NZ Politics

607 readers

27 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

Dave@lemmy.nz

RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz

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

submitted 1 day ago by Dave@lemmy.nz to c/politics@lemmy.nz

12 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

[–] liv@lemmy.nz 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I understand your point but it seems like a bad idea when it comes to people being harmed.

To take a clear cut example the reason we don't allow people to lie that they are a medical doctor is because in the time it takes you to "platform" the fact that they are not, people will die.

Similarly with false advertising being illegal. The stakes are less life-and-death but as a society we don't want to spend our time and energy debunking lies and platforming the truth while people are getting deceived and robbed.

With extremist hate speech and incitement it can be a little harder to draw a straight line between it and its effects, but the same principle applies, if it is extreme enough that people are likely to get harmed.