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
    ·
    6 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
      ·
      5 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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        5 days ago

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

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 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@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                4 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
                  ·
                  2 days 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
                  4 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.