By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Australian High Court has upheld the government’s 2024 decision to deny Candace Owens a visa. The court determined that the Home Affairs Minister’s denial did not violate any constitutional freedoms. The minister refused the visa due to concerns that Owens’ views, including minimizing the Holocaust, had the potential to incite discord and fail the “character test” under the Migration Act. The court found the minister did not misinterpret the law in making this decision, ultimately dismissing Owens’ challenge.
Read the original article here
Candace Owens: Australia’s High Court backs government decision to deny visa to US rightwinger. This is a pretty straightforward story, and frankly, a pretty satisfying one for a lot of people, not just in Australia, but seemingly globally. The long and short of it is this: Candace Owens, a prominent US conservative commentator known for her often controversial opinions, was denied a visa to Australia, and the High Court, the country’s highest legal authority, upheld that decision. It’s a resounding endorsement of the government’s right to determine who enters the country, and specifically, the ability to bar those who don’t meet the required “character test.”
So, why did Owens get the boot? The official reason, as per the Migration Act, boils down to that “character test.” The specifics are a little murkier, but we can infer from the surrounding commentary and news reports that her past statements and actions were key factors. She has a history of spreading what many consider hate speech, and her opinions, including some minimization of the atrocities of the Nazi medical experiments in concentration camps, clearly didn’t sit well with Australian authorities. Even more concerning, she has gone as far as to call for the US to invade Australia. That sort of rhetoric doesn’t exactly scream “welcome guest.”
The implications of this decision are quite interesting. It’s not just about Candace Owens; it’s about setting a precedent. The court’s decision underscores the idea that a country has the right, even the responsibility, to protect itself from those who might spread division, incite hatred, or even advocate for actions that would undermine its sovereignty. It shows that Australia, like many nations, takes its immigration policies and the character of those it admits quite seriously. The court’s stance is clear: freedom of speech, while important, isn’t absolute, especially when it comes to crossing national borders. It’s a limit on legislative and executive power, there is no freedom to spread hateful and destructive messages inside the country.
This whole situation is also ironic on several levels. Owens, who often champions free speech and rails against perceived censorship, has now encountered the consequences of her own words, as per the courts judgement. Furthermore, a central point of contention for her is, of course, the so called ‘tyrannical’ nature of the Australian government, which is interesting, considering she’s essentially been barred from entering the country. To deny her a visa is to deny her the opportunity to continue the cycle of her rhetoric and generate even more controversy, and revenue, in the process.
The court’s reasoning, which has been detailed within the judgement and available publicly, is also quite insightful. The court acknowledged that the Migration Act does, in a sense, “burden freedom of communication,” but justified this as a necessary measure to protect the country’s system of government. It argued that preventing the entry of individuals whose views might undermine social cohesion or advocate for actions against Australia falls within the government’s legitimate interests. The court recognized that it is legitimate to prevent outsiders from entering the country and sowing discord. It isn’t unreasonable to expect foreign visitors to not express desire for the country to be invaded.
It’s hard to miss the wider context here. In an era where political polarization is rampant, and social media platforms are often battlegrounds for extreme views, this decision sends a strong message. It’s a reminder that countries are not obligated to provide a platform, either physically or digitally, for those who promote hatred, division, or, in this case, even potentially hostile actions. It also is a clear indication of the level of respect the Australian government has for its population.
The response to this news has been largely positive. Comments and reactions online range from simply celebrating the decision to expressing relief that Australia is taking a stand against what they see as hateful rhetoric. In the end, it will always be within the rights of countries to chose who and who not is welcome. It’s a pretty cut-and-dried case of a country exercising its sovereignty to protect its values and national interests. It’s hard to blame anyone for celebrating a court ruling.