Banning people from entering countries has become the flavour of the month. Two US citizens — hip-hop artist Chris Brown, for his record of domestic violence, and anti-abortion advocate Troy Newman (pictured), for his claim that killing the foetus is equivalent to murder and should be subject to similar penalties — were banned from entering Australia. Australian lawyers Greg Egan and Terence Lambert were banned from entering PNG, where they were to prepare a case against the prime minister.
Together these cases invite reflection on the principles and processes that ought govern the denial of visas.
My own opinions have been shaped by observing similar, though less effectual, acts of exclusion in the Catholic Church. In recent decades many bishops have banned local and overseas Catholics from speaking on church premises. The exclusion often followed complaints by vocal Catholic groups that the speakers held positions incompatible with Catholic orthodoxy, had been criticised by their own national bishops or were controversial. The process of exclusion was opaque, but the bannings were generally justified by the risk that Catholics would be confused about their faith.
This practice was often ineffective because the sponsoring groups simply moved the events off Catholic turf. In the long run it was also self-defeating to use power to exclude open discussion of controversial topics. This suggested that truth could be imposed by authority and need not be commended by reasoned reflection. The result was that people barracked for their own side, and dismissed opposing arguments as motivated by ideology rather than the search for truth. The civility of public discourse and unity between Catholics both suffered.
This experience provides the lens through which I look at the denial of visas on character grounds. I concede that both in church and state it will sometimes be right to exclude people. But unless the processes are transparent and the need clearly demonstrated, such exclusion has costly consequences for the life of the community.
It privileges power over reflection, betrays the fear that exposure to bad people and ideas will inevitably seduce people, and suggests that character is defined unchangeably by past behaviour. These are the assumptions of a fearful and harsh society.
In Australia people have increasingly been excluded by executive power without consideration of whether it is reasonable. Think of asylum seekers, people deported after criminal charges and people fighting with IS. These exclusions do not weigh the threat posed by the individuals concerned, nor