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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.