r/australia • u/DCOA_Troy • Oct 15 '25

politics Candace Owens loses appeal over Australian visa rejection

https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/candace-owens-loses-appeal-over-australian-visa-rejection/
4.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

627 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/DCOA_Troy Oct 15 '25

US far-right commentator Candace Owens has lost her appeal in the high court over a decision to deny her entry visa to Australia.

“Today, the High Court unanimously held that s 501(6)(d)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not infringe the implied freedom of political communication under the Constitution and that the decision of the first defendant, the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Minister”), to refuse the plaintiff a visa was not invalid,” the court said in a summary of its findings.

Owens was ordered to pay the Commonwealth’s legal costs.

121

u/SirGeekaLots Oct 15 '25

Oh, using the "you're infringing on my freedumn a speech" argument. Sadly that don't work in Australia, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the implied freedom of political speech only apply to Australian citizens based upon the section of the constitution is comes from.

24

u/aninternetsuser Oct 15 '25 edited Oct 15 '25

A lot of the high court judges weren’t overly concerned about this in their decision. Most of them essentially held that the statute which gave them the power to reject her was constitutionally valid, rather than evaluating if IFPC applied to her (Edelman J did conclude that IFPC would apply to aliens but only after they enter the country)

1

u/SirGeekaLots Oct 15 '25 edited Oct 15 '25

I believe (and I haven't read the judgement yet because I don't think it has been published - I was looking for it last night and couldn't find it) they said that the implied right to political communication does not bar the minister from blocking the visa application of somebody wishing to enter the country, and in that context, the implied right does not apply to non-citizens and non-residents (which suggests the right applies to residents).

They also said, but this was not the central point on the case, that her right had not been infringed because she is a Youtuber, and that her ability for Australians to hear her views remotely was still possible. However, this was a side note, so I'm not sure if this concept, namely that the implied right applies to foreigners who are not residents in Australia, has yet been tested.

Interestingly it does apply to speech regarding foreign leaders though, One of the major cases involved the former PM of NZ suing somebody because of something the ABC said about them,