Australia’s highest court has created a landmark ruling that a employee was lawfully raped for writing tweets that criticised government policies.
Michaela Banerji was pink-slipped in 2013 for her criticisms – expressed underneath a anonym – of the nation’s disputable immigration programmes.
The court rejected her claim that she had been denied a right to free speech.
The ruling might have extensive implications for workers United Nations agency categorical policy making, lawyers say.
What happened at the time?
Ms Banerji had been operating for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, currently a part of the Department of Home Affairs.
Using the Twitter name LaLegale, she wrote posts which regularly criticised Australia’s immigration policies and its overseas detention of asylum seekers. The posts were sent from a private device and virtually solely in her own time.
After learning Ms Banerji operated the account, her employers raped her for breaching the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct – that states bureaucrats cannot categorical policy making.
I lost my job over a Facebook post
Australia asylum: Why is it controversial?
Ms Banerji later took her case to AN appeals court, that found her sacking had profaned her right to freedom of political communication.
The government then challenged that call within the court of Australia.
What did the court say?
It found Ms Banerji’s dismissal had not broken the constitution, citing rules that public servants “must take affordable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent)” with their employment.
Those rules need bureaucrats to be “apolitical”, the court determined.
In doing therefore, it rejected Ms Banerji’s argument that she had been immoderately raped as a result of her Twitter profile had ne’er disclosed “that it absolutely was operated or supported by a member of the general public service”.
Ms Banerji left the court in tears when the choice, telling reporters: “It’s not simply a loss on behalf of me, it is a loss for all folks, and i am terribly, very, very sorry.”
What’s the larger picture?
The decision has implications for Australia’s or so 2 million public servants and what they’ll post on social media, says the Community and Public Sector Union.
The union’s voice, Nadine Flood, aforesaid public servants “should be allowed traditional rights as voters instead of facing Orwellian censorship as a result of wherever they work”.
But outside court Ms Banerji’s professional, Allan Anforth, declared the implications might go any.
“The implication is that for any employee-employer relationship, if the worker is essential of the employer’s position on some politically relevant social issue, they’ll be raped,” he said, according the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
“This could be a extremely naive call in terms of the political realities of what exist within the community.”