In a landmark decision that reverberated far beyond Australia’s shores, the country’s High Court has unanimously upheld the government’s refusal to grant a visa to U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens, citing the risk her presence could incite discord and threaten social cohesion. The ruling, delivered on October 15, 2025, comes after a protracted legal battle following Owens’ attempt to embark on a speaking tour across Australia and New Zealand in late 2024.
Owens, a polarizing figure in American political commentary known for her sharp critiques of progressive movements and her controversial takes on issues involving Muslim, Black, Jewish, and LGBTQIA+ communities, found herself at the center of a constitutional showdown in Australia. The saga began in October 2024, when Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke exercised his authority under the Migration Act to deny Owens a visa, citing her failure to meet the “character test.”
Burke’s decision was not made in a vacuum. According to AP and Reuters, security assessments at the time warned that Owens’ “history of extremist and inflammatory comments” posed a risk of amplifying existing grievances and potentially provoking hostility or radical action. “In the current environment where the Australian community is experiencing heightened tensions, I find that there is a risk that Ms. Farmer’s controversial views will amplify grievances and lead to increased hostility or radical action,” Burke stated in court documents, referring to Owens by her married name, Candace Owens Farmer.
Owens, undeterred, challenged the decision on constitutional grounds, arguing that the refusal violated Australia’s implied freedom of political communication—a principle derived from the country’s democratic framework but far less sweeping than the U.S. First Amendment. Her legal team contended that the Migration Act was unconstitutional, or at the very least, that Burke had misapplied his powers under the law.
But the High Court, led by Justices Stephen Gageler, Michelle Gordon, and Robert Beech-Jones, was unequivocal. In their joint opinion, they wrote, “Implied freedom of political communication is not a ‘personal right,’ is not unlimited, and is not absolute.” Justice James Edelman was even more direct, stating, “Ms. Owens Farmer’s submissions should be emphatically rejected.” The court ordered Owens to pay the government’s legal costs, a further blow to her efforts.
Owens had planned a high-profile speaking tour with stops in major Australian cities including Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and a scheduled event at Perth’s Riverside Theatre on November 20, 2024. VIP tickets promised attendees pre-show dinners, champagne receptions, and exclusive meet-and-greet sessions. However, the entire tour was scrapped when her visa application was denied. As Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported, Owens also intended to visit New Zealand, but her visa application there was initially refused in November 2024, citing Australia’s decision as precedent. That ban was later overturned in December 2024 after intervention by New Zealand’s Associate Immigration Minister, who cited “the importance of free speech.” Despite this reversal, Owens ultimately did not tour New Zealand.
Minister Burke was quick to hail the High Court’s ruling as a victory for national unity. “Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia,” he said in a statement. “Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.” Burke’s stance was echoed by Dvir Abramovich, chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission, who argued that Australia could not accept anyone who “mock the suffering of genocide survivors and insult the memories of the 6 million Jews who perished.”
The court’s decision also underscored Australia’s distinctive approach to balancing free speech with social harmony. Unlike the United States, where the First Amendment enshrines broad protections for individual expression, Australia’s constitution only implies a freedom of political communication, and even then, only to the extent necessary for democracy to function. As one constitutional expert observed, “The High Court’s message is clear: political speech can be limited when it risks tearing at the social fabric. Australia prioritizes public harmony over individual expression when the two collide.”
This case is not the first time Australia has flexed its discretion under the Migration Act’s character test. Earlier in 2025, rapper Ye (formerly Kanye West) had his visa revoked after releasing a single titled “Heil Hitler,” which authorities viewed as promoting Nazi ideology. Burke noted that Owens’ case was similar: “From downplaying the impact of the Holocaust with comments about [Nazi physician Josef] Mengele through to claims that Muslims started slavery, Candace Owens has the capacity to incite discord in almost every direction.”
Owens’ controversial legacy is well documented. With over 18 million followers across social media platforms, she has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories, downplaying Nazi atrocities, and making remarks that many see as divisive or inflammatory. Her notoriety has even led to legal entanglements abroad; she is currently being sued in the United States by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte over a podcast in which Owens claimed Brigitte Macron is secretly a transgender woman.
In response to the Australian government’s actions, Owens previously stated in a video shared on her YouTube channel, “All of this is to just make a statement to try to present me as some very scary person akin to Adolf Hitler.” Her spokesperson told the Associated Press that she would comment further on the High Court’s decision via social media, though no public statement had been released at the time of publication.
Australia’s Department of Home Affairs defines “good character” as the “enduring moral qualities of a person,” a standard that, in this case, the government said Owens failed to meet. The Migration Act, as the High Court reaffirmed, gives officials broad discretion to deny entry to individuals deemed likely to disrupt public order or provoke division. Legal scholars suggest the ruling could become a reference point for other democracies grappling with the challenge of imported culture wars and the global spread of political extremism via social media.
The High Court’s decision marks a decisive moment in Australia’s ongoing effort to balance the values of free political discourse with the imperative of social cohesion. For Owens, it is a striking rebuke on international soil, one that signals a growing resistance among Western democracies to the importation of divisive rhetoric and culture war politics. As the dust settles, Australia’s message is clear: the right to speak does not always guarantee the right to be heard, especially when the stakes are national unity and public safety.
