Federal government attempts to deny Chelsea Manning entry into Australia
Image: Chelsea Manning. Image: Instagram / @xychelsea87
The federal government is currently threatening to deny former soldier-turned-whistleblower Chelsea Manning from entering Australia, citing her “substantial criminal record” as the reason behind it.
Manning, who spent seven years in a military prison for sending nearly 750,000 classified military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks, was due to appear at the Sydney Opera House this weekend to talk about human rights, before travelling to Brisbane and Melbourne as well.
However, the government’s last-minute push to deny her a visa may prevent Manning from arriving in Australia.
She has reportedly been served with a notice of intention to consider refusing her visa under section 501 of the Migration Act, which allows Minister for Immigration David Coleman to refuse anyone entry to Australia if they don’t pass “the character test”.
The government has cited Manning’s “substantial criminal record” as a barrier to her passing the test.
Manning has assured The Guardian that her team “will work it out”, and hasn’t given up on getting into the country.
The organiser of her impending Australian tour, Think Inc, have encouraged Manning’s supporters to lobby Coleman and urge him to grant her a visa.
Many have taken to social media to highlight the government’s hypocrisy in preventing Manning from entering the country, when far more controversial figures have been allowed to tour Australia in recent times.
Last month saw far-right activist Lauren Southern tour the country.
In 2016, she pretended to be trans while reporting on a university rally against a professor’s anti-trans comments, and took to the microphone to defend the professor before being shut down.
And in December last year, Milo Yiannopoulos toured the country, despite reported links to white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups.
He lashed out at fans on his Facebook page earlier this week after they criticised him for dining lavishly with his husband.
As repulsive as southern and milo are they aren’t criminals with espionage convictions. there is a big difference between them and Chelsea. Chelseas sentence was commuted, she was not pardoned.
Are you saying she did the wrong thing by exposing that teh Americans were killing innocent civilians?
You are correct, but so what? She served seven years which is a lot, and this sentence was deemed appropriate by the highest official in the land at the time the sentence was commuted. There are plenty of people with criminal convictions allowed to enter Australia, particularly in cases where there is zero risk of them continuing to offend (she doesn’t have access to classified files, ergo she can’t leak them).
The law under which she was convicted gives no opportunity to argue the grounds of whistleblowing or public interest. It’s a flawed law. If you’re convicted by crap laws that says more about the lawmakers than you. Just ask anyone convicted of gay sex a generation ago.
Morality is far more a judge of character than legality. Chelsea exposed illegal conduct in an immoral war, to the embarrassment of the Bush administration. Not legally defensible but certainly morally defensible.