We have every right to refuse Chelsea Manning a visa
THE debate over Manning’s entry to Australia has nothing to do with free speech. She’s US citizen, and it’s our right to determine who is allowed in and who isn’t, writes Peta Credlin.
FORGET Peter Dutton and the so-called au pair visa scandal — I’m far more concerned about another visa debate: that’s the fight over Chelsea Manning’s entry into Australia and the signal it would send, if she comes, to those wanting to threaten our national security.
If you’ve forgotten her history, let me remind you.
Bradley Manning — now Chelsea — was a Private First Class in the US Army. She was assigned to intelligence and given all the training needed to handle top-secret and highly classified documents. So she knew the importance of protecting them. Instead, two weeks into her first deployment, she started downloading material from the classified system for distribution to WikiLeaks. This was 2010, and over the next year, WikiLeaks published some 750,000 items, including footage of air strikes, diplomatic cables, and army records. Australian soldiers were serving in Iraq.
Eventually, she was convicted of espionage and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. In one of his last acts as president, Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence; she was released to the speaking circuit, making money as a self-described whistleblower. Now, Chelsea Manning is no whistleblower. In her trial, she could have availed herself of the US Military Whistleblowers Protection Act, but did not.
Barack Obama did not pardon her; he just commuted her sentence to let her out early; her conviction still stands. And now she wants to speak at the Opera House so the left can hold her up as some paragon of free speech.
I support free speech, but this is more about free movement. Regardless of whether she comes to Australia, Manning’s free speech is not in question. She speaks often in the media, including Australian media, from her home in the US. What’s at issue here is the expectation that she can come to Australia. As a US citizen, this expectation is not a right because the only rights here are ours — the right to let her in, or our right to refuse her entry.
Under our Immigration Act, very clearly, Chelsea Manning fails the character test. If Manning has something to say, she can say it in the US or, indeed, via any Australian media outlet stupid enough to promote her from afar.
But Manning’s right to free speech doesn’t negate our right to decide who comes here, particularly when we’re talking about a former army insider who so dishonoured the uniform by putting at risk the lives of fellow military and intelligence officers, including Australians.
It should never be forgotten that free speech isn’t free; it’s been paid for in blood by military men and women over many years, in many conflicts.
There is right and wrong here and shame on those who’ve tried to use the cloak of free speech as cover for allowing a criminal into the country.
Originally published as We have every right to refuse Chelsea Manning a visa