It would appear that the federal Labor government has been taking lessons from its favourite bureaucrats and serving up questionable ‘facts’. No, we are not referring to the Bureau of Meteorology and the recent scandalous revelations that there are clear discrepancies between hand-written temperature readings of the past and those now shown on the BoM’s website. We are instead referring to the manufactured, disingenuous and self-serving claims by the Prime Minister and his cohorts that there is an unacceptable level of aggressive political debate that demands we all ‘turn down the temperature’.

This is piffle. Several points need to be made. Firstly and foremost, it should not need saying but it clearly does that at this point there is zero evidence linking the horrific attack on Helen Haines and political incitement of any kind. Frantic attempts by not only the ABC but also politicians of the left to link, for example, One Nation’s controversial cartoons with this horrific tragedy are as absurd as they are downright dishonest. And, we suspect, deliberate.

There is a very clear line in democratic political expression that must not, but can easily, be blurred.

On the one side sits democracy’s time-honoured freedom of expression, free speech, which includes everything from dry, factual, data-driven point-scoring, expert opinion and detailed analysis to hyperbolic, passionate, mocking, rude, loud, angry, funny, belligerent vocal debate and point-scoring. On the other side of the very clear line sits incitement to violence, and (obviously) violence itself.

One of the most oft-cited examples of the line where free speech becomes unacceptable is that of a man falsely yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded cinema.

In fact, this analogy is incorrect: it is not unacceptable speech, it is irresponsible speech. And there is a big difference. But the sentiment is correct. Free speech does not mean anything goes under any circumstances. Context can matter. The choice of words in a given context can either be shown to deliberately call for a violent action in response, or to not.

The left love to blur this line as much as possible because it suits their agenda to do so. The left proclaim that because words have consequences, criticism of, for instance, Islam or transgenderism, is of itself ‘violence’. (No it is not. It is criticism.) At the same time, the left take a perverted view of political violence, up to and including assassination, seeing it as justifiable when directed against specific individuals or causes they disapprove of. This point was reiterated recently following the death of Charlie Kirk by one of Prime Minister Albanese’s favourite female podcasters. Terrifyingly, you will find a plethora of university students, academics and leftists who share this view.

So for the dummies (regular readers and subscribers can skip this bit), here’s a brief lesson in acceptable free speech versus incitement to violence.

– A political cartoon showing a political or public figure being thrown under a bus in a political context is not an incitement to violence. It is the visual depiction of a well-known cliché.

– A comedian giving specific instructions to a large audience about how to sodomise and murder a well-known public figure with a sharpened stick is a clear incitement to violence.

– A cartoon showing a public figure with a vaginal prolapse is of questionable taste, but is not an incitement to violence.

– A woman screaming ‘From Gadigal to Gaza, globalise the intifada!’ to a large and motivated crowd is the very definition of an incitement to violence. (Ignorance of the meaning of words is not an excuse.)

– Calling a former army officer, turned public figure, a ‘traitor’ may be offensive but it is not an incitement to violence.

– Marching under a banner of the Ayatollah in a large and motivated crowd whilst screaming ‘Death, death to the IDF!’ is an incitement to violence.

– Yelling ‘Heil Hitler!’ whilst performing a Nazi salute and/or goose-stepping around in a public place wearing a swastika shows a high level of stupidity and malice (and is illegal) but is not necessarily an incitement to violence. However, (echoing the ‘Fire!’ in a cinema example) doing so from a public platform to a large and possibly antisemitic crowd is definitely an incitement to violence.

– Yelling ‘Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahud! Jaish Muhammad sawfa ya’ud!’(calling for the repeat of a seventh-century massacre of Jews) to a large and motivated crowd is an incitement to violence.

– Yelling ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ to a large and motivated crowd is implicitly a call to ethnic cleansing and is therefore arguably an incitement to violence, although this example is borderline.

– Holding up a fake decapitated head of any public figure, or performing a mock execution, or holding up a noose, is implicitly an incitement to violence.

And so on.

But insulting, demeaning, calling rude names, mocking in memes, making crude analogies or verbally abusing a public figure without implicitly inciting violence must remain the hallmark of a free society, no matter how offensive the words or visual expressions may be. Parliament is there to be the forum for the voices of the people, expressing their passions, their fears, their hopes, their desires and their frustrations. If you can’t stand the political heat, get out of the democratic kitchen.