Australia considers refusing Manning

AUCKLAND: Australia is planning to ban US whistleblower and activist Chelsea Manning from entering the country to give a series of public talks.

Ms Manning, who has also applied to enter New Zealand for speaking events in Auckland and Wellington on September 8 and 9, is scheduled to appear in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.

Think Inc, the Australian organiser of Ms Manning’s tour, has written to supporters asking them to lobby new Immigration Minister David Coleman, Australian media has reported.

‘‘We have just received a Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal under s501 of the Migration Act from the Australian Government in regards to Chelsea’s visa,’’ Think Inc director Suzi Jamil wrote to supporters.

‘‘We are looking for support from relevant national bodies or individuals, especially politicians who can support Chelsea’s entry into Australia.’’

Section 501 is the same section of the Act used to deport hundreds of New Zealanders with criminal convictions on character grounds.

National’s immigration spokesman and former immigration minister Michael Woodhouse this week called for Ms Manning to be banned from New Zealand because of her criminal record.

Ms Manning, a former US Army intelligence analyst, served seven years of a 35year prison sentence for theft and espionage after releasing hundreds of thousands of classified or sensitive documents to Wikileaks. Her sentence was commuted by former US President Barack Obama.

Mr Woodhouse said if Ms Manning’s application had come across his desk as immigration minister he would have declined it.

‘‘She was convicted of a crime for which she has absolutely no remorse and not only that, she intends to profit from it by selling tickets to meetings where she talks about exactly what she did. I don’t think that’s appropriate and I think the associate minister should be declining it,’’ he said on Tuesday.

Immigration New Zealand has confirmed it has received a request for a special direction from Ms Manning’s representatives.

Ms Manning will need a special direction as she is subject to character provisions in section 15 of the Immigration Act. If that request is declined she can go to the Immigration Minister or his associate for reconsideration.

Mr Woodhouse said Ms Manning would not meet the criteria for a special direction but Ms Jamil said she was confident of a positive response from Immigration New Zealand and the Government.

Ms Manning was denied a visa to Canada last year but was granted a temporary permit in May this year for a series of public talks.

The Free Speech Coalition, which was set up after calls to ban controversial Canadian speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux from New Zealand, has said it is the right of New Zealanders to hear from someone who is noteworthy, albeit controversial.

THE irony is stark. When the debate about free speech and the planned visit of two Canadian with rightwing views raged, it was much of the left appalled and trying to shut them out. When former National Party leader Don Brash was blocked by Massey University’s vicechancellor, social justice and Maori issues were again to the fore.

What transpired was that Dr Brash was able to speak without being shouted down. The furore encouraged more New Zealanders to recognise what free speech is all about, that it actually means allowing those whose views you might find offensive to have their say.

When Auckland Mayor Phil Goff prevented Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern from speaking at an Auckland City Council venue, he was backed by Green Party coleader Marama Davidson.

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and National leader Simon Bridges, however, supported free speech and said they would let the Canadians have their say.

The boots have, now, switched feet. The Greens are praising United States whistleblower Chelsea Manning and saying she should be allowed into this country to speak at events in Auckland and Wellington on September 9 and 10.

Ms Manning served seven years of a 35year prison sentence for theft and espionage after she released hundreds of thousands of classified or sensitive documents to Wikileaks.

This time it is National’s immigration spokesman and former minister Michael Woodhouse who said Ms Manning should be denied entry to New Zealand. He said she was convicted of a crime for which she had absolutely no remorse and she now intended to profit from that by selling tickets to the meetings.

This call to exclude Ms Manning is misplaced and disappointing. The rights and wrongs of what Ms Manning did are divisive and debatable. But that is all the more reason not to muzzle her.

This instance should also be a lesson for Manning supporters. Free speech cuts both ways, and it has been essential in the human rights and social justice struggles of the past. Fear of public disorder, used in the Brash and Canadian cases as a reason for exclusion, is the very same excuse used in the American South in the 1960s to try to prevent marches and speeches by black civil rights leaders.

In Dunedin, praise is due to the University of Otago for allowing antifluoride speakers a forum at a university lecture theatre. The university’s own dental school experts are, no doubt, horrified by the views being promulgated. University administrators probably think the same way.

Likewise, this newspaper recognises fluoridation of water as an essential public health measure to help save children from our poorest communities from appalling tooth damage.

Nevertheless, the socalled antifluoride experts have the right to give their point of view, albeit a minority position against the opinions of almost all official dental experts.

That does not mean, however, that we as a newspaper, or anyone else, are obliged to give Fluoride Free New Zealand an editorial platform.

It is worth remembering that in totalitarian regimes one of the first rights to go is always freedom of speech.

While freedom of speech is never limitless, the presumption in democracies must always be in its favour.

This country has the right to exclude ‘‘criminals’’, and that can extend to those advocating violence and drug use. Chelsea Manning does not fit into these categories and should be allowed speak.

The outcry and outcome over the Don Brash furore was positive. More New Zealanders could see the point of free expression. Hopefully, viewpoints that Ms Manning should be shut out will illustrate across the political spectrum that free speech cuts both ways, that it is vital so all sorts of convictions are aired.