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.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • atzanteol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        4 days ago

        Russia has done good work in that area too. They make it a strict crime to spread false information.

          • atzanteol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            3 days ago

            It rather depends on who is determining what is “true” doesn’t it?

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              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.

              • atzanteol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                3 days ago

                “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?

                • Paragone@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  THE most-famous convict in the entire-world, Yehoshua “Jesus” benJoseph, agreed with you,

                  while calling legalists “Hypocrites!”…

                  I don’t hold the Christian bible to be my scripture ( it’s contaminated, it blocked-out Gospel of Mary, while including idiocies, etc ), there’s some good points in it, sometimes…

                  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 2&version=AMP

                  has some interesting perspective on judging…

                  WHEN you’ve got narcissism/machiavellianism/sociopathy-psychopathy/nihilism/sadism/systemic-dishonesty judging,

                  THEN it isn’t going to tolerate accountability, responsibility, etc.

                  It’s going to murder-from-its-world accountability & responsibility, as the psychopaths who rule some countries already do.

                  The ICC’s supposed to get precisely those people, but apparently France has decided that those who didn’t agree to ICC’s jurisdiction are exempt from being arrested.

                  Russia exemplifies outright DarkHexad ( the 6 factors of human-evil I’ve found, identified above, you’ve probably heard of DarkTriad, the 3 admitted by the professional psychologists ), & its judgement is intentionally DarkHexad.

                  Some reject truth because “truth” gives their identity, or faction, or political-power, or wealth, gain.

                  ALWAYS this kind of thing is fighting-for-ownership-of-the-world…

                  Even the incompetently-drafted-laws which we enact while “pretending” they won’t be used to abuse the ones who never committed crime, are systematic dishonest-judgement, but in enacting, not in judging-according-to-the-enacted-law.

                  As for “truth is a fact you cannot decide: it just is”, well, in some physics-cases, that may well be true, but in all statistically determined physics that no-longer is true, is it?

                  3-sigmas is “discovered” in some branches of science, but 5-sigmas is “discovered” in particle-physics, right?

                  There’s decision going on, there…


                  Fundamentally, IF someone won’t accept responsibility for their own nondecision or their decision, THEN Universe is just going to keep recycling their Continuum/Soul, FOREVER, until it earns integrity.

                  Universe recycles ALL energies contained within it, whether physical, like waves ( as “particles” actually are, in QM ), or immaterial, like meaning/knowing, or probability-waves/will/intent.

                  Law, like engineering, is essentially: you create work which DOESN’T PERMIT malfunction.

                  All you have to do is to decide how much you’re going to pay to achieve a certain degree-of-certainty in prohibiting malfunction.

                  Want a perfect-law?

                  it’s going to require serious work.

                  Shoddy law? that can be done quickly, without too much effort, right?

                  However, the more laws there are, the more their interactions become complex…

                  & then RightLaw becomes more & more & more costly!

                  Worse, ideologues enact laws whenever they can, so as to break considered-reasoning from the legislation & legal-practice processes…


                  So, yes the dishonest, & the ideological/prejudiced/“religious”/programmed will intentionally “interpret” laws so as to do harm to whomever they’re contempting…

                  & shoddy law cannot be “rightly” interpreted because it wasn’t ever right, in the 1st place…

                  But that doesn’t in ANY way negate the responsibility of the ones judging, when they’re judging.

                  Russia’s government is openly evil: they even sent incinerators along with their troops, for sake of eradicating evidence/accountability, into Ukraina.

                  Don’t be a “bot” for them, by pushing that that’s as valid as proper uprightness, though.

                  They can “decide” that objectivity is criminality, & that disinformation authorized by their regime is what “True” means,

                  but gaslighters are gaslighters.

                  Never help them against integrity.

                  Never help local corruption against integrity.

                  Cut them every time, & teach them that their commitment-to-enforcing-disinformation is going to COST them, among the upright.

                  Integrity requires it of us.

                  _ /\ _

                • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  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.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • Jin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oh I didn’t think she had that much power and influence, I guess I was wrong

  • Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Genuine question, so if I can’t enter China for… reasons…, does that mean the Kiwis won’t let me vacation in the Shire?

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Thanks for the reply! No, I wasn’t thinking about any “real” criminal activity. I’m from Germany and thus I’m very outspoken against the systematic murder of minorities. I may have peacefully protested at times and always wonder if China has my face stored somewhere on a server ready to barr me from access to their country, should I ever want to visit, which is unlikely.

  • Eezyville
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • qaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      It will backfire in the short term, but it’s better to take the hit now than to wait until she causes more trouble.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 days ago

      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

    • frunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 days ago

      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