The ruling came weeks after neighboring Australia also rejected her visa request, citing remarks she made about Jews and Muslims.

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.worldEnglish
    953·
    3 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.worldEnglish
      382·
      3 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.worksEnglish
        429·
        2 days ago

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

            • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
              91·
              1 day 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.worksEnglish
                29·
                1 day 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?

                • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  51·
                  1 day 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.