NZ Politics

610 readers

4 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Candace Owens was denied a visa to New Zealand – and then a minister stepped in (thespinoff.co.nz)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I get the idea, but that works at a gradual level. Over time you convince more, but not all, to your side.

When your speeches directly incite a mass murder (as the mass murderer alluded to), maybe we don't need to give that a platform.

No, I don't know the answer here, because you're right that the government controlling who can speak is a direct threat to democracy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't think this is a very useful comparison because stem cells, blood, plasma, and vaccines are all things people choose to have done to their bodies based on guidance from medical science, and in all cases people are allowed to opt out of those things if if they disagree.

On the other hand lynchings, racial violence and other kinds of discrimination are not things anyone is likely to choose to happen to themselves, and they are also generally done to people against their will. Literally no one chose to be shot by the Christchurch shooter and he did not allow anyone to opt out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Ah right, I get it. There aren't many things that fit into this category.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago

There's no paradox. Candace's espoused ideology is an open attack on the social contract, and should therefore not be protected by it.