Today, we’re celebrating the Australian government’s decision to reject Candace Owens’ visa application to enter Australia in 2024. She is arguably the most influential US conservative thinker and right-wing pundit today. The verdict rendered in October 2024 was based on fears for her moral integrity. There were concerns that her incendiary opinions might incite division in the Aboriginal community. Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke insisted that Owens did not pass the “character test.” This negative test is required under the Migration Act.
Owens’ track record includes spreading inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy theories—most notably antisemitic conspiracy theories. She has been subjected to severe online harassment. Examples include criticism for seeming to downplay the importance of Holocaust-era Nazi medical experiments perpetrated by Josef Mengele. Moreover, Burke said, Owens was the one who said Muslims started slavery.
“In his remarks, Burke stated, ‘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 legal team countered that the character test was unconstitutionally vague. They argued that it could inappropriately sweep up good faith debates and disagreement that are not truly destructive. They argued that this standard could disqualify people with non-mainstream political opinions who would otherwise help enrich public debate.
The High Court of Australia unanimously dismissed Owens’ challenge to the government’s rejection of her visa application. The court’s ruling made it clear that the minister’s decision had not breached any implied constitutional freedom of political communication. It noted that there was a significant risk of Owens’ views leading to “increased hostility and violent or radical action.”
The court’s opinion stressed the weight of that test. It is invoked when a person’s conduct has the tendency to insult or humiliate and engenders discord in the Australian community or creates a risk of that discord. Legal experts have noted that what constitutes a threat is a highly subjective determination. As Perry Herzfeld SC, who advocated for this point of view throughout the trial proceedings, noted, it’s “very much in the eye of the beholder.”