The health, safety or good order of the Australian community.
September 30, 2015 4:07 AM   Subscribe

Prominent anti-abortion campaigner Troy Newman had his visa cancelled while he was en route to Australia. This follows Sunday's denial of a visa to musician Chris Brown due to previous domestic violence offences (and a previous cancellation of Julien Blanc's visa while in the country). Visas have been denied under S. 116 of the Migration Act 1958, where the Minister may exercise his power where the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community.
posted by wilful (90 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite
 
I think it's funny he thought his pre assigned seat made a difference. He should be grateful he was told before he used it as i sure wouldnt want to fly all that way just to be sent back.

No, free speech is not constitutionally guaranteed in Australia, it is not viewed as an inalienable right, and yes most of us are comfortable with that

Yep, agreed.

Those tweets from Brown, he's going to use his power as an entertainer to help stop domestic violence, he made a mistake wah waah waah waah? UGH! He just wants to sell concert tickets.
posted by kitten magic at 4:20 AM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Mod note: One comment deleted. Just quickly, it's not a good idea to avoid editorializing in the post only to put your personal editorializing comments in the first comment, especially if it seems to be calling up a quarrel that hasn't been broached yet.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:32 AM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


Considering the number of poisonous snakes in Australia, I think it's ok if the minister prevents more poisonous snakes* from entering the country.


* with apologies to proper, non-human snakes
posted by lmfsilva at 4:33 AM on September 30, 2015 [10 favorites]


The Commonwealth's megalomania and paranoia about all things related to immigration finally results in a decision I can approve of!
posted by kithrater at 4:35 AM on September 30, 2015 [8 favorites]


I don't think there's anything exceptional about this, except possibly that someone is taking violent anti-abortion speech and domestic violence seriously. Many countries deny people visas for having criminal convictions or for promoting violence. (Sometimes people get denied entry for promoting non-violence: the American peace activist Medea Benjamin has repeatedly been denied entry to Canada.) There are often debates about who should be denied visas, but I don't think it's super controversial that anyone would be denied entry on those grounds.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:43 AM on September 30, 2015 [11 favorites]


Say what you will, Australia is world-class at two things: digging holes, and denying visas.
posted by turbid dahlia at 4:44 AM on September 30, 2015 [16 favorites]


I think it's funny he thought his pre assigned seat made a difference. He should be grateful he was told before he used it as i sure wouldnt want to fly all that way just to be sent back.

Technically he was on a US domestic flight at that point but obviously you won't let someone get to the other side of the country then leave them stranded. I guess his plan was to get to LA and argue with the ticketing agent until they gave him a seat so he could get to the border and turned away? Drum up a bit more controversy? Get arrested for filming in a restricted area just to drum it up a bit more?
posted by Talez at 4:45 AM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


"If Dutton feels like it" seems to be the criterion. Even though this guy is horrible, that's pathetic in any European language.
posted by hawthorne at 4:55 AM on September 30, 2015


Those tweets from Brown, he's going to use his power as an entertainer to help stop domestic violence, he made a mistake wah waah waah waah?

I was floored by the audacity of it. It just came off as, "I'm an authority on domestic violence - I'm really good at beating women!"
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:55 AM on September 30, 2015 [19 favorites]


"If Dutton feels like it" seems to be the criterion. Even though this guy is horrible, that's pathetic in any European language.

This kind of power is fairly common in legislative regimes. Essentially, you need a general power to deal with edge cases that aren't caught by the broader legislation.

Newman, being a misogynist piece of shit that actively advocates for doctors to be murdered, is IMO such an edge case. He has not committed a crime in the US, but there seems to be a reasonable chance that he will incite violence in Australia. Why not prevent that kind of nonsense being brought here?

Brown, while also a misogynistic piece of shit, is IMO unlikely to beat more women while on tour. That is, I don't think he's a danger. And I think the criticism that the Australian government has allowed in many white musicians who have previous convictions for all sorts of things including violence are valid.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:04 AM on September 30, 2015 [19 favorites]


then leave them stranded. I guess his plan was to get to LA and argue with the ticketing agent until they gave him a seat so he could get to the border and turned away

Yeah, airlines have an incentive to make sure your visa is ok because as I understand it, they get to fly you back if it isn't. Flying from LA to Sydney and then back again without even making it through immigration would be a nightmare. That's about 27 hours in the air. I guess if the tickets were all purchased as one trip they'd consider the original flight to be the one to boot him from.
posted by kitten magic at 5:41 AM on September 30, 2015


I would be more than grateful to come to Australia to raise awareness about domestic violence.

His being refused entry to Australia seems like a much more effective way to raise awareness about domestic violence.
posted by escabeche at 5:44 AM on September 30, 2015 [25 favorites]


This kind of power is fairly common in legislative regimes.

It's also usually accompanied by a process of review and appeals, and usually exercised via delegation. s128 has neither of those features. s128 was confirmed to be used to deny Newman's visa, not sure what was used in the case of Brown - given he's been given 28 days to respond, it probably wasn't.

Essentially, you need a general power to deal with edge cases that aren't caught by the broader legislation.

The concern is that the Commonwealth's use of its expansive immigration powers for political purposes is not a good thing.

Or, as David Rowe put it.
posted by kithrater at 5:47 AM on September 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


Everything the government does is political, by definition. This is definitely a power that may be abused (as similar powers have been abused), but this instance seems like an uncontroversial use of it.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:51 AM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


Sorry - this isn't OK. Even if I loathe both of the folks denied Visas.
posted by JPD at 5:56 AM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


The decision regarding Newman (who has incited murder) is 100% appropriate IMHO; the Brown one is more of a grey area. On one hand, it does send a message that if you commit domestic violence, you become persona non grata; OTOH, whether the likely impact of his tour on encouraging violence would have been great enough to justify the inherently illiberal decision to ban him from entering the country is another question. And the use of such bans does set precedent; what's to stop the government for using them against, say, transgender activists or climate scientists or critics of neoliberalism or someone?

I'm wondering if an alternative may have been to require him to pay a sizeable bond, refundable upon him having made agreed-upon statements against domestic violence in his appearances. If he has reformed and is genuinely sorry for his past crimes, then let's call his bluff.
posted by acb at 6:00 AM on September 30, 2015


Everything the government does is political, by definition.

Using immigration for shameless political point-scoring is definitely the norm. We just shouldn't be so quick to applaud a minor victory when it's the result of the same arbitrary, vote-seeking system that causes a lot more misery.
posted by kithrater at 6:03 AM on September 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


No, free speech is not constitutionally guaranteed in Australia, it is not viewed as an inalienable right, and yes most of us are comfortable with that.

Pity, really. Because once that one goes, the rest are a whole lot easier to remove.

(I was heretofore unfamiliar with both these people, but now, thanks to the Australian government....)
posted by IndigoJones at 6:12 AM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


what's to stop the government for using them against, say, transgender activists or climate scientists or critics of neoliberalism or someone?

Like most actions the government takes, political accountability.

Plus there are so many influential people willing to come here and express and support those viewpoints it would be neigh on impossible to block all of them to the point where it would be a massive political shitfight and backbench revolt if they even tried.
posted by Talez at 6:13 AM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


The Brown denial is way too good an opportunity for the Government to pass up to highlight their brand new strong stance on domestic violence. It's come just at the right time. And I'm cynical enough to believe that they denied Newman (late in the piece) because they couldn't justify Brown without denying Newman as well.
posted by prettypretty at 6:15 AM on September 30, 2015


The Brown denial is way too good an opportunity for the Government to pass up to highlight their brand new strong stance on domestic violence.

Also, scary black guy with tattoos, which makes for a nice dogwhistle.
posted by acb at 6:17 AM on September 30, 2015


Pity, really. Because once that one goes, the rest are a whole lot easier to remove.

It's more complicated than "there's no free speech in the Constitution so we don't have it". Twice the High Court has found an implied freedom of political communication. The government would have to show something similar to strict scrutiny to suppress any political discussion.
posted by Talez at 6:18 AM on September 30, 2015 [9 favorites]


Prettypretty, I agree. I ride past a huge flashing LED lit screen everyday that says "police say no to domestic violence and so should you"; he picked a really bad time to come.

IndigoJones, our constitution was never as by the people, for the people as the US one. It's not like freedom of speech was removed, it was never written in, Our constition is really technical and boring, it reads like any other legislation.
posted by kitten magic at 6:20 AM on September 30, 2015


Or what Talez said
posted by kitten magic at 6:21 AM on September 30, 2015


Troy Newman is a dangerous man, who incites murder on a regular basis. I see no issue with any country denying him entry. Hell, I wish we could put him in rowboat in international waters, and let his God find him an island or something.

Chris Brown seems like an edge case, but that's an American perception, and we have a very hands off, let the market decide, approach to bad men in entertainment. Do I think he should be shunned? Personally, yes...politically....I dunno. That said Australia has denied visas to other domestic abusers, they just weren't as high profile,or willing to make a Twitter storm about it.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:30 AM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


I guess his plan was to get to LA and argue with the ticketing agent until they gave him a seat so he could get to the border and turned away?

Nope, wouldn't happen. If an airline boards a passenger they know isn't welcome, not only do they pay for the flight back, they get a large fine. IIRC, it's $50K AUD.

They will happily call the cops if you try to get on that plane, because they're not paying that fine.

Technically he was on a US domestic flight at that point but obviously you won't let someone get to the other side of the country then leave them stranded.

There, they were trying to be nice. No penalty to them to fly him to LA, but by canceling the itinerary, they were at least leaving him at his departure airport, where he'd presumably have transport to home.

If UA (and I'm guessing UA because DEN-LAX-SYD/MEL) wanted to be a dick, they'd flown him to LA, denied him boarding there, and then told him that he's not going back to DEN until his return ticket is valid, unless he pays for a new one/change fees/la di dah.
posted by eriko at 6:32 AM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


His actual origin was Wichita. His visa was cancelled in the air between Wichita and Denver. If you didn't have a visa you wouldn't even get a boarding pass at the origin airport.
posted by Talez at 6:36 AM on September 30, 2015


It's worth keeping in mind that there is no capital punishment in Australia, so Newman couldn't even hide behind the figleaf that he wants his enemies executed, and not murdered.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:45 AM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Troy Newman is a dangerous man, who incites murder on a regular basis. I see no issue with any country denying him entry.

Here, you can't, because the 1st Amendment allows you to do just that -- you can say what you want, so long as you take no other action to bring it about.

That's a tradeoff between Freedom of Speech and advocation of X that all societies must choose. Some choose one, some jail you for even mentioning overthrowing the government, and some
try to strike middle ground.

The Aussies have chosen that advocating death for the performance of a legal medical procedure crosses their line. They have that right -- if the citizens don't agree, elect a government who'd enshrine a higher freedom of speech into law.

His actual origin was Wichita. His visa was cancelled in the air between Wichita and Denver. If you didn't have a visa you wouldn't even get a boarding pass at the origin airport.

Ahh. Well, they didn't have a chance to stop him in Wichita. And that is a risk of connections before the actual international flight. To the Australians, the only flight that matters to them is the one that lands in Australia, so they can (and will, obviously) cancel a visa right up to the moment that the plane departs and still fine the airline for transporting a non-welcome person.

After it departs to Australia, they can still cancel the visa -- but they won't knock the airline for flying the person, because they were told it was OK until the plane departed.
posted by eriko at 6:49 AM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Brown, while also a misogynistic piece of shit, is IMO unlikely to beat more women while on tour.

I don't know why you would assume this.
posted by emjaybee at 6:49 AM on September 30, 2015 [5 favorites]


The US denies visas to people who have (supposedly) dangerous views all the time, for what it's worth.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:52 AM on September 30, 2015 [9 favorites]


Pity, really. Because once that one goes, the rest are a whole lot easier to remove.

yeah, because our 114 years of constitutional government has conclusively demonstrated that Australian citizens are somehow on the edge of slavery or something?
posted by wilful at 6:57 AM on September 30, 2015 [13 favorites]


our 114 years of constitutional government has conclusively demonstrated that Australian citizens are somehow on the edge of slavery or something

To be fair, if it weren't comments about "how does country work with no bill of rights!?!", it'd be 'jokes' about how dangerous Australia is, or maybe an anecdote proving how racist Australians are.
posted by kithrater at 7:05 AM on September 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


Pity, really. Because once that one goes, the rest are a whole lot easier to remove.

And yet the US managed to deny the freedom of speech, among all the other Constitutional rights, to anyone that wasn't white for almost a century, and anyone who wasn't male for another half-century.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:16 AM on September 30, 2015 [6 favorites]


Indeed. "Of the people, by the people" is a joke, right? Nobody could possibly take that seriously.
posted by hawthorne at 7:18 AM on September 30, 2015


hawthorne: ""Of the people, by the people" is a joke, right?"

Nah, it's just that "of white rich cis theist het male people, by white rich cis theist het male people" doesn't really have the same ring to it.
posted by signal at 7:30 AM on September 30, 2015


No, I wasnt joking. I was just making a point about the style of writing, it was written with people in mind. I mean, pursuit of happiness? Yeesh, nothing like that in ours. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx
posted by kitten magic at 7:51 AM on September 30, 2015


sorry, I'm getting mixed up with the Declaration of Independence (auto correct insists on capitals) so the happiness bit doesn't apply. It just comes across much more as written by people, for people. Ours is just dense legislation and no one reads it unless they have to (eg I did in business law subjects, none of my friends would have though)
posted by kitten magic at 7:59 AM on September 30, 2015


Pity, really. Because once that one goes, the rest are a whole lot easier to remove.
Have you ever been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party?
posted by fullerine at 8:01 AM on September 30, 2015 [6 favorites]


Sorry - this isn't OK. Even if I loathe both of the folks denied Visas.

Are you saying that countries do not have the right to decide who crosses their borders?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:36 AM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


I found this Reddit comment useful background to what's going on.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 8:43 AM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


I notice that Chris Brown's specific wording was that he wanted to "raise awareness on domestic violence" and boy did my brain immediately jump to a less than positive way one could do that.
posted by ckape at 10:00 AM on September 30, 2015 [5 favorites]


And yet the US managed to deny the freedom of speech, among all the other Constitutional rights, to anyone that wasn't white for almost a century, and anyone who wasn't male for another half-century.

I don't see your point. Are you suggesting that that makes it okay?

Anyway, my comment was directed not at the Australian constitution or even the right of a government to control it's borders, but at the Yep agreed mindset that suppressing free speech was acceptable, even desirable. Or that it's okay because Political accountability will keep all future governments on track and within acceptable boundaries. Which, as your comment suggests, is putting more hope in human nature than is warranted.

The argument goes back to Milton, that you want those you don't necessarily agree with around because by hearing them you are forced to sharpen your own arguments, itself a good thing, or at worst, you open yourself up to the possibility that your own original opinions might be, um, well, mistaken. The two cases at hand might be troubling, but the self-satisfaction of a Yep agreed comment is, to my mind at least, a little chilling.

Because, again, loose freedom of speech and other freedoms are suddenly at greater risk.

(On a little digging, I found this bit of news. I know nothing of Aussie politics, but the piece is a year old and makes me wonder if coming down on Newman and Brown is perhaps intended as political cover in case anyone should accuse the government of being tough only on radical Muslim speakers. Just a thought.)

""Of the people, by the people" is a joke, right?"


Lincoln was a well known teller of jokes. Also had no trouble in letting his underlings close down the press when it didn't agree with him.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:19 PM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


The argument goes back to Milton, that you want those you don't necessarily agree with around because by hearing them you are forced to sharpen your own arguments,

Oh, we have plenty of domestic violence perpetrators and excusers around in Australia, an excess in fact. One more is just not necessary.

66 women have been killed in domestic violence events this year in Australia, 7 in the last month, including two in public a day apart.

Sharpen our own arguements? Are you honestly saying we need to argue for our right not to be absued and killed by men?
posted by Thella at 2:53 PM on September 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


Are you saying that countries do not have the right to decide who crosses their borders?

The argument is that there should be some kind of impartial and accountable process for making these kind of decisions. Not a Minister personally deciding to deny a visa to quickly defuse a potentially embarrassing situation. Because that kind of naked politicking can lead to horrible outcomes, as it has already with regards to the Australian immigration system.
posted by kithrater at 2:57 PM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's also usually accompanied by a process of review and appeals, and usually exercised via delegation. s128 has neither of those features. s128 was confirmed to be used to deny Newman's visa, not sure what was used in the case of Brown - given he's been given 28 days to respond, it probably wasn't.

Section 129 requires the Minister to notify the former visa holder, and give them the opportunity to respond within a specified time.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:13 PM on September 30, 2015


Bottom of s128:the Minister may, without notice to the holder of the visa, cancel the visa.

Minister is required to notify of the decision, not the process. The opportunity to respomd is to the Minister himself, witb no recourse to the MRT/AAT. This is defined as sufficient natural justice. Making an appeal to the same person who cancelled your visa, with no alternative, is very weak process.
posted by kithrater at 3:19 PM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


I never said suppressing free speech was a good thing, I was agreeing that it isn't in our constitution and we are ok with that. So often US-ians assume that every constitution is just like theirs and if it isn't then the citizens of other nations live in oppression and slavery. Just because all the details aren't in the constitution or a bill of rights doesn't mean we don't have protections.
posted by kitten magic at 3:41 PM on September 30, 2015 [5 favorites]




Isn't that very-debateable implicit freedom limited to commentary that is relevant to Federal elections? I can't imagine forming an argument that the Minister is required to issue a visa to someone just because they're a poster-boy for killing doctors.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:53 PM on September 30, 2015


Not elections, Joe. From Lange, “[i]t is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of that system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution.” Essentially anything relating to government and politics. But when the personal is political, everything is.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:57 PM on September 30, 2015


Re: the minister cancelling the visa, at least he is in that position. If we travel to the US under the visa waiver program it's the customs and border control person who can refuse you entry and no appeal is allowed. And they don't seem to have any understanding of the bigger picture. I entered once at a time our dollar was super strong for a four week holiday and California was riddled with australians but he was so hung up on the length of my trip (we get 4weeks annual leave every year, by law) and my plans (shopping!, the strong aussie dollar made me rich) when neither of those things should've been a red flag and if asked i could've shown an itinerary that detailed every night's pre-booked accomodation. Instead i had an individual who clearly didnt know basic facts that were affecting the decision-making of a huge cohort of visitors. Everything rested on him.

I am loathe to say anything positive about our current government but the minister does have to account for his decisions in a way an individual at border control does not (considering our prime minister got booted out recently, they probably feel it more than usual).
posted by kitten magic at 3:58 PM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


The idea that Ministers should not minister is an odd one. Politicians are elected in reasonably fair and open elections based in very large part on their performance in executive government. If they were arbitrary and capricious in their use of power then they would be sacked in the first instance, voted out in the second. I don't know if there are specific restrictions on this part of the Migration Act, but admin law reviews and the Ombudsman presumably apply.

I find it constantly remarkable and a bit offensive how yanks like to lecture others on free speech. You can have your Westboro Church, we'll keep our moderate system, that has worked fine for more than a century.
posted by wilful at 4:26 PM on September 30, 2015 [8 favorites]


I find it constantly remarkable and a bit offensive how yanks like to lecture others on free speech.

Yes. Free speech in the USA has been interpreted to mean "free speech if you're the right color"; "free speech as long as it isn't anti-war"; "free speech as long as it isn't pro-communist". Right now, it's "free speech as long as it's not Islamist". I think a lot of this nonsense comes down to the way USAns fetishize their Constitution. When judges protect freedom it's seen as a victory for the Bill of Rights; when they legalize government abuses it's seen as an unfortunate error of interpretation. In reality, it's nothing more than a shift in judicial sentiment, just like the ones that occur in other Common Law jurisdictions.

The fact is that speech in the USA is pretty much as free/not-free as speech in Australia or Canada. England's silly libel laws make it an outlier in that respect, but government-related speech is still mostly-free. Don't believe me? Take a look at the Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index. The USA is #49, well behind each of those countries.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:45 PM on September 30, 2015


Minister is required to notify of the decision, not the process. The opportunity to respomd is to the Minister himself, witb no recourse to the MRT/AAT. This is defined as sufficient natural justice. Making an appeal to the same person who cancelled your visa, with no alternative, is very weak process.

Brown: Hi Australia. Can I come for a working visit? I wanna make some money.
Immigration: Sure, here's your visa.
Australia: Um, immigration minister, Brown is has a history of violence against women. We don't think he should be granted the right to work here.
Immigration minister: Right-o. See your point, Australia.
Immigration minister to Brown: Changed our minds. Don't come.

There is no natural justice that has been trodden on here, the process is not weak, it is concise. Brown has no natural right to enter Australia for work purposes and no injustice has occurred.
posted by Thella at 4:49 PM on September 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


In the US vs Australia conversation, it's also worth noting the lengthy list of artists/performers that have been barred from entering the US, including Amy Winehouse (drugs), Nigella Lawson (drugs, even though she was never charged), Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens (apparently because his name was Islamic?), Boy George (some really odd stuff including false imprisonment), Lily Allen (assault of a paparazzi).
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:40 PM on September 30, 2015 [3 favorites]


Many non-violent activists have also been denied entry to the US, including green activist John Stewart, gay rights activist Mariela Castro, and Mos Def.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:53 PM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


What I'm saying is that this is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:54 PM on September 30, 2015


I'm pretty sure the Mos Def thing turned out not to be true.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:56 PM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]






And he's been detained by the Australian Border Force! Oh, I'm so conflicted. Wait, no I'm not: ABF is clearly the lesser of the two evils here. Put him in the van!!!
posted by MarchHare at 8:19 PM on September 30, 2015 [5 favorites]


popcorn.gif
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:49 PM on September 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


I wonder why United allowed him to fly, knowing that he didn't have a visa and that they would get a huge fine.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:49 PM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


His original flight was via Denver - that makes me think he may have been traveling on Qantas or Virgin, but rebooked on United. He may have two passports, or otherwise have picked up on a flaw in Australia's electronic visa system.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:19 PM on September 30, 2015


We also denied a visa to M.I.A. but at least some good came out of that.
posted by ckape at 9:22 PM on September 30, 2015


I find it constantly remarkable and a bit offensive how yanks like to lecture others on free speech.

Oh holy fuck yes. Here's the thing: so many Americans are free speech absolutists, and ignore things like child pornography (and indeed porn in general), state secrets, etc.

So, here's a heartfelt plea from the rest of the world: SHUT UP with your freeze peaches nonsense. There is no such thing as unrestricted speech, many countries draw the line of un/acceptable in different places than you do, and we're doing just bloody fine, thanks.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:39 PM on September 30, 2015 [9 favorites]


On Facebook on Wednesday, Mr Newman asked people to pray for him, saying he was "stuck in Denver airport like a man without a country".



LOL. In Denver he was in the middle of his country. Being at Tullamarine is going to be a lot worse.

Weird the airline agreed to fly him. Maybe he committed to paying the fine?
posted by kitten magic at 11:43 PM on September 30, 2015




...and now with link
posted by pompomtom at 2:38 AM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]


Whoops
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:06 AM on October 1, 2015


Holy shit. He rebooked his DEN to LAX flight on a different airline and walked onto the LAX to MEL UA flight with his boarding pass from Wichita.
posted by Talez at 6:36 AM on October 1, 2015


Well, if there were any question that the guy is completely, totally unhinged, I guess that's settled now!

Seriously: transnational travel isn't a right. A hundred years ago a lot of people argued it was, but they lost that fight. You don't have a right to enter another country. They don't have to have a reason to refuse you. That may be wrong, but to deny it is to argue for a pretty massive change in the way the modern world works.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:26 AM on October 1, 2015


Well, if there were any question that the guy is completely, totally unhinged, I guess that's settled now!

I don't think this shows he's unhinged at all, just that he's taking this fine opportunity to play the martyr.

Possibly the government will use the High Court proceedings to argue that he really, totally, actually is inciting people to kill abortionists in some more credible way than some people saying that he sure sounds like it to them because they saw a retweet of an excerpt of something he supposedly co-authored.

More likely they will say that they can do whatever they want with visas and this chap will pop back to the US saying he's terribly oppressed, Tighe's people will have a PR victory, the Commonwealth will say they deny entry to white righties and everything, and the public will be further inured to the idea that it's OK for whoever the Numpty for Immigration is can just say "I'm not feeling it" rather than have a system of laws.
posted by hawthorne at 8:04 AM on October 1, 2015


Blimey, he's just been detained in Melbourne airport, his lawyers have lodged an appeal to the High Court, and the government has said the airline could face a fine for letting him fly without a visa.
posted by drnick at 10:08 AM on October 1, 2015


Well, this is disappointing. Looks like he won't be immediately deported, the government is negotiating with him.
posted by misfish at 5:58 PM on October 1, 2015


Am I a bad person for hoping the negotiations allow him to stay, provided that by 'stay' I mean 'be relocated indefinitely to a Transfield detention facility'?

I'm not happy that we have a network of privately operated hellholes, but maybe just in this one instance we've found a good use for them.
posted by MarchHare at 6:11 PM on October 1, 2015 [1 favorite]


Looks like he won't be immediately deported, the government is negotiating with him.

Meh. He hasn't got a leg to stand on. He'll lose his High Court action, and then he'll get deported. Some lawyers will get a nice chunk of change, but that's about it.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:12 PM on October 1, 2015 [2 favorites]


Q: Do you have to have a visa to travel to Australia in all cases? I've not been to that part of the world, but I've not needed a visa when traveling as a tourist for most counties, only when I was working.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:17 PM on October 1, 2015


Your answer lies here, at Australia.gov.au website. In short, yes, but tourist visas are free and you can apply online.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:02 PM on October 1, 2015


I'm not happy that we have a network of privately operated hellholes, but maybe just in this one instance we've found a good use for them.

YOUR WISH IS GRANTED.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:11 PM on October 1, 2015


Go on Mr Newman. Ask for asylum. I dare you. I double-dog dare you.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:34 PM on October 1, 2015




I wonder if the airline has any way to try and sue him for the $50k fine - surely there's something in all that fine print on the ticket about it?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 12:02 AM on October 2, 2015


Heh, I thought if anyone tried to board a plane without a proper visa and bullied their way past controls, they'd be tasered and dragged to airport jail.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:52 AM on October 2, 2015


Heh, I thought if anyone tried to board a plane without a proper visa and bullied their way past controls, they'd be tasered and dragged to airport jail.

There's no outgoing customs in the United States. You just rock up to the gate. He had the travel authorization when he boarded his first flight from Wichita to Denver. He had all of his boarding passes. When he was in the air it was cancelled and United stopped him at Denver from continuing on with his journey. He then rebooked a flight from Denver to Los Angeles on a different airline, rocked up to the gate with the boarding pass for the trans-Pacific flight and boarded.

So he didn't bully his way through anything. It was complete subterfuge.
posted by Talez at 4:00 AM on October 2, 2015


So much for "airplane security", then.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:20 AM on October 2, 2015


So much for "airplane security", then.

There was no security threat though. If the guy was picked up to be a security threat he would have been taken into custody at Denver and not released. The guy committed immigration fraud and should have been turned back on the very next flight.
posted by Talez at 11:45 AM on October 2, 2015


Privilege: the knowledge that you can arrive in a country after having been specifically denied entry and know that you won't get mistreated, or even immediately deported, and your literally zero-chance appeal will be heard within 24 hours by the highest court in the country.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:04 PM on October 3, 2015 [9 favorites]


It was complete subterfuge.

God moves in mysterious ways I hear.
posted by wilful at 12:31 AM on October 4, 2015


« Older "Reading is cool and so are you!"   |   “The football was never the problem. The problem... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments