She is a a very, very aggressive and nasty example of Islamism. People who keep bleating, 'what's she done, what's she done?' are short-plank thick. She has publicly displayed her nastiness and lunacy; she hates Australia and Australians, but the dimwits still don't get it.

//Of course she should be - The left do it all the time//

No details, I notice. Gosh what a surprise.

//They and the rest of the collaborators trying to piss all over the country//

I don't where you far-right tories get this strange idea that lefties don't like Australia from. I think it's a terrific country, albeit with some minor imperfections. It's not the country we dislike - it's just twats like you with such an over-inflated sense of their own self-importance that they think any sort of disagreement with them personally amounts to treason, as if they were supreme dictators or medieval monarchs rather than who they actually are ie. nobodies.

//She advocates Islam//

Jesus, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard people on this forum attacking Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

But I think you'd all get very stroppy if anybody referred you to the AHRC over that. You'd claim it was ridiculous. And perhaps it would be. But as patently ridiculous as filing a complaint about a Muslim advocating Islam? I think not.

Mormonism has a shocking record on human rights, particularly the rights of women and gays. Scientology is worse, far too many breaches to even list. SO on second thoughts, maybe filings complaints about Muslims being Muslim isn't such a bad idea. If it sets a precedent, we might be able to stop Mormons door-knocking, and get Tom 'Fudge-Packer' Cruise for advocating Scientology. Which would be nice.

You left out Sharia law.

Dear Shadow Minister,

By “bed-wetting offenderattis” don't you mean the type that translate her comments into an imminent invasion of Islamic fundamentalists and treasonous disrespect of ANZAC day?

The very definition of bed-wetting, deeply offended victims. Oh you lot fit that description so bloody well it makes my head spin.

Then some FNQ slob pulls a weapon and directly intimidates a section of the Australian community and you lot are 'nothing to see here'.

What a bunch of self serving, weak as piss, knock kneed clowns the far-right like yourselves have become in this country. Grow a spine for goodness sake.

Steele,

"Then some FNQ slob pulls a weapon and directly intimidates a section of the Australian community and you lot are 'nothing to see here'"

When did this happen, where and by whom?

One gets the impression of some emotional exaggeration in those few words of yours.

Dear Is Mise,

Sure, happy to break it down for you.

FNQ – Yup I was wrong there. Thought he was originally from Cairns. Mackay is not FNQ.

Slob – Not sure there is much to argue here. He certainly couldn't be called fit.

Weapon – Pistol certainly qualifies.

Directly – mentions by name, not innuendo, his targets.

Intimidates – threatens with a raised weapon.

Section of the Australian community – Greens voters and supporters are certainly a section of our community.

This may assist;

http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-a-crime-to-threaten-or-intimidate-someone/

For Intimidation:
(i) that you ‘intimidated’ another person, and
(ii) that through those actions, you intended the other person to fear physical or mental harm.
‘Intimidation’ involves coercing someone into acting in a particular way.
The intended conduct can be an ‘action’ eg agreeing to meet you or letting you into a premises. It can also be an ‘omission’ eg staying away from another person or place.
Intimidation often involves threats such as ‘you better let me in or else…!’ or ‘if you do that, you know what’s gonna happen to you’.
However, words are not necessary and intimidation can occur through actions designed to pressure another into compliance.

Does the other person actually have to be fearful?
No. The other person does not actually have to be put in fear by your conduct.
…

2. Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence
This is an offence under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cwth) that carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment.
The essential elements are:
1. that you used a ‘carriage service’, and
2. that the manner of use would be regarded by reasonable persons as ‘menacing’, ‘harassing’ or ‘offensive’.
‘Carriage service’
A ‘carriage service’ is anything that is transmitted through a carriage service provider such as Telstra, Optus, Vodafone etc.
It includes all telephone communications such as calls, voice messages and sms transmissions, all internet transmissions including emails and internet posts and any other communications that occur through a carriage service provider.
End quote.