Australia’s Top Court Upholds Ban on Candace Owens, Citing Risk of Social Division

The High Court of Australia has rejected U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens’ final attempt to overturn a government decision denying her entry to the country, ruling that officials were justified in concluding her visit could threaten public harmony.

The unanimous decision by three judges, delivered Wednesday in Canberra, affirmed that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke acted within his authority when he refused Owens a visa last year on “character grounds.” The court also ordered Owens to cover the government’s legal costs.

Owens, 36, had planned to launch a multi-city speaking tour across Australia and New Zealand in late 2024, but her plans were halted when Burke determined that she failed the Migration Act’s so-called “character test.”

According to court filings, Burke concluded that Owens’ record of “extremist and inflammatory remarks” toward Muslim, Black, Jewish, and LGBTQIA+ communities posed a genuine risk of “inciting discord within the Australian community.”

He said that allowing her entry “would not be in the national interest” at a time when domestic security agencies were warning of rising extremism.

Court Rejects Free Speech Argument

Owens’ legal team had argued that the visa refusal violated Australia’s implied freedom of political communication, an unwritten constitutional protection that guarantees limited freedom to discuss political and governmental issues in a democracy.

But the High Court rejected that argument, noting that unlike the United States, Australia’s constitution does not enshrine an individual right to free speech.

In its ruling, the court said that the government’s decision to deny entry was a lawful and proportionate measure to protect public order, not a violation of any constitutional principle.

“The implied freedom does not grant an unlimited license to foreign nationals to enter Australia and spread divisive ideas,” the judgment stated.

Owens’ secondary claim — that Minister Burke had misapplied his legal powers — was also dismissed.

A History of Controversy

As a prominent media personality with over 18 million followers across social platforms, Owens has long been a polarizing figure in global politics.

Her outspoken criticism of social justice movements and comments perceived as racially or religiously insensitive have frequently drawn backlash.

Minister Burke cited that history in his 2024 decision, stating that Owens’ “presence would amplify social tensions” and could embolden local extremist movements already under scrutiny from Australia’s domestic spy agency.

At the time, Australia had recently elevated its national terrorism threat level from “possible” to “probable,” citing an increase in extremist rhetoric both online and offline.

Burke argued that granting Owens a platform during such a period would be “reckless and inconsistent with national security objectives.”

Regional Ripple Effects

The controversy surrounding Owens’ visa denial quickly spread beyond Australia’s borders.

Neighboring New Zealand, which had initially followed suit in denying her entry, later reversed its decision in December 2024 after an internal review emphasized the importance of free expression.

While Owens’ speaking tour in Australia was canceled, she appeared at a limited event in Auckland, telling audiences that “truth should never require a visa.”

Minister’s Record of Tough Stances

Minister Tony Burke has taken an assertive approach in using his discretionary powers under the Migration Act. Earlier this year, he revoked a visa for U.S. rapper Ye (formerly Kanye West) following the release of a track titled “Heil Hitler.”

Burke said that decision was also based on the character test, emphasizing that public figures who glorify hate or violence are not welcome in Australia.

Immigration law experts note that the “character test” allows broad discretion to exclude foreign nationals deemed likely to incite hatred, promote division, or disrupt public order—even if they have committed no crime.

Mixed Reactions to the Ruling

Wednesday’s ruling drew mixed reactions.

Civil liberties advocates warned that it could set a troubling precedent for restricting controversial speech under the guise of maintaining social harmony.

“This case highlights the danger of conflating unpopular opinions with genuine threats to public order,” said Dr. Amelia Hargreaves, a political law researcher at the University of Melbourne. “While Owens’ rhetoric is undeniably provocative, the ruling narrows the space for dissenting voices in a democracy.”

Supporters of the government, however, praised the decision as a measured defense of national unity.

“Free speech is not absolute — especially when it crosses into hate speech,” said Minister Burke after the verdict. “Australia has every right to deny entry to those who profit from division.”

Owens’ Response and Next Steps

A spokesperson for Owens said she would issue a formal statement on social media but declined to confirm whether she plans to reapply for a visa or pursue new legal avenues.

Owens has previously described the ban as “political censorship disguised as security policy.”

On her podcast earlier this year, she said, “When governments fear words more than violence, democracy is already in danger.”

Her legal defeat in Australia is likely final, as the High Court is the nation’s highest appellate authority, leaving no further domestic options for appeal.

A Broader Debate on Speech and Sovereignty

The Owens case underscores a growing global tension between the right to express controversial opinions and the responsibility of governments to preserve public order.

In the digital era — where a single post can reach millions across borders — officials say they must weigh free expression against real-world consequences.

Analysts note that the ruling could embolden Australia to continue taking a hard line against figures seen as spreading divisive ideologies, while raising questions about how democracies balance liberty and safety.

“This judgment reaffirms that freedom of speech is not a passport,” said constitutional analyst Elias Donnelly. “Every nation has the sovereign right to decide who may enter its borders — and under what values.”

Key Facts:

Decision: Australia’s High Court rejects Candace Owens’ visa challenge.

Minister: Tony Burke, Home Affairs.

Reason for Ban: Failure of “character test” — risk of inciting social discord.

Outcome: Owens must pay court costs; no entry permitted.

Context: Part of a broader policy to prevent divisive foreign speakers from entering Australia.

Closing Note

For Candace Owens, the court’s decision may close the door on Australia — but it opens a new chapter in the global debate over the limits of speech, power, and identity in the age of influence.
Whether viewed as justified caution or overreach, the case highlights one undeniable reality: in 2025, words themselves can cross borders faster — and cut deeper — than ever before.