Summary
Candace Owens, a U.S. conservative commentator, has been denied a visa to enter New Zealand for a speaking tour after being banned from Australia.
Australian officials barred her in October, citing her Holocaust denial remarks and potential to incite discord, following calls from Jewish groups.
New Zealand immigration laws prohibit entry to individuals banned from other countries.
Owens, known for controversial statements on topics like Black Lives Matter and vaccines, had planned to discuss free speech and Christianity at events in both countries. Tickets for her tour remain on sale.
Or: Klandace Owens learns about using strong borders to keep undesirables out.
Oh I didn’t think she had that much power and influence, I guess I was wrong
It’s nice that some countries are willing to institute consequences for fascist influencers. I’m eager to see how the social media ban affects things down the line for Australian young people, too.
It’s illegal in many countries to falsify historic facts.
USA is not a “golden” standard in that regard, but more like a low end developing country with no real rules.Russia has done good work in that area too. They make it a strict crime to spread false information.
You forgot the air-quotes, comrade.
I think you mean true information can be a crime in Russia.
It rather depends on who is determining what is “true” doesn’t it?
Truth about an objective fact is not something you can subjectively decide. You can’t have your own facts or your own truth.
Russia is at war after illegally invading Ukraine, is an objectively true statement, but is an illegal statement in Russia.“Duh”
But laws are decided by humans. And humans are falable. One person’s “objective fact” is another person’s “lie”.
So when you give a state power to punish people for lying you have to ask yourself - “who is deciding what ‘true’ is?” in that scenario. And will they be the ones deciding it in the future?
You have no clue what you are talking about, the falsifying of history that is illegal is very well defined, as for example denial of holocaust. This is not something that is arbitrarily decided by political changes, but is based on actual well documented historical facts, only denied by extremists.
Just because Putin uses similar rhetoric, against people who call the war a war, doesn’t mean the 2 are the same. There’s a huge difference between a well functioning democracy, and an authoritarian dictatorship.
lol
I don’t know that the relatively anodyne descriptor “conservative commentator” and simply “visa” are strong enough to provide an accurate portrayal of the situation. (The article goes more into it; I’m referring to the lede.) She wasn’t going scuba diving and visiting the Sydney Opera House on a tourist visa. She was applying for a work visa and she’s apparently frequently crossed the line into holocaust denial. A lot of countries wouldn’t grant that visa.
I don’t really know much about her — I just read bits of her Wikipedia article — but to me, this sounds more like denying Alex Jones a work visa than something like banning a random “conservative commentator” like Megyn Kelly from visiting Aukland on holiday.
I think your summary is accurate.
Good move by New Zealand.
her Holocaust denial remarks
That tracks, because she’s been going on about flat earth crap lately, and the Ven diagram of racist and flat earthers have a large overlap.
Actually the flat earther diagram is almost completely enveloped by the racist circle, specifically the “Nazi” variety of horrible people.
What an unfortunate thing to happen on free dozen eggs night
If you are a person who doesn’t defend freedom of speech then you are not a defender of democracy. You can’t have one without the other.
Free speech =/= Speech without consequence.
She’s free to speak whatever she wants. She’s also free to live with the consequences of her speech.
“Free” does not mean “unregulated”. Fire in a crowded theater. Everyone who flogs the free speech argument in the service of promoting fascism can fuck right off.
Intolerance to the intolerant.
This sounds so good on paper, but completely falls apart without carefully defining free speech. Like, what if I hire actors with prop weapons to march around minority neighborhoods and scream that they’ll shoot any non-whites who try to vote?
You think that fun performance art is going to be healthy for democracy? Really?
What if I use AI to make convincing video footage of politicians I disagree with mutilating dogs and then graphically fucking their corpses? Do you think my commentary on their lack of support for dog shelters is going to foster democratic dialog, or do you think that maybe some voters will develop a viscerally unpleasant disgust and have trouble looking at them or engaging in what they have to say?
What if you buy a botnet and use it to convince both sides of the aisle that the other candidate is an authoritarian who will destroy democracy and try to control their life. Or to send death threats to people who publicly admit to being trans?
It is important to make room for marginalized voices to be heard, yes, that is essential for democracy, but there are also tons of bad actors who will try to use the very freedom you’re trying to protect to deny others that freedom. A completely laissez faire approach to free speech will ultimately serve to silence the marginalized and further empower the wealthy.
Threatening others is a crime. Generating false AI videos to harm another person’s reputation is a crime. Opinions are not crimes. It’s really not that complicated. People want to pretend it is complicated so they can control what can be said to gain power. Really not complicated.
But what if your opinion is threatening to others? If you believe that white people are inherently superior to other races and it is right for them to be served by the inferior races, then expressing that opinion is inherently threatening to many non-whites.
Sure, I’ve given hyperbolic examples, because I wanted to demonstrate that you can use freedom of expression to make threats, but there will also be examples that are in more of a grey area. There’s nothing inherently threatening about the Confederate flag. If you had flown it in 1600 people would’ve just said “cool flag, what does it mean?”.
Now however, many people see it as a threat, a constant reminder of how things used to be for their ancestors. Expressing your opinion by flying that flag says to those people “I want your children to live as your forefathers did”
Now, not everyone who flies that flag is making a threat, but some of them absolutely are. So what do we do?
I’m not saying I have a one size fits all solution. Simply banning anything that neo-nazis adopt clearly isn’t practical and could also be easily abused by the government to quash dissent. I’m just pointing out that it’s not a simple fucking problem.
It is pretty simple. If an action\opinion is deemed threatening then laws are created to stop that action\opinion. If there is no law making it illegal then it is just an opinion. So you can have a flag with a swastika, a confederate flag, BLM, OR LGBTQ.
So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.
That’s easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.
Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access… give it a sec, I’m sure you’ll get it.
Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.
But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.
Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?
So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it’s all good right ?
I also noted you conveniently didn’t address this in your response.
Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?
I’m not saying that laws aren’t useful for this purpose I’m saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.
As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647
By your proposed framework, you’re cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.
To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I’m not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I’m using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.
Dude, you’re complaining about a nation using its laws to prevent her from speaking. If your requirement is if laws prevent something it’s fine, then I don’t know what you’re discussing anymore. I think you need to return to the basics of your position and reconsider it for a moment.
No one should let that trash in to their country
Genuine question, so if I can’t enter China for… reasons…, does that mean the Kiwis won’t let me vacation in the Shire?
Depends what those reasons are. Conspicuously bad-mouthing the Chinese government in a way that can be traced back to your real world identity might get you banned from China, but nowhere else, for example.
If it’s something to do with drugs, illegal shipping of goods, a criminal record or visa shenanigans, any country would reserve their right to send you packing. That doesn’t mean that would happen, but it might be in your interests to contact your country’s New Zealand embassy, (or one of their consulates if there’s one nearer to you), be really, really pleasant with whoever you talk to, and put your question to them, and ask if you can get their response in writing… and then stay the heck out of trouble until you try to go there.
It could save you a couple of long, unnecessary journeys and a heap of expense.
None of this guarantees you still won’t be sent home even if the embassy gives you the all-clear in writing, by the way. But if you get a firm “no” from the embassy, you’ll know not to go.
We’re having fuck-candice-owens parties here in NZ.
Good
This might make her more influential. Some people may wonder why the government is trying to silence her by banning her and decide follow her as a means of rebellion.
It will backfire in the short term, but it’s better to take the hit now than to wait until she causes more trouble.
I’m willing to risk it by deplatforming her and her cronies.
Elon Musk letting all the neo-Nazis and racists back on Twitter certainly didn’t have the effect of making people more dismissive of those viewpoints
The only people she could influence are people that were already predisposed to fascist leanings in the first place. She’s merely one rotten influencer, there are scores more of them out there–many of whom will easily fill the space she left with their own brand of bullshit
