going?
Usually there’s agreement among parliamentarians about penalties for errant behavior. But this episode polarized the committee considering the lawmakers’ actions.
Its report recommended Maipi-Clarke, who the committee said showed contrition in a letter, be suspended for seven days and her colleagues for 21 days. That’s the harshest penalty ever assigned to New Zealand lawmakers; the previous record was three days.
Parliament Speaker Gerry Brownlee this month scheduled a rare, unlimited debate in Parliament until all parties could find consensus on the penalty, citing the severity of the proposed bans. But minutes after the debate began Tuesday, it was adjourned at the government’s behest after they allowed the Māori party lawmakers to stay until after Thursday’s budget was delivered.
It permitted the government their budget week agenda and meant the Māori lawmakers — opponents of the government — wouldn’t miss one of Parliament’s most significant dates. But the debate about the bans will then resume.
Opposition leader Chris Hipkins, the only opponent of the sanctions to speak before debate was suspended, cited episodes where lawmakers have brawled in Parliament and driven a tractor up the building’s steps, but were not suspended, as evidence that the bans weren’t fair.
But Judith Collins, the chair of the committee that produced the sanctions, said the penalties were “not about the haka.” Collins said the lawmakers’ behavior was the most egregious she’d ever witnessed.
What happens next?
The debate will resume on June 5, when it threatens to stall usual government business once more. The government said Tuesday that it would not back down from the punishments suggested and opposition parties said they couldn’t be swayed from disputing them.
Outside Parliament, activist Eru Kapa-Kingi told the assembled crowd that the haka was “a source of fear” in Parliament.
“Even though when the All Blacks do it it’s a good thing,” he added.
How uproar over a Māori haka, beloved in New Zealand life, sowed chaos and gridlock in Parliament
https://arab.news/zc3v5
How uproar over a Māori haka, beloved in New Zealand life, sowed chaos and gridlock in Parliament
France’s Le Pen insists party acted in ‘good faith’ at EU fraud appeal
- Le Pen said on her second day of questioning that even if her party broke the law, it was unintentional
- She also argued that the passage of time made it “extremely difficult” for her to prove her innocence
PARIS: French far-right leader Marine Le Pen told an appeals trial on Wednesday that her party acted in “good faith,” denying an effort to embezzle European Parliament funds as she fights to keep her 2027 presidential bid alive.
A French court last year barred Le Pen, a three-time presidential candidate from the far-right National Rally (RN), from running for office for five years over a fake jobs scam at the European institution.
It found her, along with 24 former European Parliament lawmakers, assistants and accountants as well as the party itself, guilty of operating a “system” from 2004 to 2016 using European Parliament funds to employ party staff in France.
Le Pen — who on Tuesday rejected the idea of an organized scheme — said on her second day of questioning that even if her party broke the law, it was unintentional.
“We were acting in complete good faith,” she said in the dock on Wednesday.
“We can undoubtedly be criticized,” the 57-year-old said, shifting instead the blame to the legislature’s alleged lack of information and oversight.
“The European Parliament’s administration was much more lenient than it is today,” she said.
Le Pen also argued that the passage of time made it “extremely difficult” for her to prove her innocence.
“I don’t know how to prove to you what I can’t prove to you, what I have to prove to you,” she told the court.
Eleven others and the party are also appealing in a trial to last until mid-February, with a decision expected this summer.
- Rules were ‘clear’ -
Le Pen was also handed a four-year prison sentence, with two years suspended, and fined 100,000 euros ($116,000) in the initial trial.
She now again risks the maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a one-million-euro ($1.16 million) fine if the appeal fails.
Le Pen is hoping to be acquitted — or at least for a shorter election ban and no time under house arrest.
On Tuesday, Le Pen pushed back against the argument that there was an organized operation to funnel EU funds to the far-right party.
“The term ‘system’ bothers me because it gives the impression of manipulation,” she said.
EU Parliament official Didier Klethi last week said the legislature’s rules were “clear.”
EU lawmakers could employ assistants, who were allowed to engage in political activism, but this was forbidden “during working hours,” he said.
If the court upholds the first ruling, Le Pen will be prevented from running in the 2027 election, widely seen as her best chance to win the country’s top job.
She made it to the second round in the 2017 and 2022 presidential polls, before losing to Emmanuel Macron. But he cannot run this time after two consecutive terms in office.










