Across the ditch, her risk of “inciting discord” was deemed too great to allow her into Australia. But in Aotearoa, ministerial discretion was used to overturn the rejection of Candace Owens’ visa application, with the right to practise free speech – hers considered by many to be antisemitic, transphobic, racist and extremist – considered to outweigh considerations of her being an excluded person.
So how did it happen? Documents released under the Official Information Act reveal the process that led to associate immigration minister Chris Penk overturning Immigration NZ’s decision to deny Owens a visa to visit New Zealand for a speaking event, after the Free Speech Union went in to bat for the controversial conservative American commentator.
Owens – named as the person who influenced the Christchurch shooter “above all” in his own manifesto – will deliver a speech at Auckland’s Trusts Arena next January (if you haven’t already grabbed a ticket, sales have been paused). She was due to host her first-ever live event on New Zealand’s shores in late 2024, but a decision on her Australian visa by that country’s immigration minister Tony Burke had a ripple effect across the Tasman.
Surely this is the government controlling who can come to New Zealand. Which is kind of a cornerstone of modern nation-states.
Our kind of democracy includes protecting people from being hurt or murdered. We already have a lot of speech restrictions based on that.
It does, but I’m still interested in the line of thought (even if hypothetically).
Who decides if vaccines, blood transplants, or stem cells count as hurting people?
If the government banned all three, would it be ok to stop anyone advocating for them from entering the country?