We can draw the line where it lends understanding. Telling someone to "Go back to Pakistan" adds nothing to a conversation but rudeness and hurt feelings. Reminding them that things work differently in Australia than they do in Pakistan would have said basically the same thing, without making people combative.
It's long been established that you're free to say what you want, but you're not free from the consequences of what you say. Personally, I believe officials should be held accountable for their speech more often.
Yes, you have the freedom to express your opinions, and the principle behind this freedom is that you should be protected from coercion or violence by the government or individuals, provided you are not engaging in fraud or inciting violence. What is unjust is the government's push to impose legal penalties on someone simply for voicing their views.
Was she simply voicing her views? I didn't see the tweet, but the part of it that was in quotes was "go back to Pakistan".
That's not a view, that's an order.
LOL Oh I see .. So, according to this line of reasoning, instructing someone to do something is now being equated with violence? It seems to me that when a discussion descends to such a level of absurdity, it’s best to step away. I believe this conversation has reached that point, and I must respectfully withdraw. With all the violence I can muster,...
Go back to school and read a book.
All orders have an implied threat of violence for non compliance. If you don't understand that, maybe you should take your own advice and head back to school.
In this case, she IS the government, and she is the one violently coercing another person. Voicing that coercion could very likely lead to violence against that person. Because of that likelihood, and BECAUSE this person is part of the government, she should absolutely suffer legal penalties. It was clearly over the line of promoting conversation, or just 'voicing her view'.
That doesn’t align with how such matters are understood. Merely expressing words or instructing someone to act, in the absence of explicit force or threat, does not constitute coercion. Additionally, invoking speculative outcomes or someone’s affiliation with the government does not serve as a valid justification for imposing legal penalties. The distinction between voicing an opinion and engaging in coercive action must be carefully maintained to preserve the integrity of discourse and accountability. If I told you to go jump off a cliff as a member of parliament and you followed then you're a momo, Anything to the contrary is just disingenuous or utterly stupid.
When a person issues instructions from a place of authority, there is always a threat of violence. Thinking otherwise is just naive. This is why government officials need to be held to a higher standard.
If a member of Parliament tells someone to jump off a cliff, they should understand that a large number of rabid constituents are likely to take that as permission to throw someone off a cliff. There is plenty of precedent for this.