By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Australian High Court upheld the government’s decision to deny a visa to U.S. influencer Candace Owens, who sought to undertake a speaking tour. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke rejected her visa application, citing concerns that her views could incite discord, referencing her history of downplaying the Holocaust and making Islamophobic comments. Owens appealed to the court, arguing the decision burdened political communication, but the court ruled in favor of the government, stating the Migration Act served a justifiable purpose in protecting the Australian community. The court cited Owens’ “extremist and inflammatory comments” as failing the “character test,” with similar concerns leading to the cancellation of rapper Ye’s visa earlier in the year.
Read the original article here
Far-right U.S. influencer Candace Owens loses legal fight to enter Australia, and it’s sparking a whole lot of conversation. From the sounds of it, many people are cheering this outcome, and the reasons are pretty clear. Australia’s Immigration Minister, Tony Burke, delivered a particularly memorable line, basically saying Australia is better off without her, and that sentiment seems to have resonated widely.
The general feeling is that Australia, and perhaps any country, has the right to decide who enters its borders. The argument is that if a person’s views are seen as harmful or against the national interest, denying them entry is a perfectly reasonable measure. This seems especially true when considering the things she has been known to say and promote. It’s a case of a country exercising its sovereignty and prioritizing its own values.
There’s a strong sense of “good riddance” in the comments. People are expressing relief and satisfaction that someone they see as spreading hate and negativity is not welcome in their country. The language used reflects a strong aversion to her opinions, with words like “evil,” “psychopath,” and “poisonous creature” being thrown around. It’s clear that her online persona and the views she espouses have created a significant level of animosity.
Interestingly, there’s also a strong element of irony and hypocrisy being pointed out. Many commenters highlight that the very people who might decry this decision are often the same ones who supported restricting entry to the US based on someone’s political views. It’s as if the tables have turned, and now those who usually champion free speech are on the receiving end of a decision that limits it.
The discussions also touch on the broader concept of free speech and its limits. While some might see this decision as a violation of free speech, others argue that it’s about decency and civility. They feel that the right to free speech doesn’t include the right to spread hate or harmful ideologies, and that there should be consequences for such behavior. This perspective views the denial of entry not as censorship, but as a way of upholding certain standards of conduct.
The fact that this legal battle was ultimately resolved in favor of the Australian government, with Candace Owens ordered to pay legal costs, seems to have only amplified the satisfaction of those who opposed her entry. This outcome further validates the government’s decision and reinforces the message that her views are not welcome. The “NelsonMuntz.gif” is a classic way of summing up the prevailing sentiment of the situation, and the general consensus seems to be very positive.
Several commenters note the implications for American politics, too. They suggest that this incident serves as a reminder of the consequences of actions and the importance of holding people accountable. Some even go further, arguing that the US should take similar measures against individuals who are perceived to be a threat to national security, which is a very strong statement.
The overwhelming tone is one of approval for Australia’s decision. The comments highlight the perceived dangers of Candace Owens’ views and the importance of protecting a country from what they consider harmful ideologies. There’s a distinct feeling that Australia is safeguarding its own values and interests by denying her entry.
There’s also a bit of a “stay in your own mess” attitude directed at the U.S., as if some see this as a consequence for a country that is seen to have been impacted by her views. It’s as if the decision to keep her out is a form of protection, a shield against the spread of what is considered harmful ideology. And there are the jokes, many jokes.
The conclusion is that Candace Owens’ failed attempt to enter Australia has been met with a wave of support for the government’s decision. The prevailing sentiment is that Australia made the right choice in protecting its borders from someone whose views are widely considered harmful.