Instigator / Con
25
1520
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Topic

Was Fraser Anning’s egg attack justified?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
9
Sources points
10
10
Spelling and grammar points
5
5
Conduct points
4
5

With 5 votes and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
29
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
~ 551 / 5,000

This is relatively old news, but still talked about today.

In this short debate, we will be discussing if Will Connolly should have thrown an egg at Fraser Anning.

Here is a link to the video.
https://youtu.be/4X0ttuGq_9s

During a speech regarding the Christchurch shooting, a 17 year old cracked an egg on Fraser Anning’s head. Mr Anning then retaliated by slapping the teen twice, before the teen was tackled by multiple witnesses. No charges have been made against Will, however people want Fraser Anning out of the senate because he retaliated.

Round 1
Con
I do not wish do debate you again. Especially after you had insulted me in the previous debate. However it is too late and I do not have a choice.

Senator Fraser Anning was assaulted last month by a 17 year old named Will Connolly. The reason why Will chose to assault him is because Will disagreed with Fraser Anning’s opinion. During his speech regarding the Christchurch shooting, Fraser Anning was struck in the back of the head by an egg. After the ordeal, multiple people wish for Fraser Anning to be fired from the senate.

This debate will be based on whether the egg attack was justified, and if Will should have thrown the egg at Fraser Anning.

Firstly, I do not agree with Fraser Anning’s comments about the shooting. However, freedom of speech is a human right. Fraser Anning was simply stating his opinion regarding the shooting, as many other people have already done.

According to the Australia Human Rights Commission, ICCPR article 19 states “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

Fraser Anning was providing his opinion during a speech when Will made the decision to interfere by assaulting him. What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?

Secondly, you may argue that Fraser Anning should be punished for retaliating against Will. If you wish for Fraser Anning to be punished, then it would mean that you also wish to punish Will for assault. Will is the aggressor in this scenario. He made the conscious decision to assault another person. Why should Fraser Anning be charged with assault, while Will is able to simply walk away without any consequences. He is old enough to understand that his actions have consequences. Even Will himself admitted that what he did was wrong.  During an interview on SBS, Will said “There is no reason to physically attack anyone.” This shows that even the person who committed the assault does not believe that what he did was right.

What gives anyone the ability to take away another person’s right? Will should not have attacked anyone. No one has the right to censor a person’s opinion. Like everything, I admit that there are exceptions, but I do not need to explain it further unless you want me to do so.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Sources
Australian human rights commission - Freedom of speech.

Pro
I will be giving my side of what occurred and will leave rebuttals in the next Round because Brendo is making similar mistakes as he did in our same debate on DDO. This would be an improved version of my DDO argument.

A far right senator called Fraser Anning (69) was hit with one egg while being interviewed by the media. The person who threw the egg was a 17 year old boy called Will Connolly. Sure I wouldn't want society to be okay with wasting eggs as throwable objects or even be violent but to say Will is not justified by Fraser’s tweets making up conspiracies linking Muslims immigration to what happened at the NZ shooting is absurd.
The tweet that Fraser Anning on the day of the Christchurch mosque shootings was "Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?"


Will Connolly used that as the reason to carry out his egg assault. Will Connolly also stated he will with the remaining GoFundMe give it to the victims. 
"The boy admitted the attack was in response to Anning's controversial tweet following the New Zealand mass shooting on Friday in which he linked Muslim immigration to violence in the country."
"Connolly's supporters also launched a GoFundMe page for his legal fees that has since raised nearly $80,000 - which he plans to donate to the families of the victims."

Before I get into my arguments I would like to tell you about who Fraser Anning is and why I called him far-right. Here we go:
Anti-Muslim propaganda:
Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?
If Islam is so peaceful why don’t Muslim migrants go live in rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE? Surely these countries can help fellow Muslims out and live together peacefully under Islamic rule of law?
UPDATE: Simon Strombon, the organiser who wanted an Islamic call to prayer at an ANZAC Day Ceremony in New Zealand has reversed his decision. His traitorous idea was similar to that of Jacinta Ardern who broadcasted the Islamic call to prayer across NZ. Disgraceful.
An Islamic call to prayer is now being broadcasted at an ANZAC day ceremony in New Zealand. Titahi Bay RSL has decided to use this sacred commemoration for our past dead heroes in world wars, for left wing virtue signalling. Absolutely shameful.
I stand by my comments on Muslim immigration. Despite all the left wing hysteria today, no one actually argued against what I said, because it is 100% true. Countries that had increased Muslim immigration had increased crime and terrorism. Sweden, Germany, UK, France etc.
I wonder if there will be as much outrage from the left wing when the next Muslim terrorist attack occurs? Most likely silence and talk about “lone wolf attacks, mental illness and no connection to Islam”.
I can see what has happened in the UK where 429 Muslims are in political office and now hold massive influence over law making including introducing Sharia Law. Islam is NOT compatible with Australia and our politics.
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1105374792704700416
Other positions that are not primarily focused on Muslims
For Nationalism
Australia is NOT for sale. Both the Liberals and the Labor party for years have been selling out our farms and national assets like the Port of Darwin. It’s time to take back what belongs to the Australian people!
Back at the range! Only a few years ago the Venezuelans were completely disarmed by their government and now they are being shot in the streets for trying to access food brought to them by the Americans. Australians deserve the right to defend themselves and bear arms.
iii) traditional family values, including recognising marriage as only the union of a man and a woman and the sanctity of human life at all ages, including both the unborn and the elderly
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1114777774466584577

If this was his standard he is basically against all Muslims because all of them can’t integrate.
ii) social cohesion by an immigration program that gives preference to those best able to integrate and assimilate
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1114777704232972290

Saying Europeans have a right to defend Austraila from threat of being a minority from other races even though European is not a race.
We have the right to preserve our ethno-cultural identity. Europeans are heading towards becoming a minority in their own countries around the world. We have a right to defend our people and our way of life.
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1113641596023496704

For freedom of speech so that he can say his outrageous views:
The globalist traitors, are trying to silence anyone who dare speak out against their agenda, both on social media platforms with internet censorship and in parliaments across the world with ridiculous “hate speech” laws being passed. Freedom of speech must be defended!
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1113636366707871744

Can be implied from this that he would call people who defend harassment online bad people:
We need absolute freedom of speech! The traitorous politicians are desperately trying to take your right to freedom of conscience and expression like something out of 1984. Good men died for our right to freedom of speech and I will always defend it.
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1113635207398154246

Using his free speech to spread false information:
The Australian people are tired of mass immigration being forced upon them! They’re feeling the effects of this flood of indiscriminate immigration which has destroyed social cohesion, increased terrorism, suppressed wages growth and is causing increased congestion.
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1113400760023126016

So basically from that since Brendo over hear believes in freedom of speech he allows people like Fraser Anning who speads false information about Islam, “elites”. Is against gay marriage, for an ethno-state, for removing gun-laws and for nationalism to have a platform.

Will is more justified in what occurred because one was a 69 year old and the other was a 17 year old. The situation involved an assault by two parties.  The prefrontal cortex is fully developed at an age of 25. Will is 17 so he does not have a full capacity to make good decisions. On the other hand Fraser Anning already has a full developed prefrontal cortex and had one for about 44 years. This means Fraser Anning had enough time to adjust accordingly to be making good decisions but that did not stop him from posting those tweets on Twitter and assaulting Will back after Will assaulted him. With this in mind Fraser Anning was not justified by his response due to how minimal the damage that was done with the egg and the amount of damage he done to the 17 year old before Will was restrained.

Will was also more justified in his response because Fraser seeks to divide Australia rather than bring together like what Will did. Given the comments made by Fraser he is advocating for hatred for people who do not share the same colour of skin whereas Will by committing to the egg attack has made him the spotlight of the attention. The bad side is that people who already believed can now support another far-right individual but now the media can bring this person to the public in order to be named the awful person he is. People who were now on the fence about if Fraser Anning was a good guy or not see the awful person that he is and I think that is for the best. Remove people like Fraser from public discourse because I am sure he had these views for quite some time and at this point he is incapable of changing his mind whether he is a bad faith actor or not.
Source 1: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6846431/Egg-Boy-admits-wrong-smash-egg-Fraser-Anning-says-incident-united-people.html
Source2: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051


Round 2
Con
You were explaining the reason’s why he is a far right senator as if the reason you believe the attack was justified is because you also disagree with him. I am a right wing person, and I agree with some of those things he had said on Twitter. Are you going to hunt me down and throw an egg at me? You even include irrelevant comment such as gay marriage. Many other people also disagree with gay marriage. It is not exactly relevant to the Christchurch attack.

Regarding your claim about Will’s egg attack being justified because Anning fought back. Authorities came to the conclusion that he acted in self defence. A quote from the BBC reads, “On assessment of all the circumstances, the 69-year-old's actions were treated as self-defence and there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.” The article then follows this by stating that, “The teenager had also avoided prosecution but would receive an official caution.”

Even through the eyes of the authorities, this attack in unjust. What makes Will above the law? Will assaulted a 69 year old man. The only reason you believe the attack is justified is because the senator has a different opinion to you. If Will assaulted a random 69 year old man, you would be absolutely fine with the 69 year old man defending himself. But because this 69 year old man had made some conservative statements, it is completely fine. This is an example of hypocrisy.

Source
BBC - Fraser Anning acted in self defence
Pro
You were explaining the reason’s why he is a far right senator as if the reason you believe the attack was justified is because you also disagree with him. 
People turn to violence because they have a disagreement. In order for it to be justifiable I would consider it to be because that person is impacting their well-being. Will must have thought Muslims can't stand up to him but he can and with that he has brought good to the world. He stated he will give money to the people impacted and has highlighted an awful man with which I hope he is removed from Twitter at the very least.
I am a right wing person, and I agree with some of those things he had said on Twitter.
I don't know what you mean by some so do tell me in the next Round. Do you agree with spreading falsehoods about Islam? Removing gun-laws? Supporting an ethno-state? For nationalism? Against gay-marriage?
If you are for an enthno-state and/or for nationalism then you are considered far-right. Islam is basically a target for his message. Finding a common enemy can unite people. Just like what Hitler did. Replace Jews with Muslims and the gas camps would be simply variation of what can happen if they don't leave if it does get to that point.
Are you going to hunt me down and throw an egg at me? 
I don't particularly care about you because you are not a senator that is going to make laws with which will create a divide in Australia. I don't live in Australia but if you do support Fraser Anning by either voting for him or funding him then Muslims or people who are advocating are justified in committing violence against you. When your livelihood is attacked what am I supposed to say? Not fight for your survival?
You even include irrelevant comment such as gay marriage. Many other people also disagree with gay marriage. It is not exactly relevant to the Christchurch attack.
Will attacked Fraser Anning because of the man he is not because he was the first person he thought to use the egg on. With this in mind my tweets are definitely relevant to the topic because if Fraser Anning wasn't a far-right individual it wouldn't give a 17 year old the motive to assault him. 

Even through the eyes of the authorities, this attack in unjust.
Argument of authority. Just because some authority figure stated it to be true doesn't mean it is actually true. You have ran out of ideas to defend an awful person so you then decide to make an argument of authority. If you want to talk about court proceedings you would have stated it in Round 1 but you stated it in the 2 Round of 3 so it is unfair to ask of me to somehow foresee you bringing up this so that my argument can be based around it. 
What makes Will above the law? 
No where did I mention the law. I mentioned it based on if it was justified like the title and your opening statement suggests but now that you have ran out of ideas you have stuck to the law and think this is enough justification for your position. It is not when I simply can say laws are based on morals so my question would be why do you think it was immoral with what Will did? Saying something is illegal which makes it immoral is a bad argument but you have barely gave me anything to work with instead stuck to surface level arguments that lack detail.
The only reason you believe the attack is justified is because the senator has a different opinion to you.
This is not even wrong that is how bad this statement is. Even if I agree this does not change that wars are created because of different opinions. If I say no then I would be more specific about his beliefs like his lies and him spreading misinformation which can lead to more people believing in what he believes. 
The only reason you believe the attack is justified is because the senator has a different opinion to you.
Depends on the person. If it was the opposite of Fraser Anning so basically a senator who is a communist or Anarchist which can pass laws furthering their goals then I would consider the person justified if they are impacted. 
But because this 69 year old man had made some conservative statements, it is completely fine.
If these are actual conservative statements then Australia really doesn't shock me at all. The conservative party are irrational and pro-establishment that supports what they like. There principle is towards their Religion masqueraded as populism. To remain consistent if what is expressed by Fraser Anning is what the conservative party in Australia believes then violence is justified if you are impacted by what they are doing.

This is an example of hypocrisy.
I don't think you know what that means. You must first acknowledge a hypocritical stance that I have when learning about my prior positions then deem it to be hypocritical. You have assumed that I wouldn't have a problem if the person wasn't a conservative but I don't agree with Anarchists or Communists so your reasoning behind my hypocrisy is false therefore you conclusion about me being a hypocrite is false as well. 

Here is a video of how little support he has and thankfully they are calling him out. I would also like to note that in the video the woman states Fraser was never even elected to his position which means he is carrying out his views without the approval of a vote.

Here is a letter that Fraser Anning wrote. Filled with conspiracies and false information. Do also look how great freedom of speech is when you look at the comment section. The highlight of it was this comment "The New Zealang Mosque “shooting” video is so fake, it should be rated as a comedy! That’s why people are threatened with 10 to 14 years in prison for having the video."

Here I will be addressing his Round 1 in more detail he gave my Round 1 since I can show courtesy when my opposition doesn't.
I do not wish do debate you again. Especially after you had insulted me in the previous debate. 
I have nothing against you personally but I dislike your positions and from what you have said those "insults" were warranted. 
However it is too late and I do not have a choice.
You do have more than one choice. Forfeit or debate me. It is still a choice even if you don't like it.

The reason why Will chose to assault him is because Will disagreed with Fraser Anning’s opinion.
Many opinions that he uses to divide the country instead of bringing them together. For highlights do check my Round 1 where I find tweets of his.
multiple people wish for Fraser Anning to be fired from the senate.
Which would be the right thing. Fraser is a far-right figure who is openly loathes Muslims, for an ethno-state and for nationalism. These are positions held by Hitler (replace Jews with Muslims) and I doubt Fraser would even disavow him like how Richard Spencer couldn't even do when he was on the David Pakman Show. 

This debate will be based on whether the egg attack was justified, and if Will should have thrown the egg at Fraser Anning.
Thank you for reminding me that it is based on justification not on what is legal. I have also given a better argument for Pro Will throwing an egg than what Brendo was capable of doing. 

Firstly, I do not agree with Fraser Anning’s comments about the shooting.
Not enough to actually stop him from saying it. 
However, freedom of speech is a human right.
A human right? A right is dependent on who makes sure you have it. This would be the state. The Australian government. It is not given to you by God or something that everyone has with them on birth. This means a right is basically something enforced that allows or denies a person of something. Bad argument if he believed in God or if he was secular. No explanation given instead you are talking surface level. This requires more detail if I can actually respond to what you value instead of simply claims. 
Fraser Anning was simply stating his opinion regarding the shooting, as many other people have already done. 
Hitler simply stated his opinion for Germans to gas the Jews. This is an absurd point when many people speak their opinion and when they are in a position of power they can make what they will happen. Trump can use his free speech to declare war on Venezuela. Brendo would not be opposed to Trump saying it because that was his opinion even though if Trump was not allowed to say it there would be no war against Venezuela.

According to the Australia Human Rights Commission, ICCPR article 19 states “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
Thank you for telling me the right is given to Australians by the government. 
What gives anyone, especially a random teenager, to take away a person’s right to expressing their opinion?
If that person is expressing an opinion which can lead to people getting harmed then it is justified that his opinion is interfered upon.
If you wish for Fraser Anning to be punished, then it would mean that you also wish to punish Will for assault
Yeah sure but I would still have a harsher sentence for Fraser compared to Will. Turns out both did not receive punishment. 
Will is the aggressor in this scenario. He made the conscious decision to assault another person. Why should Fraser Anning be charged with assault, while Will is able to simply walk away without any consequences. He is old enough to understand that his actions have consequences.
The conscious of a 69 year old is higher than a 17 year old so to expect a 17 year old to be as capable of a 69 year old is absurd. Fraser Anning also understands his actions have consequences then why should he be off to hook when he is more developed to understand the consequences of retaliating? I imagine your answer would not be that good but do still tell me. 
Even Will himself admitted that what he did was wrong.
Someone admitting they are wrong doesn't actually mean they are wrong. In the context of this Will is on a T.V. show and I doubt they will allow him to speak about what he truly advocates. If Will really thought he did was wrong he wouldn't have assaulted Fraser in the first place but he did.
“There is no reason to physically attack anyone.” This shows that even the person who committed the assault does not believe that what he did was right.
If there was no reason he wouldn't have attacked Fraser but he did so basically Will is being a hypocrite here and for you to not understand that is ironic when you called me a hypocrite. 
What gives anyone the ability to take away another person’s right?
When they are trying to take away a person who you care about rights.
No one has the right to censor a person’s opinion. 
A government can do what they want. It just so happens they can censor people and make that law. Rights are given by the government not God or somehow given to people on birth.
Like everything, I admit that there are exceptions, but I do not need to explain it further unless you want me to do so.
Seems like he doesn't even agree with what he even says. Saying:
no one has the right to censor a person's opinion
Is an absolute nothing in there says most of the time or depending on the circumstance. Even this:
Will should not have attacked anyone.
Is an absolute which leaves no room for exceptions. 

Round 3
Con
You asked for what both Fraser and I support. So here is a list of some things you mentioned in round 1.

Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?
I agree with this statement. There is a link between Muslim immigration and violence. Take a look at Europe for example. There are now ‘no go zones’ in different places around Europe. This is because those towns are Muslim majority.

If Islam is so peaceful why don’t Muslim migrants go live in rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE? Surely these countries can help fellow Muslims out and live together peacefully under Islamic rule of law?
This statement is a valid point. Why do Muslims go to non-Muslim countries, then attempt to practice things that are illegal here, but normal in Muslim majority countries such as child brides and grooming gangs.

I stand by my comments on Muslim immigration. Despite all the left wing hysteria today, no one actually argued against what I said, because it is 100% true. Countries that had increased Muslim immigration had increased crime and terrorism. Sweden, Germany, UK, France etc.
This is just further information about the first quote. He is further explaining the link between Muslim immigration and violence.

Australia is NOT for sale. Both the Liberals and the Labor party for years have been selling out our farms and national assets like the Port of Darwin. It’s time to take back what belongs to the Australian people!
Here, he is explaining that Australia is selling its land to other countries. I also agree with Fraser Anning on this.

Back at the range! Only a few years ago the Venezuelans were completely disarmed by their government and now they are being shot in the streets for trying to access food brought to them by the Americans. Australians deserve the right to defend themselves and bear arms.
This is not about removing gun laws. He is stating that Australians should have the right to use firearms as a tool for self defence. Again, I agree with this.

iii) traditional family values, including recognising marriage as only the union of a man and a woman and the sanctity of human life at all ages, including both the unborn and the elderly
I do not have a problem with gat marriage. This may be one of the only things I disagree with. However, I would have voted no on the postal vote for a different reason that is suited for another debate.

In round 2, you explained that Will wouldn’t have an excuse to egg Fraser Anning if he wasn’t far right. This simply proves my point. Will chose to assault a 69 year old man because that man has different political opinions to him. You also continue to state that a 17 year old’s brain is not fully developed. Does this not also help my position? Will cannot thin for himself, therefore his opinions doesn’t matter? That statement isn’t right. He is 17. He is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. Does that mean any crime committed by a 17 year old should not count because they cannot think for themselves?

In that same open letter you used in round 2, Fraser Anning states, “All were innocent. The perpetrator is a monster and no sane person would think otherwise.” He followed this by saying, “I was referring, obviously, to terrorists and the backlash they potentially incite. Nowhere in that statement did I imply that any of the victims were fanatics. They were hapless victims.”

It seems that the media is the one making stuff up in order to make Fraser Anning out to be the bad guy. Fraser Anning was blaming other Muslim terrorists for the attack. Not the victims of it. At no point did he condone the behaviour of the shooter. However, other people (including you) believe that Anning was blaming the victims for causing the attack by simply being in the country when it happened. This is not true, evident by his statement.

There is no reason to censor Fraser Anning, although multiple people are attempting to. He was asked for a statement regarding the shooting, and he provided one. He was attacked for simply providing an opinion regarding an event in the news. Whether you agree with his statement or not, there was no justifiable reason for Will to assault Fraser Anning.

Sources
Fraser Anning’s letter

Pro
You asked for what both Fraser and I support. So here is a list of some things you mentioned in round 1.
Thank you now I can see how bad you really are.

I agree with this statement. There is a link between Muslim immigration and violence. Take a look at Europe for example. There are now ‘no go zones’ in different places around Europe. This is because those towns are Muslim majority.
He mentioned nothing about "no-go zones" so the burden is on you to prove they even exist. Shame you were not capable. The statement can really easily know his true agenda. Here is my variation of his: Does anyone still dispute the link between white people and violence? From my statement you can gather if you are a rational person that no-one disputes that white people do commit crime yet he thinks people dispute Muslim immigrants committing crime. This straw-man he created is un-warranted because he is not able to tell the readers who is disputing such a claim. If he really had a problem that groups commit more crime he should have targeted the whites.
This statement is a valid point. Why do Muslims go to non-Muslim countries, then attempt to practice things that are illegal here, but normal in Muslim majority countries such as child brides and grooming gangs.
Has made no effort to prove that this is done by the majority of Muslims or even 1 commit to child brides or grooming gangs. If it was so valid you would have evidence. Guess this is a right-wing problem because they either misrepresent data or don't even use data to support their point.
This is just further information about the first quote. He is further explaining the link between Muslim immigration and violence.
Guess you like people talking but not giving any evidence. Do you know how great his case would be if he had evidence and did not misrepresent it?
Here, he is explaining that Australia is selling its land to other countries. I also agree with Fraser Anning on this.
No evidence has been given so it can be dismissed as such.
This is not about removing gun laws. He is stating that Australians should have the right to use firearms as a tool for self defence. Again, I agree with this.
Since guns were taken back by laws. You would have to remove gun laws in order to give back guns to the public. It is that simply yet you don't even understand that. 
you explained that Will wouldn't have an excuse to egg Fraser Anning if he wasn't far right. This simply proves my point. Will chose to assault a 69 year old man because that man has different political opinions to him.

Wars are created based on differences of opinion. This point is flawed because to even have a conflict the parties must want different outcomes also known as different opinions. 
You also continue to state that a 17 year old’s brain is not fully developed. Does this not also help my position? Will cannot thin for himself, therefore his opinions doesn’t matter? 
My position is that due to not having the same brain development Will was not able to be on par with making decisions compare to Fraser. I don't think it would help at all when Fraser retailed at a 17 year old boy or posed no physical threat.
He is 17. He is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. Does that mean any crime committed by a 17 year old should not count because they cannot think for themselves?
But he is not 69 so to expect the same level of rationale is absurd. Fraser should be punished for not being rational and slapping/punching Will. If we only look at that scenario both of them are no better than each other which makes you think how little Fraser uses his rational part of his brain to think attacking a 17 year old boy back that posed no physical threat is the right thing to do.
It seems that the media is the one making stuff up in order to make Fraser Anning out to be the bad guy. 
He also said this in the letter "Your exploitation of the killing has helped open the door to the far left." no proof given "Whitlam has embraced the policy of indiscriminate immigration." No-one accepts this stance "In order to lock-in permanent mass immigration, you multicultural elitists have annihilated the bedrock principle of Free Speech from our society." no proof given that these "elites even exist. There are quotes from an awful man but I have enough to say that if the media reported on these quotes or other quotes similar to this they are justified. There are more false quotes or irrational quotes than what Brendo cherry-picked. 
There is no reason to censor Fraser Anning, although multiple people are attempting to. He was asked for a statement regarding the shooting, and he provided one.
I don't think Brendo gave a good enough case defending his position. There are very little absolutes and to this I have demonstrated that violence against a person who would like to kick people born and raised in a country is justified because they are impacting your well-being. Guess Brendo stands by a white nationalist instead of everyday people who know very little of what this man is trying to do to Australia. I can only assume that when push comes to shove Brendo would pick the side of fascism instead of populism.