Australia’s High Court Upholds Visa Ban on Candace Owens

The High Court of Australia has upheld a visa ban on American commentator Candace Owens, ruling that her potential entry into the country could exacerbate social divisions. This decision follows the Australian government’s earlier rejection of her visa application, citing concerns over her controversial views and the possibility of inciting discord.

Owens, known for her provocative conservative opinions, had planned a speaking tour in November 2024 across cities including Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, and Brisbane. However, Australian Home Minister Tony Burke denied her visa, invoking the Migration Act of 1958, which allows authorities to refuse entry to non-citizens who fail a “character test.” Burke argued that Owens’s rhetoric, which includes controversial statements about historical events and social issues, posed a risk to national harmony.

In a statement reported by News.com.au, Burke said, “From downplaying the impact of the Holocaust with comments about Mengele through to claims that Muslims started slavery, Candace Owens has the capacity to incite discord in almost every direction. Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.”

Owens challenged this decision, claiming it violated her implied right to political communication, a concept recognized in Australian law. Unlike the United States, Australia does not have an explicit constitutional right to free speech; however, courts have acknowledged an implied freedom for political discussion among citizens.

In a unanimous decision on October 18, 2023, the High Court dismissed Owens’s appeal and ordered her to pay the government’s legal costs. The court reasoned that while the Migration Act imposes some limitations on political communication, it serves a legitimate purpose of maintaining national unity.

Justices Stephen Gageler, Michelle Gordon, and Robert Beech-Jones stated, “The implied freedom is not a ‘personal right’, is not unlimited, and is not absolute.” Justice Simon Steward emphasized that as a foreigner, Owens could not claim the same protections that are available to Australian citizens. He asserted, “At the very least, while remaining out of Australia, she has no right to invoke the protection afforded by the implied freedom or to use it as a means of entry.”

Justice Jacqueline Gleeson added that excluding Owens from Australia would not deprive Australians of political discourse, given her significant online following. She pointed out, “It is notorious that political engagement increasingly occurs through social media,” suggesting that Owens’s views could still be accessed digitally by her supporters.

In a separate judgment, Justice James Edelman stated that Owens’s legal arguments “should be emphatically rejected,” reinforcing the correctness of the home minister’s interpretation of the law. The ruling followed pressure from Jewish organizations, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which warned that Owens’s visit could fuel “racist and bigoted comments about Jews and other vulnerable groups.”

This decision comes just months after the Australian government revoked the visa of American rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, over similar concerns regarding his public statements. Owens has faced ongoing criticism for promoting controversial theories, including unfounded claims about the French first lady, which are now subject to defamation proceedings in U.S. courts.

The High Court’s ruling highlights Australia’s commitment to safeguarding national unity and its cautious approach towards individuals whose rhetoric may threaten social cohesion.