Forget about arguing the toss about the propriety of performing a haka in Parliament to disrupt the counting of party votes. Let’s champion the whakapohane.
One definition:
whakapohane
expose the buttocks and private parts, to show contempt
The case for allowing MPs to moon and flash during a heated debate is among the possibilities raised by a bloke named Dale Husband, who – while discussing political issues with Kathryn Ryan on RNZ’s Nine to Noon – went out to bat for Parliamentary proceedings being spiced by aggressive gesturing, belligerent shouting and the disdainful poking of tongues.
Reasoned argument can only get you so far, let’s face it.
And if a numbers count suggests your side is about to be outvoted – well, why not invoke your cultural entitlement to indulge in something physically intimidating?
Ryan had raised the matter of the Maori Party-led haka that disrupted the counting of party votes at the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill.
Was Husband surprised that someone would try to have the matter referred to Parliament’s Privileges Committee?
Husband:
No, not at all.
But I’m just hoping that in 2025 we can look at this one a little more carefully because it’s just part of the evolution of our nation and quite obviously that’s going to affect how it’s run from the inside out as well.
And let’s face it, we have been forced to adopt a Westminster system that is now being challenged by a Treaty partner who wants their cultural norms to be enabled to be expressed.
When was a Westminster system “forced” on the country?
And is this system being challenged by “a Treaty partner” – or by a Maori Party with a racial agenda?
Husband continued:
They might talk about how it’s inappropriate to advance on somebody, yes, but I don’t think you can actually stop that haka from being performed.
I think we will see more of this coming into the House so it’s best the Privileges Committee, the Standing Orders Committee, get in the right sort of counsel, the right expertise, perspective, so they can make a decision that acknowledges the changing cultural dynamics in this country, and therefore that should be reflected in the inner sanctum of Parliament so no longer is it to be tolerated that we are told how to behave, how to dress, when we can stand, what we can sing or when we can haka.
Getting the right sort of counsel, expertise and prospective presumably requires the committee to take its advice from people with the same attitudes to Maori defiance of the Crown as the Maori Party’s.
And it seems the outcome should be a set or rules that allow MPs to do whatever they want.
Husband wrapped up:
Our people are on the move and they’ll just do it when the spirit hits them and I think we need to make room to accommodate that
“Our people” obviously doesn’t mean all Maori, because there are several Maori in the National, ACT and New Zealand First Parties.
As for doing things “when the spirit hits you” – well, where should the line be drawn between appropriate and inappropriate?
And if a haka should be permitted during parliamentary debates for cultural reasons, then what about whakapohane?
Some readers will recall the report – back in 1986 – that:
A day after protesters pelted her with eggs, a well-built native Maori today bared his tattooed buttocks at Queen Elizabeth II’s motorcade in an ancient warrior insult over a 146-year-old treaty, police said.
And:
As the queen’s entourage made its way through the city, a Maori man described as ‘well-built’ and wearing only a grass skirt, burst from the crowd. He whirled around, lifted his skirt and displayed his buttocks which bore tattooed images.
The showing of naked buttocks is considered the ultimate insult in centuries-old Maori warrior tradition.
The case for allowing whakapohane in Parliament is buttressed by its being multicultural.
In English, it is mooning and it has a long, proud tradition:
In 80 AD, Flavius Josephus recorded the first known incident of mooning. Josephus recorded that in the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus (48-52 AD), at around the beginning of the First Roman–Jewish War, a soldier in the Roman army mooned Jewish pilgrims at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem who had gathered for Passover, and “spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture” causing a riot in which youths threw stones at the soldiers, who then called in reinforcements—the pilgrims panicked, and the ensuing stampede resulted in the death of ten thousand Jews
But in Maoridom, mooning isn’t one-sided (so to speak).
Whakapohane is the Māori practice of baring one’s buttocks with the intent to offend. It symbolises the birthing act and renders the recipient noa (“base”). A modern example was that of Mihi Kotukutuku Stirling. She stood on the marae (sacred area) and the chief of the Te Arawa tribes, Mita Taupopoki, objected telling her that she must get off his marae as she was a woman. She stood her ground and when he had finished his objections she defended her position.
She said that she was descended from a prior-born ancestor than the chief. She was not on his marae; she was on her marae. She exposed her genitals, telling the chief that that was where he came from. Those assembled were asked to gainsay her speech but no one came forward. The Maori gesture of Whakapohane had countered the argument that was aimed at her.
It remains to be seen which MP will be first to test Mr Speaker’s tolerance by dropping their trousers or knickers and exposing one side or other of their nether regions, then pressing to have Standing Orders changed to accommodate their revealing the naked truth to the House.
The gesture is guaranteed to grab a place in the headlines. And the history books.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
whakapohane
expose the buttocks and private parts, to show contempt
The case for allowing MPs to moon and flash during a heated debate is among the possibilities raised by a bloke named Dale Husband, who – while discussing political issues with Kathryn Ryan on RNZ’s Nine to Noon – went out to bat for Parliamentary proceedings being spiced by aggressive gesturing, belligerent shouting and the disdainful poking of tongues.
Reasoned argument can only get you so far, let’s face it.
And if a numbers count suggests your side is about to be outvoted – well, why not invoke your cultural entitlement to indulge in something physically intimidating?
Ryan had raised the matter of the Maori Party-led haka that disrupted the counting of party votes at the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill.
Was Husband surprised that someone would try to have the matter referred to Parliament’s Privileges Committee?
Husband:
No, not at all.
But I’m just hoping that in 2025 we can look at this one a little more carefully because it’s just part of the evolution of our nation and quite obviously that’s going to affect how it’s run from the inside out as well.
And let’s face it, we have been forced to adopt a Westminster system that is now being challenged by a Treaty partner who wants their cultural norms to be enabled to be expressed.
When was a Westminster system “forced” on the country?
And is this system being challenged by “a Treaty partner” – or by a Maori Party with a racial agenda?
Husband continued:
They might talk about how it’s inappropriate to advance on somebody, yes, but I don’t think you can actually stop that haka from being performed.
I think we will see more of this coming into the House so it’s best the Privileges Committee, the Standing Orders Committee, get in the right sort of counsel, the right expertise, perspective, so they can make a decision that acknowledges the changing cultural dynamics in this country, and therefore that should be reflected in the inner sanctum of Parliament so no longer is it to be tolerated that we are told how to behave, how to dress, when we can stand, what we can sing or when we can haka.
Getting the right sort of counsel, expertise and prospective presumably requires the committee to take its advice from people with the same attitudes to Maori defiance of the Crown as the Maori Party’s.
And it seems the outcome should be a set or rules that allow MPs to do whatever they want.
Husband wrapped up:
Our people are on the move and they’ll just do it when the spirit hits them and I think we need to make room to accommodate that
“Our people” obviously doesn’t mean all Maori, because there are several Maori in the National, ACT and New Zealand First Parties.
As for doing things “when the spirit hits you” – well, where should the line be drawn between appropriate and inappropriate?
And if a haka should be permitted during parliamentary debates for cultural reasons, then what about whakapohane?
Some readers will recall the report – back in 1986 – that:
A day after protesters pelted her with eggs, a well-built native Maori today bared his tattooed buttocks at Queen Elizabeth II’s motorcade in an ancient warrior insult over a 146-year-old treaty, police said.
And:
As the queen’s entourage made its way through the city, a Maori man described as ‘well-built’ and wearing only a grass skirt, burst from the crowd. He whirled around, lifted his skirt and displayed his buttocks which bore tattooed images.
The showing of naked buttocks is considered the ultimate insult in centuries-old Maori warrior tradition.
The case for allowing whakapohane in Parliament is buttressed by its being multicultural.
In English, it is mooning and it has a long, proud tradition:
In 80 AD, Flavius Josephus recorded the first known incident of mooning. Josephus recorded that in the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus (48-52 AD), at around the beginning of the First Roman–Jewish War, a soldier in the Roman army mooned Jewish pilgrims at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem who had gathered for Passover, and “spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture” causing a riot in which youths threw stones at the soldiers, who then called in reinforcements—the pilgrims panicked, and the ensuing stampede resulted in the death of ten thousand Jews
But in Maoridom, mooning isn’t one-sided (so to speak).
Whakapohane is the Māori practice of baring one’s buttocks with the intent to offend. It symbolises the birthing act and renders the recipient noa (“base”). A modern example was that of Mihi Kotukutuku Stirling. She stood on the marae (sacred area) and the chief of the Te Arawa tribes, Mita Taupopoki, objected telling her that she must get off his marae as she was a woman. She stood her ground and when he had finished his objections she defended her position.
She said that she was descended from a prior-born ancestor than the chief. She was not on his marae; she was on her marae. She exposed her genitals, telling the chief that that was where he came from. Those assembled were asked to gainsay her speech but no one came forward. The Maori gesture of Whakapohane had countered the argument that was aimed at her.
It remains to be seen which MP will be first to test Mr Speaker’s tolerance by dropping their trousers or knickers and exposing one side or other of their nether regions, then pressing to have Standing Orders changed to accommodate their revealing the naked truth to the House.
The gesture is guaranteed to grab a place in the headlines. And the history books.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
In my culture, if someone advances on you aggressively you either spit in their face or punch them on the nose. So will we allow all cultures to show their expression or shall we just keep parliament civilized?
Yes, I would not be able to help myself, if someone puts balls in front of me I kick them ..... that is in my culture
Another example of how Tribal Rule would operate: flaunting unattractive genitals . This would give unique and invaluable input to solving the complex issues of the 21st century.
If showing your butt to mp's is the new normal, then let them have their own parliament that they pay for. And they can't come into our lands either or get prosecuted for trespass.
In my culture this is indecent exposure.
On the other hand, if cultures have to co-exist, perhaps it can be established as a tourist event? It could even become competitive - who has the biggest bum? The largest goolies or deepest fanny? The best tattoo? The most aggressive performance? Once offence has been taken between two or more participants perhaps we could move onto actual hostilities - think Roman gladiators- so even more cross cultural impact.
Make it into a cultural experience for visiting dignatories? In which case, performance would be in the parliamentary debating chamber.
Ooooh the possibilities are endless? I am so glad I am being pushed beyond my colonial expectations of courteous behaviour.
I address my comment to - Anon @ 12.07PM 17 Dec.2024 - would not " recommend said action " (though many Kiwi's will quietly support you) - as you may and/ or may not - be arrested for " Common Assault", even if your aggressor was of Maori Ethnicity.
Just to give context, we have a "issue within NZ, of recent days where a Kiwi stood his ground and now faces a murder charge, and a potential charge of causing serious injury (with a fire arm - and if this person dies, then it becomes a second murder charge)- even when said perpetrator[s] (allegedly) were trespassing". Apparently there are other mitigating factors involved in this incident.
Leave you to ponder the ethnicity of the - arrested person and the 2 who trespassed.
Being ex-UK forces there are some conundrums that can be pondered over. I recall the fine balance required by the Defence Operation Executive (DOE) for determining when a "first strike" could be justified during the Cold War - no doubt it is still the same. The senior officers and military intelligence staffers advising the DOE used to lose a lot of sleep. We euphemistically referred to it as the need to get one's retaliation in first but did have to abide by the usual rules of engagement. Looking at the above comments I guess that those with the powers of arrest and warrant cards would frown upon it if that "first strike" strategy were to be employed simply because someone bared their bum and shouted obscenities at you, no matter how inane the provocation.
If certain people 'want their cultural norms to be enabled to be expressed', then they have proper ways of bringing this about. After parliamentary rules are changed to allow haka to disrupt and intimidate any proceedings one or a few parties don't like, then they can do it until they are blue in the face. Less sarcastically speaking, there may well be ways that Maori customary process can sensibly be included more in official processes. But no one should simply behave in ways that are against current parliamentary rules or current national laws or should expect to be allowed to do so with impunity. So basic.
If haka etc are performed in parliamentary proceedings in future, I would encourage other parties to stand up and turn their backs.
Sounds like a plan!
Post a Comment