- cross-posted to:
- newzealand@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- newzealand@lemmit.online
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.
Divest. Protest. Raise hell. If allowing them a platform isn’t your hard line, you don’t stand a chance.
I dunno, maybe it’s better to focus on platforming your better views than de-platforming those you judge bad. If your views really are better, then you can bring people round to your opinion with proper debate; silencing the opposition because you can’t compete is a nice foundation for future fascism.
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.
As Hasan Piker often says, lying is OP. You can’t hope to compete on even footing with someone when you’re constrained by facts and they are not. Plus, Owens probably still has some backing from the capitalist class.
It’s sad times when we give up on truth to fight lies. Lying is OP like chemical weapons and torture are OP. If your only goal is to beat the other team, perhaps they do the job.
But that’s the problem: their only goal is to beat the other team. That’s why telling the truth isn’t enough and we have to do other things, like deplatform reactionary ghouls.
Why handicap yourself when entering a fight? Do both, do more things as well.
Also we can’t pressure any of the platforms to platform anybody. At least we can put a little pressure to deplatform.
By refusing to use all the weapons at your disposal you are making sure the fascists win.
What are you really winning, though, if you take away bad people’s public speech or debate? It seems a little like winning the battle but losing the war.
She can still speak publicly and debate. Nobody is taking that away from her. We are denying her entry into our country because she lacks the moral tests we have for entry into the country. We have every right to limit who enters the country. Nobody has a god given right to come to New Zealand and speak. That’s just not a right.
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.
There’s no paradox. Candace’s espoused ideology is an open attack on the social contract, and should therefore not be protected by it.