Nicknamenick:

Sure she should be free to say what she likes and when and where she likes but that does not mean her intent was not without malice.

We guarantee freedom of speech not freedom from criticism. Many people believe her intent was malicious – either to try and hurt others and or to gain notoriety for herself.

You are just trying to defend her right to speak and no one opposes that but what do you think of her motives? Was she just naive or simple and totally oblivious to the relevance of Anzac Day to most Australians or were her aims focused on the need to hurt.

If so then her aggression needs to be criticised and so does her fitness for her job. It means she is not capable of approaching problems without getting aggressive and no matter what your job that is not the way to get what you think is right. Reason and logic are the only civilised way and not aggression.

She has a right to freedom of speech but if her speech exhibits aggression then everyone has a right to respond with criticism because aggression is never the answer to anyone’s problems.

I like Joe's insults , it means his case is weak.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir spokes­man Wassim Doureihi posted on his personal Facebook page " says The Australian which reads terrorist grooming life-sentence propaganda and publishes it. It's bending English language to say she associates by replying to a criticism .
(Have to hand it to her , the girl stands and takes buckets from loudmouth men on all sides ).

Phanto
And her aggression ? It's assumed without fact or you would describe the facts. Yes we all have rights but the mob hounded Ahok and the mob hounds Miss bigmouth . Same people different foxes.

Nick,

I don't know what you mean by 'case': one person is in jail and his career destroyed for making a perfectly reasonable remark; another person is (I hope) still employed on various government-funded bodies even after making quite outrageous remarks. How are they comparable, except to point out that, in Australia, one of our most important values is the freedom of expression, which is obviously lacking in Indonesia, supposedly a 'secular' country like Australia, with five religions all given equal legal status (until recently) ?

Is that why you keep comparing the two situations, to highlight the value of free speech in Australia ? Is that your incredibly clever, and subtly devious, way to do that ? Brilliant !

Where would you rather be ? In jail, or flying around the country on government money ?

Joe

Nicknamenick.
Why do Muslims think they have the right to punish someone who doesn't
share their belief in God.

Do they think that God is incapable of punishing that person.

They are not God, they have no right to act like they are.

Maybe he believes in God but just not the Muslim version.
God is still God.

What right do these people have to judge what God is and what God isn't.
The Koran was written by man As was the Christian bible.
Or was the Koran written by Mohammed, he too was a man.
Men write the way they interpret. They too are not God, and are fallible in writing down
What they think were Gods wishes.
Anyway, no super intelligent, spiritual all knowing being would be so lacking in compassion and understanding. That kind of punitive thinking is anything but divine

I think the Muslims and all religions seriously underestimate the way
a divinity like God would think and know things.
They think God would think in their limited way, in wanting to punish people.
That is limited thinking and understanding, no divine God,could think like that
And still be all knowing and intelligent. The two don't go together.

If God is so affronted by anyone who dares to question, he is quite capable of striking them dead on the spot. The fact that he doesn't would indicate he is not that offended.
He may be more offended by people impersonating him and dishing out punishment.

Nicknamenick:

"And her aggression ? It's assumed without fact or you would describe the facts."

She chose Anzac Day because she knew she could hurt people on Anzac Day. That is proof of aggression. The desire to hurt. Whether she was successful or not is irrelevant. The fact that she wanted to hurt is not irrelevant.

Anyone with any sensitivity to the feelings of others would not have chosen that day.