Minister signals R&B singer Chris Brown won't be allowed into Australia

[webfact]

Minister signals Chris Brown won't be allowed into Australia
ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — A government minister signaled Thursday that troubled R&B singer Chris Brown won't be allowed to tour Australia in December because of his criminal conviction for assaulting pop star Rihanna.

Michaelia Cash, who was assistant minister for Immigration and Border Protection before a Cabinet reshuffle this week, said she would recommend that Immigration Minister Peter Dutton refuse the 25-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,'" Cash, who is now minister for women, told reporters.

"This is a government that is not afraid to say: 'no,'" she said.

She was backed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who said Cash "has very brilliantly expressed the thoughts of the government."

Both were speaking at the launch of a 100 million Australian dollar ($70 million) government initiative to prevent domestic violence.

Activists have been campaigning against Brown's tour of Sydney, Melbourne and Perth because of his brutal attack on his then-girlfriend, Rihanna, hours before the Grammy Awards in 2009.

He pleaded guilty to felony assault and was freed from probation this year.

Britain, Canada and New Zealand have also refused him visas.

A publicist for Brown did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-24

[JoePai]

Lucky Australia

[Che Serna]

In NSW ( unsure about other states?.. by suggest same) the largest NOT GUILTY verdicts have been in cases where women have accused men of domestic violence...that fact is pointing in how easy it is for women to falsely accuse men of DV.

I am not familiar with the Chris Brown/Rihanna case...So I can't comment with any authority in this matter.

But the point is this,...is it lawful to stop people with domestic violence convictions to visit Australia or any other place?

Why have one law for a popstar & another for the millions of convicted DV men guilty or not?

So If you ban Chris Brown?..Then you need to ban any and all citizens across the world from entering Australia with a similar record. That would be fair and lawful would it not?..I certainly do not think this is on the cards!

Cleary this STUPID New Minister Michaelia Cash is trying to get Turnbulls (New Government) in a favourable light but using fear of men bashing women yet again in order to gain votes and popularity with women voters.

Actually the opposite will happen if Chris Browns visa is not approved!

[northernboy]

Maybe Australia should cancel all DV offender Australian passports to be truly fair and just?

In NSW ( unsure about other states?.. by suggest same) the largest NOT GUILTY verdicts have been in cases where women have accused men of domestic violence...that fact is pointing in how easy it is for women to falsely accuse men of DV.

I am not familiar with the Chris Brown/Rihanna case...So I can't comment with any authority in this matter.

But the point is this,...is it lawful to stop people with domestic violence convictions to visit Australia or any other place?

Why have one law for a popstar & another for the millions of convicted DV men guilty or not?

So If you ban Chris Brown?..Then you need to ban any and all citizens across the world from entering Australia with a similar record. That would be fair and lawful would it not?..I certainly do not think this is on the cards!

Cleary this STUPID New Minister Michaelia Cash is trying to get Turnbulls (New Government) in a favourable light but using fear of men bashing women yet again in order to gain votes and popularity with women voters.

Actually the opposite will happen if Chris Browns visa is not approved!

[simple1]

The guy in the OP has also been denied entry to three other countries due to his domestic violence conviction.

DV in Australia is a hot topic as currently averaging more than one murder per week of women by their current or former partner. However, DV is under even more scrutiny as in the past few weeks there has been six women murdered by their current or former partners. The new PM has just announced funding of AUD100 million for a campaign to try and decrease the high level of domestic violence calling the prevalence of DV a 'national shame'.

[aboctok]

In NSW ( unsure about other states?.. by suggest same) the largest NOT GUILTY verdicts have been in cases where women have accused men of domestic violence...that fact is pointing in how easy it is for women to falsely accuse men of DV.

I am not familiar with the Chris Brown/Rihanna case...So I can't comment with any authority in this matter.

But the point is this,...is it lawful to stop people with domestic violence convictions to visit Australia or any other place?

Why have one law for a popstar & another for the millions of convicted DV men guilty or not?

So If you ban Chris Brown?..Then you need to ban any and all citizens across the world from entering Australia with a similar record. That would be fair and lawful would it not?..I certainly do not think this is on the cards!

Cleary this STUPID New Minister Michaelia Cash is trying to get Turnbulls (New Government) in a favourable light but using fear of men bashing women yet again in order to gain votes and popularity with women voters.

Actually the opposite will happen if Chris Browns visa is not approved!

How would refusal to grant a visa to Chris Brown indicate that the law is unfairly applied? It might just as easily be an indication that the law is applied without prejudice. How do you know that people with similar criminal histories are typically granted visas for Australia? As for it being unlawful for immigration authorities to refuse a visa to people with a particular criminal history, are you for real? I thought the one principle that all TVers knew by heart was that immigration authorities generally have the authority to grant or not grant a visa, or indeed permission to enter or stay. Reputedly, there is limited redress if they simply say "No." Evidently, this is also the case in Britain, Canada, and New Zealand.

Edited September 24, 2015 by aboctok

[HuaHinHim]

Hasn't he served his time? Is he really that much of a threat to anyone when he's performing a concert. Plenty of people in Australia who are likely much more dangerous than he is and they freely roam the streets. Government minister is trying to bignote herself. I'll add I'm not a fan and think anyone who hits a woman is a coward but I have also come across plenty of women who like to provoke men and then turn on the tears once one of them have had enough and snap

[Benmart]

In NSW ( unsure about other states?.. by suggest same) the largest NOT GUILTY verdicts have been in cases where women have accused men of domestic violence...that fact is pointing in how easy it is for women to falsely accuse men of DV.

I am not familiar with the Chris Brown/Rihanna case...So I can't comment with any authority in this matter.

But the point is this,...is it lawful to stop people with domestic violence convictions to visit Australia or any other place?

Why have one law for a popstar & another for the millions of convicted DV men guilty or not?

So If you ban Chris Brown?..Then you need to ban any and all citizens across the world from entering Australia with a similar record. That would be fair and lawful would it not?..I certainly do not think this is on the cards!

Cleary this STUPID New Minister Michaelia Cash is trying to get Turnbulls (New Government) in a favourable light but using fear of men bashing women yet again in order to gain votes and popularity with women voters.

Actually the opposite will happen if Chris Browns visa is not approved!

I prefer not to label anyone as "STUPID", since i am not perfect and have made some very unwise decisions in my life that affected numerous others. This seems to be an Australian matter and, as I am not the ruler of the world, it's none of my business.

[Che Serna]

@aboctok

A law cannot be called generally applied for all without prejudice as you put it.,,if it is "Discretionary". Point number one!.... Dima is certainly always Discretionary by nature of her powers!..You have alluded to that in your comments.

YOU WROTE: How do you know that people with similar criminal histories are typically granted visas for Australia?

I can say beyound a balance of probabilities people with DV convictions are not (until now?) prejudiced to be refused a visa due to having a DV conviction in their own countries respective jurisdictions.

It has never been an issue until being politicised until now...Make no mistakeit is a political ploy to gain womens vote by Turnbull and his lot.

R Kelly/James Brown among many are two people who have DV convictions among others and they have been allowed to tour.

Are you really suggesting that DV convictions are a legal test of the fit and proper person dicta that is applied to say Americans or English or many other normal tourists who visit here upon arrival?

Sorry can't enter Australia due to DV conviction in the US/Germany/Uk//France.. some 5-10-20 years ago?

I said before and it is a FACT in NSW DV has the LARGEST NOT GUILTY VERDICTS!... That suggests in a breakup/specially when property is concerned (under legal advise most likely) women will alledge DV when none has existed.

That is at least fact in NSW!... Does that common action differ in the UK or America?... I doubt it myself?

In fact the burder of proof is being hardened in NSW because of so many fraudulent cases of DV...Finally the Family Court cannot ignore the results of not guilty in NSW for men accused of DV....This has a good effect on childrens custody...which has been a long time a coming! Perhaps procedural fairness in the Family Court will not now favour women due to the huge not guilty verdicts in NSW Courts?

Edited September 24, 2015 by Che Serna

[Nuddy]

I wish a say here too. Maybe the guy belted shit out of some woman, but he has sorted it out, done his time etc etc. Thats up to the Govt where it happened.

At the moment the Aussie Govt decided not to approve his visa. Oh wow. Try getting into USA with a DUI offence, no. Just too bad for this guy. Why come to Aussie, better to tour where he comes from, cheaper, more returns forget it. Aussie immigration are total <deleted> they have no worldly aspect.

Try this, a British Marine , comes to Australia just to join the military to go to Vietnam in the war back 40+ years. He does two, ONE year tours and operates at the highest level a soldier could in the infantry whilst Officers about him gain medals for gallantry. He returns to Aussie and they won't let him stay in Australia and actually deport his ass, this unsung hero, back to England. Whats his name? Cpl Riddle. Try Google if you want his story. What a guy! Australian politicians meddle in the immigration area for such nonsensical reasons that the mind boggles. I met a Falang here today that tried to take his legally married wife to Aussie on a tourist visa for ten days. They refused it. I checked her, I interrogated her and there is simply no reason for the decline. She ticked every box I know they would have asked. Reason not enough family here. I have 200 Thai relatives through my Wife and this woman had more than that. Aussie immigration have no grip on reality or a world view.

[louse1953]

In NSW ( unsure about other states?.. by suggest same) the largest NOT GUILTY verdicts have been in cases where women have accused men of domestic violence...that fact is pointing in how easy it is for women to falsely accuse men of DV.

I am not familiar with the Chris Brown/Rihanna case...So I can't comment with any authority in this matter.

But the point is this,...is it lawful to stop people with domestic violence convictions to visit Australia or any other place?

Why have one law for a popstar & another for the millions of convicted DV men guilty or not?

So If you ban Chris Brown?..Then you need to ban any and all citizens across the world from entering Australia with a similar record. That would be fair and lawful would it not?..I certainly do not think this is on the cards!

Cleary this STUPID New Minister Michaelia Cash is trying to get Turnbulls (New Government) in a favourable light but using fear of men bashing women yet again in order to gain votes and popularity with women voters.

Actually the opposite will happen if Chris Browns visa is not approved!

When you apply for Ozzy visa you must declare criminal offences.Yes ban all cowards who bash women.

[louse1953]

I wish a say here too. Maybe the guy belted shit out of some woman, but he has sorted it out, done his time etc etc. Thats up to the Govt where it happened.

At the moment the Aussie Govt decided not to approve his visa. Oh wow. Try getting into USA with a DUI offence, no. Just too bad for this guy. Why come to Aussie, better to tour where he comes from, cheaper, more returns forget it. Aussie immigration are total <deleted> they have no worldly aspect.

Try this, a British Marine , comes to Australia just to join the military to go to Vietnam in the war back 40+ years. He does two, ONE year tours and operates at the highest level a soldier could in the infantry whilst Officers about him gain medals for gallantry. He returns to Aussie and they won't let him stay in Australia and actually deport his ass, this unsung hero, back to England. Whats his name? Cpl Riddle. Try Google if you want his story. What a guy! Australian politicians meddle in the immigration area for such nonsensical reasons that the mind boggles. I met a Falang here today that tried to take his legally married wife to Aussie on a tourist visa for ten days. They refused it. I checked her, I interrogated her and there is simply no reason for the decline. She ticked every box I know they would have asked. Reason not enough family here. I have 200 Thai relatives through my Wife and this woman had more than that. Aussie immigration have no grip on reality or a world view.

Something fishy there Nuddy,i just put scant info on the application for my defacto and she has 8,6month visas.She even did one herself.We only have small family.So she listed over 200 hundred family did she.Unless things have changed they don't ask anything,just check you ticked all the boxes.

[Nuddy]

@louse1953.

You are probably right mate. Maybe it was the guy who was taking her there...hehe.

Regards

[Ace of Pop]

Can anyone guess what Sir Les Patterson ruling would be.?.Should brighten the Day

[aboctok]

@aboctok

A law cannot be called generally applied for all without prejudice as you put it.,,if it is "Discretionary". Point number one!.... Dima is certainly always Discretionary by nature of her powers!..You have alluded to that in your comments.

YOU WROTE: How do you know that people with similar criminal histories are typically granted visas for Australia?

I can say beyound a balance of probabilities people with DV convictions are not (until now?) prejudiced to be refused a visa due to having a DV conviction in their own countries respective jurisdictions.

It has never been an issue until being politicised until now...Make no mistakeit is a political ploy to gain womens vote by Turnbull and his lot.

R Kelly/James Brown among many are two people who have DV convictions among others and they have been allowed to tour.

Are you really suggesting that DV convictions are a legal test of the fit and proper person dicta that is applied to say Americans or English or many other normal tourists who visit here upon arrival?

Sorry can't enter Australia due to DV conviction in the US/Germany/Uk//France.. some 5-10-20 years ago?

I said before and it is a FACT in NSW DV has the LARGEST NOT GUILTY VERDICTS!... That suggests in a breakup/specially when property is concerned (under legal advise most likely) women will alledge DV when none has existed.

That is at least fact in NSW!... Does that common action differ in the UK or America?... I doubt it myself?

In fact the burder of proof is being hardened in NSW because of so many fraudulent cases of DV...Finally the Family Court cannot ignore the results of not guilty in NSW for men accused of DV....This has a good effect on childrens custody...which has been a long time a coming! Perhaps procedural fairness in the Family Court will not now favour women due to the huge not guilty verdicts in NSW Courts?

A law cannot be called generally applied for all without prejudice as you put it.,,if it is "Discretionary".

As I put it? I certainly didn't put it that way (what a shame, it's so eloquent). I can't see what connection your response has to my comment. Nothing I said is affected one way or the other by the discretionary nature of government regulations. You seem to believe that I was speaking implicitly; actually, I didn't "really" suggest anything about using DV convictions for any purpose. You missed my main point, which was that immigration authorities are not compelled to operate in such a way that individual cases are seen to be treated equally. When they say no, they say no. You can make comparisons with any number of historical cases, but how many people are successful in changing immigration decisions?

Thank you for shedding light on how you know that people with similar criminal histories are typically granted Australian visas. If you simply declare that it is "beyound a balance of probabilities," geez, that's good enough for me. Extra points for including a technical legal phrase and all.

[Che Serna]

@aboctok

In relation to your comment as to the ability of the Immigration department to say No & to have a stay in that regard to challenge,.. not only by the Minister who can overrule the judgement, but the IRT as well as and the high court if need be.

So the law in Australia has various way of overturning a Dima decision...Simply Fact!

Incidentally Tickets are still being sold to his Sydney concert as early as today. So I am in the dark why this is being done?..Tickets are not generally sold if the artist will not be allowed to perform ?

For your further education,..the doctrine of the "Balance of Probabilties and Beyound Reasonable Doubt are legal tests used by all legal practioners.

I won't bother to let you know what those % mean..Ask a lawyer LMAO

Edited September 28, 2015 by Che Serna

[aboctok]

@aboctok

In relation to your comment as to the ability of the Immigration department to say No & to have a stay in that regard to challenge,.. not only by the Minister who can overrule the judgement, but the IRT as well as and the high court if need be.

So the law in Australia has various way of overturning a Dima decision...Simply Fact!

Incidentally Tickets are still being sold to his Sydney concert as early as today. So I am in the dark why this is being done?..Tickets are not generally sold if the artist will not be allowed to perform ?

For your further education,..the doctrine of the "Balance of Probabilties and Beyound Reasonable Doubt are legal tests used by all legal practioners.

I won't bother to let you know what those % mean..Ask a lawyer LMAO

You don't say.

[Che Serna]

I do say!

[aboctok]

I do say!

Evidently a new phrase.

[aboctok]

@aboctok

In relation to your comment as to the ability of the Immigration department to say No & to have a stay in that regard to challenge,.. not only by the Minister who can overrule the judgement, but the IRT as well as and the high court if need be.

So the law in Australia has various way of overturning a Dima decision...Simply Fact!

Incidentally Tickets are still being sold to his Sydney concert as early as today. So I am in the dark why this is being done?..Tickets are not generally sold if the artist will not be allowed to perform ?

For your further education,..the doctrine of the "Balance of Probabilties and Beyound Reasonable Doubt are legal tests used by all legal practioners.

I won't bother to let you know what those % mean..Ask a lawyer LMAO

Yes, your legal knowledge is, beyound any doubt, quite sound, equaled only by your ability to articulate it. Perhaps you are a legal "practioner" yourself? If you do happen to be, you might want to pay attention to the myriad squiggly red lines; they certainly have the potential to heavily diminish the quality of any Official legal documents, Concerning various doctrines or precepts, which you May issue. As a legal practioner.

[simple1]

Brown was sentenced to five years probation for assaulting his wife, he broke one of the probation rules and served 3 months in prison. Also Brown has been arrested on a number of occasions for assault and admitted he has an anger management problem. Government Ministers have confirmed he is being made an example based upon 'character test' to underline the current campaign to try & reduce domestic violence in Oz; have to see if his appeal is upheld.

The current government is enforcing visa conditions that anyone sentenced to a year or more in prison will have their visa revoked and deported. At the moment the second largest representation held in immigration detention prior to deportation are from N.Z. The largest number being detained by immigration are Iranians for falsely claiming asylum seeker status.

[Che Serna]

@Simple 1...You wrote: Government Ministers have confirmed he is being made an example based upon 'character test' to underline the current campaign to try & reduce domestic violence in Oz;.. have to see if his appeal is upheld.

Does anyone really think making a "Selective Example" of a rap singer is going to reduce DV in Australia?...Thats simply absurd!

Sure Chris Brown may be an &lt;deleted&gt; with anger problems?....But to suggest he not being allowed to rap in Australia is somehow going to stop DV from occuring is "Ridiculous" & shows just how little imagination the Australia Gov has!

[simple1]

@Simple 1...You wrote: Government Ministers have confirmed he is being made an example based upon 'character test' to underline the current campaign to try & reduce domestic violence in Oz;.. have to see if his appeal is upheld.

Does anyone really think making a "Selective Example" of a rap singer is going to reduce DV in Australia?...Thats simply absurd!

Sure Chris Brown may be an <deleted> with anger problems?....But to suggest he not being allowed to rap in Australia is somehow going to stop DV from occuring is "Ridiculous" & shows just how little imagination the Australia Gov has!

The guy has a proven history of violence. All the government is doing is sending a message that DV is unacceptable. The banning of Brown will not stop acts of DV, but as far as I'm concerned it's the right decision to underline the government's intent to address the high levels of DV in Oz. As a child I was subjected to DV so I applaud the government, albeit, belated initiative.

[Che Serna]

We have a clear admission from you in saying:"The banning of Brown will not stop acts of DV". If that is the case according to your admission? Then this action is pure window dressing..a pig with lipstick in other words!

You can't have it both ways !...You can't say the act of banning brown is useless (useless because it will not stop the act of DV in anyway)... and at the same time say its a right decision by the Gov!

That a contradiction that has no merit whatsoever.

Honestly do you really think banning a rapper being sensationally punished ( at the expense of his fans) one week is going to make any real impact the following week?

That is nonsense because the following week the incident will be forgotten forever, then people like you will need to vent on someone else.

Only the truly blind cannot see this Gov ploy is to get people like yourself (who have suffered the trauma of domestic violence) by using a rapper for scapegoating & enjoyment to make themselves feel better about themselve because of Gov's insincere punitive action, which as you admit is useless in curtailing DV....That is useless grandstanding! What if I told you I suffered from DV? Unfortunaltey such matters are personal and private & you will get no admission from me in relation to that subject.

Still I can see the big picture (Gov Con)... you can't!

What really matters is real/sound Gov policy to stop DV not some sensational scam to make people feel better and vent..that will not stop the DV problem in Australia one iota!

Edited September 29, 2015 by Che Serna

[aboctok]

@Simple 1...You wrote: Government Ministers have confirmed he is being made an example based upon 'character test' to underline the current campaign to try & reduce domestic violence in Oz;.. have to see if his appeal is upheld.

Does anyone really think making a "Selective Example" of a rap singer is going to reduce DV in Australia?...Thats simply absurd!

Sure Chris Brown may be an <deleted> with anger problems?....But to suggest he not being allowed to rap in Australia is somehow going to stop DV from occuring is "Ridiculous" & shows just how little imagination the Australia Gov has!

You persist in vigorously refuting arguments that no one is making. Who said that barring Chris Brown from entering Australia will directly prevent even a single case of domestic violence? Nobody! So why waste your energy telling everybody how ridiculous such an expectation is, when there is no evidence that anybody is stupid enough to carry that expectation? I was sure that you, as more-or-less a legal practioner, would be intimately familiar with the logical fallacy of the straw man. Clearly not. You might not like it, if Chris Brown is refused a visa, but that doesn't conveniently make it absurd. The government has limited imagination? Apparently, in a serious legal context, that's not such a bad thing. You are showing us what happens when unrestrained imagination passes for careful thinking. If Chris is denied a visa, who is to blame? I would say Chris is to blame.

[Che Serna]

You wrote:The banning of Brown will not stop acts of DV, Perhaps you should look at your comments again!

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts and replies removed.