Potential ban of singer US Chris Brown raises difficult questions for Australia

MANY have hailed a ban on US singer Chris Brown as a strong signal against domestic violence but have we left ourselves open to claims of hypocrisy?

(FILES) A file photo taken on March 29, 2015 shows singer Chris Brown arriving on the red carpet for the iHeartRadio Music Awards held at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles, California. American R&B singer Chris Brown is set to be blocked from touring Australia, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said on September 27, 2015 as the government sets up its efforts to tackle domestic violence. AFP PHOTO / FILES / VALERIE MACON

THIS week, the Turnbull Government looked ready to deliver a tough message on domestic violence, flagging its intention to block US singer Chris Brown from entering Australia.

But while the move has been celebrated for sending a signal about the country’s opposition to family violence, the government’s approach has left it open to claims of hypocrisy.

The ad hoc nature of who gets stopped, has already led to suggestions of racism, as rap and R&B artists have been banned while others are allowed to tour.

Ozzy Osbourne and his wife Sharon have both spoken openly about the history of domestic violence in their relationship, yet the ageing rocker is being welcomed to Australia next April for a Black Sabbath farewell tour.

Using Australia’s visa system to enforce its stance on domestic violence is difficult as the ban does not necessarily apply to others with the same history.

Brown is being held up as an example, while other high-profile Australians, musicians and ordinary citizens are able to continue pursuing their careers.

The move to block Brown will likely be based on character grounds as he appears to satisfy the requirements for a refusal based on having a “substantial criminal record”, but this does not automatically disqualify him.

Associate lecturer Khanh Hoang of the Australian National University Migration Law Program told news.com.au that the Migration Act gave Immigration Minister Peter Dutton the power to refuse the visa but he did not have to.

In essence, if anyone has been sentenced to 12 months’ jail or more — as Brown has — they can be refused entry on character grounds.

“But the minister must still make a decision whether to refuse the visa,” Mr Hoang said.

Brown was expected to arrive in the country in December but a GetUp! petition with more than 14,000 signatures has called for him to be banned over his assault of pop star Rihanna in 2009.

Mr Hoang said it was difficult to say whether the petition influenced the minister’s decision, “but you would have to think that the minister took it into account”.

On Sunday, the government formally issued Brown with a “notice of intention to consider refusal”, giving him 28 days to present evidence as to why he should be allowed to enter the country, Dutton said in a statement.

The decision was welcomed by GetUp! campaigner Sally Rugg who said: “This announcement sends a strong signal to Australians that the Federal Government are willing to show strong leadership on gendered violence and that they are prepared to condemn violence against women”.

Days earlier, Minister for Women Michaelia Cash had also urged Dutton to refuse the 26-year-old American a visa on character grounds.

“People need to understand if you are going to commit domestic violence and then you want to travel around the world, there are going to be countries that say to you, ‘You cannot come in because you are not of the character we expect in Australia’,” Senator Cash told reporters last week.

She also played a key role in banning world champion boxer Floyd Mayweather from entering Australia. While Mayweather had five convictions for violence against women, he was only sentenced once, so probably did not have the “substantial criminal record” required.

But Hoang said there was another provision that the minister could rely on to deny a visa on character grounds: that the person was likely to “vilify a segment of the Australian community” or “incite discord”.

This was likely the provision used to ban US rapper Tyler The Creator, whose Australian tour was cancelled amid claims from feminist group Collective Shout that his music promoted violence against women.

“The powers are extremely broad, the minister only has to be satisfied that there is a risk that a segment of the community could be vilified,” Mr Hoang said.

He said the laws were changed last year from being a “significant risk” that the community would be vilified, to just a “risk”.

“Legally speaking, it’s a very low threshold,” he said, adding the applicant would have to argue there was no risk of vilifying the community, “which is pretty hard to argue”.

He said the change to the Migration Act was brought in after the Sydney siege as part of an attempt to keep the community safe.

When GetUp! was asked whether it would be running a campaign against Ozzy Osbourne, campaigns director Kelsey Cooke told Fairfax: “Unfortunately there are plenty of terrible, violent men in the entertainment industry, but none with greater access and influence to our youth.

“Consider this a campaign against any and all perpetrators of violence — with the hope that Chris Brown’s example will enforce the precedent of sticking to the character test guidelines in future.”

SHOULD WE STOP EVERYONE WITH A VIOLENT HISTORY?

No to Violence and Mens Referral Service chief executive officer Jacqui Watt told news.com.au that if Brown was banned from visiting Australia it would sent a signal about what the country thought about violence against women.

Australia isn’t the first country to consider rejecting Brown. Britain, Canada and New Zealand have also refused to give him visas.

“Whether they are pop stars or footballers they are all held to the standards of public life,” she said.

It would also reflect the huge groundswell of support within the community, with the delivery of the findings into the death of Luke Batty, who was killed by his father, and the $100 million government funding package for domestic violence, that “enough is enough”, she said.

“He’s (Brown) not the first musician or sports star to commit these acts, but when it stops you from moving around the planet maybe it does make you stop and think,” Watt said.

No to Violence has been working with men to try to change their behaviour for more than 20 years, and Watt said she believed it was possible to improve violent behaviour.

“Often it’s when they realise they are about to lose their family completely,” Watt said.

The service works to engage men to look at their responses and often this involves changing their belief systems and what they think they deserve or are entitled to.

She said if Brown had shown more public remorse for what he had done, then perhaps the Immigration Minister may have found himself in a different position.

While she was not opposed to the idea of introducing a blanket ban on anyone entering Australia with a domestic violence history, she said “my challenge to that would be, what are we doing inside our own country?”

It continues to be a relevant question as Australian footballer Wayne Carey still works as a commentator, despite a number of domestic violence complaints, while Shaun Kenny-Dowall still plays for the Sydney Roosters despite being arrested and charged with 10 offences against his former partner.

Wayne Carey (left) at a grand final lunch in 2013. Picture: Phil Hillyard

Mr Hoang also called out the government’s seemingly contradictory treatment of refugees who claim to have been raped in Nauru and Manus.

“If you are tough on domestic violence, you can’t pick and chose which people you protect,” he said.

But Mr Hoang said he believed decisions on whether to allow those with a history of domestic violence into Australian, needed to be nuanced, and were better handled on a case-by-case basis.

“If a person has been rehabilitated through the criminal justice system in their own country, we should take that into account,” he said.

He said freedom of speech also needed to be taken into account when denying the right of musicians to enter the country, as ministers were essentially making decisions on moral grounds.

“From the government’s point of view, they would argue that the minister is elected by the people, and he should as the minister, have the ability to make those kinds of judgment calls,” he said.

But Mr Hoang said it raised interesting questions around how freedom of expression was balanced with the need to protect the community.

Meanwhile Brown’s manager has released a statement that the singer respected the office of the Immigration Minister’s decision to review his visa application.

“We ... have faith that a decision will be made with the full consideration of his continued personal growth, ongoing philanthropic endeavours and desire to performs for his fans,” the statement read.

— With AP

Originally published as Potential ban of singer US Chris Brown raises difficult questions for Australia