The last week has seen a useful public discussion on domestic violence and whether singer Chris Brown has been rehabilitated, but I don’t think it is relevant to whether he should be let into New Zealand.
It’s dangerous to deny a visitor’s visa to anyone unless they present a criminal danger to New Zealand or are likely to overstay their visa. Chris Brown may or may not be rehabilitated, but I don’t think anyone expects him to break the law during his short visit.
It’s understandable that many New Zealanders don’t want Chris Brown to come here. It demonstrates a commendably strong public sentiment against domestic violence. However, I believe the only sanction against Chris Brown should be “in the court of public opinion” – not by denying him a visa.
I oppose a ban on Chris Brown on civil liberties grounds, in which we all have a stake. Three of our freedoms come into play: the freedom to travel, freedom of speech, and the freedom to hear.
As great travellers, New Zealanders should favour minimal restrictions on the rights of people to visit other countries. Many New Zealanders have been unjustly prevented from travelling to America because of a minor conviction, commonly for marijuana possession. It would be better if visas were denied only to those (like drug gang members) who are suspected of wanting to continue to their criminal activities while in New Zealand.
It’s also dangerous to allow some state official to deny a visa on the basis of a singer’s lyrics, or whether that singer (like Chris Brown) is going to say the right thing about domestic violence while in the country. Such a sanction contravenes a right to freely express our views. Freedom of expression (as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights) applies to visitors and New Zealand citizens alike.
Freedom of expression also includes New Zealanders’ right to hear – in this case the right of New Zealanders to hear Chris Brown at his concert. I don’t wish to go to Chris Brown’s concert but I would feel very uncomfortable denying that right to other New Zealanders.
A person should be denied a visa only after an analysis of the specifics of his or her case. It is wrong to automatically deny a visa either on the basis of criminality (as is happening to Kiwis in Australia right now) or, as in the Chris Brown case, because two other countries (Canada and Britain) have previously denied him entry.
In both the Aussie Kiwi and Chris Brown cases, the individual circumstances should be examined, rather than people being hit, initially at least, by the application of a blanket provision.
Morally, we will be better able to challenge Australia’s high-handed deportation of Kiwis if our own policy towards visitors is tolerant and just.
Of FFS. He has a criminal conviction for felony assault Keith.
Its a pretty good precedent that we don’t let people into this country who have criminal convictions surely.
But oh well, its just domestic violence, you’re sure he’s not a threat to anyone here in NZ.
I note that in the case of DV there always seems to be many apologies for the abusers. It’s always about their rights, maybe they’ve rehabilitated, they deserve another chance.
Even when they have a bloody criminal conviction for assault.
Yes, he has a criminal conviction, but he has also carried out the sentence he was given. For just how many decades are you intending to continue punishing criminals who have already served their sentence? And is this for all criminals, or just DV ones?
It’s not me putting no time limit on it, it’s immigration NZ:
“People with criminal convictions … will not be granted a visa unless a character waiver is granted”
Or to you just think that its just a bit of domestic violence and we should give the guy another chance?
Fair enough.. having read some of his recent lyrics I cannot really say I think he deserves that character waiver. For the record, I regard domestic violence as a worse betrayal of civilised standards than violence against strangers, and do not favour diminished sanctions. But I do think Keith Locke also has a point, and I also think offenders should be given a chance when their reform seems genuine.
Well said Lara this revolting individual beat his partner to a pulp and we are supposed to relax our rules so this guy can sing his violent, sexist hate filled songs here, these clowns think their celebrity status should give them some sort of waiver against the rules, and lets not forget this thug has more form than just beating his celebrity partner Rihanna up, if in doubt google the lyrics off his latest album you will be amazed at what a vile creep this guy is.
“freedom to hear” absolute bollocks
So, you’re a fan of censorship – or only for things that offend you?
No E- that’s not the point of my post, being an Ozzy fanatic since forever it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to evoke censorship every time I am offended by something, but if this violent thug thinks he can bypass our laws because of his celebrity status then hopefully he is sadly mistaken.
If he is given a waiver then so be it but im all for making a stand against tough guys that think abusing woman physically and lyrically is something we as a country would appear to condone
I was responding to this phrase – “freedom to hear” absolute bollocks – sounds awfully close to censorship to me.
Fair call, re-reading that it does sound a bit daft and like I condone censorship of that type, probably just my reaction to his awful music
Refusing a person with a criminal conviction for violent assault entry into NZ is NOT censorship.
Its simply applying NZ Immigration rules.
@ Lara: “I note that in the case of DV there always seems to be many apologies for the abusers.”
I’ve noticed this as well. No doubt there wouldn’t be so many people arguing for him to be granted a visa, if he had a conviction for paedophilia.
No doubt about it, domestic violence isn’t taken seriously here. This is yet more evidence of that.
By the conviction yardstick, if he were alive, would you seek a ban on Nelson Mandela?
Thats weak.
Nelson Mandela was convicted of trying to overthrow a government which the rest of the world enacted sanctions against because it was racist and violent.
He later received a Nobel Peace prize.
I expect that Mandela’s Nobel prize would go some way towards proving a decent character.
I suggest you go to Immigration NZ website and read the rules there very carefully on visas. Someone with a criminal conviction may be denied entry to NZ unless they can prove they are of a decent character.
Do you think violent men who beat their partners are decent characters? And would you seriously put Nelson Mandela in that category with them?
I personally do not care for Chris Brown or his music.
However, rights and liberties deserve to be protected. Rights are something that cannot be taken away (unless one has committed a crime). That is a point which Lara fails to understand. It is a point which socialists, fascists and neo-liberal governments of the 20th and 21st century failed to grasp and still fail to grasp today.
We have individuals in New Zealand prisons with assault convictions who are denied their rights. Once released from prison, the same individuals are still denied their rights. Unable to find employment or any recourse, they are excluded from society and marginalized. Even after leading a crime free life they cannot travel to foreign lands or advance their status in society.
“Rights are something that cannot be taken away (unless one has committed a crime}”
Don’t patronise me.
I understand this all too well actually.
He DID commit a crime. For which he was convicted and sentenced. And our immigration NZ rules are clear. People wanting a visa to come to this country who have a criminal conviction may not be granted that visa BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CRIMINAL CONVICTION.
So please, do tell, what exactly do I not understand about that??
And please cry me a bloody river. No one is stopping Chris Brown from exercising his freedom and rights in his life with the exception of other countries he can travel to. This is a very wealthy individual with plenty of freedom and choice. And a very loud voice.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. NZ has a right to set our own rules around who visits and who doesn’t, and if this individual doesn’t qualify, then that should be the end of the matter. Perhaps by depriving him of the small amount of income he would have derived from his tour he, we may also be teaching him a lesson? On second thoughts, no, probably not. The Brown’s of the world don’t learn.
@ Jassey Anderson: “Rights are something that cannot be taken away (unless one has committed a crime). That is a point which Lara fails to understand.”
What on earth are you talking about? This fellow Brown has a criminal conviction, and a distinctly dubious history of violent behaviour. He’s been denied entry to other countries; it seems appropriate that he be denied entry here.
After his felony domestic beating of a woman, he has been arrested multiple times for more assaults. He’s also trashed hotel rooms and been involved in mass brawls with his entourage.
A kiwi with his criminal history and character would have no chance of a visa to the States. Why should we ignore our own laws and let a violent thug into the country just because he’s a celebrity and wants to make money?
Because “freedom of speech”.
Apparently.
More important than taking domestic violence in New Zealand seriously.
While I agree with Keith that we should be really careful in restricting people’s freedom of speech, Chris Brown already enjoys freedom of speech in New Zealand- people can buy his music, listen to his interviews, follow him in any way they want. He is not an academic or political figure either, so I don’t see any reason to grant him a waiver on those grounds. (Wheras you could argue some public figures from other nations, such as say, Edward Snowden, arguably should qualify for a waiver even if convicted of real and serious crimes due to the political nature of the business that might have in New Zealand. Not that we expect to see him outside of Russia any time soon.)
What he does not automatically enjoy, due to his serious and just conviction for domestic violence, is the automatic privilege of entry into New Zealand. If Chris Brown had turned over a new leaf as an artist and was actually singing about things that would help reduce violence against women and spousal abuse, then there’s a legitimate argument that the character of what he’s doing qualifies him for a waiver.
If he’s just here to make money touring after bashing his partner, I see no reason why he ought to be granted a waiver. He has nothing of serious civil import to say to us, he was convicted of a serious crime that carries moral consequences with it, he should actually have to do something special to earn that waiver.
Keith Richards is alright though, eh? I mean he may have had multiple convictions but that was just for drugs which is kinda cool for a rock star but he’s like over that apart from falling out of that tree but shit happens anytime and anyway he’s white and writes nice songs like Brown Sugar.
Keith has a point about drug convictions, but things like that, or “resisting arrest” without an accompanying violent crime, are a whole different planet to something like domestic violence or abuse. That’s up there with assualt on a child or manslaughter IMO, and the presumption for crimes that serious should be that you are not granted a travel waiver.
http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/newsworthy/chris-brown-and-our-domestic-violence-double-standards-2015092918#axzz3npWllXSl
Keith, you’re on a different planet as usual. The guy is a wife beater with a continuing history of violence and sexism. The argument by Turiana is equally off-piste in that he might be able to connect to our young people who often miss the message about domestic violence. Won’t banning him make those same young people ask hmmm why didn’t Brown come to NZ? Oh he bashed his missus, better no do that eh it has real consequences. Rather than have him come and give some half hearted wooly scripted media comments about his learnings from his DV convictions (which I’m sure all his fans will be listening to) just couple of hours before going on stage and rapping his violent, misogenistic paff which sends just the sort of message that will resonate.
This rooster is a particularly evil 1%’er who believes he’s entitled to come here on a business trip …..
Comments are closed.