At first blush the most compelling argument against admitting Milo Yiannopoulos to Australia is it is a lot like taking coal to Newcastle. When it comes to white nationalist, misogynistic and anti-semitic rabblerousers, we have more than enough of our own to go around.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
That said, his endorsement of underage sex between teenage boys and adult men and women and calls for hate squads to start killing journalists are points of difference that would be considered extreme even by the standards of Australia's political fringe.
While Yiannopolous's defenders invariably invoke the mantra of "free speech" whenever the suggestion of banning his entry into this country raises its head, they miss a fundamental point.
Australia is not the United States. Free speech as an absolute principle is not enshrined in our constitution. Whether or not it should be is a very different debate and one that cuts to the heart of our extensive legislation governing racial and religious vilification and abuse and hate speech generally.
It is unfortunate, given the initial decision to deny the self-styled "cultural libertarian" a visa last week, and recent decisions to ban a range of speakers including Chelsea Manning, Canadian right wing extremist Gavin McInnes and fellow-Britisher, David Icke, over the past eight months, the Morrison government flip-flopped on the weekend.
Immigration minister, David Coleman, is now primed to personally approve the visa following alleged pressure from right wing figures including Pauline Hanson and Andrew Bolt.
This flies in the face of well-researched advice from the Department of Home Affairs to the effect the former Breitbart editor should be denied entry on character grounds.
The government is entitled to refuse a visa application in the event a person would "incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community". Yiannopoulos certainly seems to fit the bill. During his last visit in 2017 five police officers were injured during the civil unrest sparked by his presence in Melbourne.
He was subsequently presented with a $50,000 bill to go towards the cost of policing his event. It has not been paid.
The worst aspect of the government's decision to go against the advice of its own officers in what appears to be a fairly open and shut case is the clear inconsistency it represents.
Why, given she is a significantly less divisive and controversial figure, was Chelsea Manning less worthy of entry than this man?
What makes McInnes and Icke so much worse? All three are incandescent rabblerousers who speak the unspeakable and espouse the unthinkable in a crude attempt to garner as much attention as they can. They represent ignorant and self-serving populism at its worst.
Last week's ban was never going to sit well with the extreme right of the electorate.
Manning got around the ban on her visit by using technology to address a crowd at the Sydney Opera House via video link. Yiannopoulos's "free speech" could have been just as well served by doing the same.
