Just a moment...
apnews.com

The U.S. conservative political commentor Candace Owens was refused a visa to enter New Zealand for a speaking engagement because she had been banned from another country, immigration officials said Thursday.

News of the ruling came weeks after neighboring Australia also rejected her visa request, citing remarks in which she denied Nazi medical experimentation on Jews in concentration camps during World War II.

Owens is scheduled to speak at a series of events in several Australian cities and in Auckland, New Zealand, in February and March next year. Tickets remain on sale and there is no acknowledgement on the promoter’s website that she has been refused entry to both countries.

    • ditty@lemm.eeEnglish
      723·
      24 days ago

      This is a great way to penalize these far-right grifters. Not only are they prevented from making money on their speaking tour, but they are publicly lambasted and restricted in travel, and there’s nothing they can do about it.

      • irreticent@lemmy.world
        9·
        23 days ago

        There’s no way that that’ll be used against the good guys once the bad guys are in office. It’s just not possible!

        /s just in case

          • Aaron@lemmy.nz
            4·
            23 days ago

            I don’t mind. Any country that would ban me personally based on my beliefs is one I wouldn’t want to be in anyway. Now if they’d ban people based on their country of origin, I think that’s painting with too broad a brush. We can’t trust all countries to use such nuance sometimes.

    • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
      52·
      24 days ago

      If she doesn’t have a citizenship in another country it is just this side of not happening that the sates would leave her stateless as the rules currently stand.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        1·
        23 days ago

        I don’t know if the rules have changed since the 1930s, but when my Grandfather, a German Jew, was granted UK citizenship, his nationality was put down as stateless.

        So people, at least in the 1930s, could be stateless.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                3·
                23 days ago

                The UK acknowledged he was stateless. He was a German citizen when he came to the UK in 1930, he became a citizen in 1936. For at least 3 of those years, he was officially stateless because the UK agreed with Nazi Germany on that point.

                Therefore it was possible to be stateless then. If it was possible to be stateless then, it is conceivably possible to be stateless now unless international law had changed.

          • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
            315·
            24 days ago

            Apparently not everyone knows what a joke is. But thankfully you’re here to be mr literal.

              • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                313·
                24 days ago

                Don’t need to. Plenty of people understood exactly what I was saying. It’s not my fault you don’t. Have a good one sweetheart

                • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
                  74·
                  24 days ago

                  Ah, so you completely missed the point of my comment and are tripling down on ignorance. Yay! Internet discourse.

                  So numpty, I was giving people information they might not have had, and your joke is rather milquetoast. You just got upset because not everyone laughed.

                  Like I said work on your context clues.

  • ubergeek@lemmy.todayEnglish
    503·
    23 days ago

    Banned from two countries for being a neonazi, yet spoke at my uni twice, and protected by cops.

    Make it make sense.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      11·
      23 days ago

      America - home of the free to be any kind of piece of shit you can think of.

      Australia - throws you in jail for doing Nazi things

      • Aaron@lemmy.nz
        21·
        23 days ago

        Something something sitting at a table with nazis…

        Sure other places aren’t perfect, but this seems like an easy one to settle. The bill of rights have limits as already established by US courts, why in “defense” of the 1st amendment does the US feel like it has to be a nazi? I can’t answer that, I don’t ascribe to whatever belief they’ve got over there.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          1·
          22 days ago

          Nothing is “settled by the courts” with the current corrupt judges. The law is whatever they say it is. You have no rights, and nobody within the system will defend you.

          • Aaron@lemmy.nz
            1·
            22 days ago

            I’m just saying if your courts have already established the amendments have limits, like you said “you have no rights”, then there’s no excuse to defend nazis unless they’re the only ones with rights. The decision to allow hate speech and Nazi sympathisers to spread again is a choice, which makes the whole table a table of nazis.

    • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      291·
      23 days ago

      Makes her rich. She knows racism, as she’s had to sue successfully in the past, but it’s easier to get money this way. There’s this podcast where atheists make fun of bad Religious movies (mostly Christian, with a few Jewish, Hindu, scientology, culty, and just plain weird Woo/conspiracy ones) and they are constantly surprised how bad they are yet still profitable.

      They joke about just switching sides for the payout. Some people don’t have enough standards to not do so.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      10·
      23 days ago

      So that’s a fun question:

      Can the right’s motivational spite overcome its immense racism?

    • capital@lemmy.world
      8·
      23 days ago

      I made fun of Trump before he was elected.

      I’ll never over estimate US voters again.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        5·
        23 days ago

        I won’t underestimate US racism though. I don’t think even a right-wing black woman could be elected president.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          1·
          23 days ago

          I grew up in a deep red county in Texas.

          A few years ago I already had co-workers from that area talking about Candace Owens, saying they’d wish she would run.

          The left is over-indexing on racism. The right doesn’t care what the person parroting their idiotic talking points looks like.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              1·
              23 days ago

              This over-indexing on racism will have the left concentrating on the wrong things.

              I can’t keep you from doing it. Just a warning.

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  22 days ago

                  You spoke of “facts” and then linked me a survey. After I asserted that lefties are wrong in their assessment of how the right sees race in relation to politics.

                  I believe Pew is a good source to get a good idea about what people think. This does not, however, mean they survey respondents are correct in their assessment or correctly ascribe racial motivation to a particular political party.

                  In fact, I believe you know this, given what’s in your source:

                  And when it comes to views about racial discrimination, 78% of white Democrats say the bigger problem is people not seeing it where it really does exist, while a similar share of white Republicans say people seeing racial discrimination where it really does not exist is the bigger problem.

                  Who’s right? It can’t be both.

  • Zement@feddit.nl
    4·
    23 days ago

    They will probably Stream the event… Starting with “the liberal propaganda…” ending with “Sieg heil”

  • meco03211@lemmy.world
    62·
    23 days ago

    Have there been any left leaning influencers or otherwise banned from major countries? Not that I’d expect the right to understand why there is a disparity there. Just for my own curiosity.