Why Was Candace Canned?

Simon O’Connor
Husband, step-father, and longtime student of philosophy and history. Also happen to be a former politician, including chairing New Zealand's Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Committee.

You seriously have to question how free New Zealand really is when you consider Immigration New Zealand’s (INZ) recent decision to ban Candace Owens coming to speak here.

It is a terrible decision on every level and another spurious attack on the fundamental democratic right to free speech.

Whether you agree with her views, or not, is bordering on irrelevant. Personally, I find a lot of her views increasingly problematic, notably her perspectives around the Holocaust and other aspects of history. I do wonder if there is an aspect of becoming ever more controversial and contrarian in order to remain relevant? This is not to excuse her positions; it has just been a reflection on my mind when I reflect on a number of these ‘celebrity’ commentators.

The decision to not issue her a visa however begs the question of how on earth New Zealand has reached such a controlling state? Implicitly, the decision suggests that New Zealanders are so fragile of mind and temperament that merely hearing from someone like Candace Owens is just too dangerous. Put another way, unnamed bureaucrats have unilaterally decided what ideas you can – and cannot – hear. This is simply wrong and doubly so in a democracy.

Part of INZ’s justification is based on what Australia already did – that is, a fortnight or so ago, Australia banned Owens entering Australia. Australian authorities decided her views were just too dangerous and banned her, as they would ban criminals, terrorists, or drug dealers. While I am all for understanding what likeminded countries are thinking and doing, it also behooves New Zealand to act independently. Just because Australia does something does not mean that we should too. For anyone who thinks this mimicking is fine, they should quickly ponder the question of AUKUS – should we sign up simply because Australia has?

Writ large in this decision however is a clear disregard for basic rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech and freedom of association. The decision is also clearly ideological and this is echoed in much of mainstream media. It is a common refrain from the progressive left that words are as dangerous as actual violence. Owens is frequently described as controversial, conservative, and right wing. People can disagree with these views, but having views is not – nor should be – illegal or sufficient to have you banned from entry. Undoubtedly, there will be those from the progressive ‘far left’ seeking entry to New Zealand and yet we hear little to nothing of such people. I should note, I am speculating as I have no particular people in mind as I write. But I would think there will be a range of people with ‘controversial views’ seeking entry to New Zealand, but it appears that only the likes of Owens (or Jordan Peterson, et al) who attract the attention and ire of media and others.

There is also a significant irony in play, for many of those focusing in on Owens’ troubling antisemitic views. Many of the people commenting and celebrating her ban on this factor are among the same people celebrating the Pro-Palestinian protests with their underlying antisemitic undertones. In contrast, many Jewish organisations and leaders are rightly calling out her views out but simultaneously noting she has the right to say them no matter how offensive.

I would also reflect briefly on what must be incredible mental gymnastics required by progressives celebrating the banning of this woman of colour. Owens is a proud Black woman. How those who spend so much time championing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) can simultaneously be ok with banning a woman of colour is mind boggling, and this includes government bodies such as Immigration NZ.

What is clear though, for such DEI advocates, is that a person’s identity must also be linked to their political views. For progressives, a person’s identity as, say, a woman, or gay, or a person of colour is inextricably linked to their political views. If Candace was on the left of politics, she would be welcomed here with open arms and her identity celebrated. That she is right wing conservative means that her identity as a black woman becomes secondary to her political views. Put crudely, for progressives, she is wrong type of black woman.

The Minister needs to step in immediately and override this ideologically misguided decision by Immigration New Zealand. The idea that words are as dangerous as physical violence is a nonsense. INZ’s decision is an attack on free speech, a foundational aspect of our democracy. Supporting free speech and preventing bureaucratic overreach should be a ‘no brainer’ for any truly centre-right government.

This therefore, is a test of where the Government really stands on rights and freedoms, and on the political spectrum. Let’s see if it passes.

NB: I am not a lawyer, and so if the law says that Immigration NZ must decline a visa if the likes of Australia have done similar, then the responsibility clear lies with parliament to fix.

This article was originally published by On Point.