To what extent does the far right stick to the democratic rules of the game? While we know much about their norm-breaching rhetoric, we know less about their norm-breaching behavior in an institutional context. I study this in the context of parliamentary debate. I focus on interactions between MPs and the Speaker of the House in the Dutch House of Representatives (2012-2024). This case is unique because far-right actors have assumed both norm-adherent (MP) and norm-enforcement (Speaker) roles. My analysis leverages the as-if random rotation of Speaker duties across parliamentary sessions where nearly 1 in 5 sessions in the last decade were chaired by the far right. Combining several data sources, I measure (i) when parliamentary norms are breached and (ii) when parliamentary norm breaches are sanctioned by the Speaker. I will use a generalized difference-in-differences model to estimate the effect of switching from a mainstream to a far-right Speaker on the enforcement of parliamentary norms. From an adherence perspective (descriptive), I expect that far-right MPs breach more norms than mainstream MPs, as such breaches align with their anti-establishment views. From an enforcement perspective (causal), I expect far-right Speakers to tolerate more norm breaches by party members to advance electoral goals. This study is one of the first to systematically analyze the behavior of the Speaker of the House, an influential political office largely understudied in political science. I demonstrate how this role is pivotal in safeguarding democratic norms.