Right: Senator Michaelia Cash, minister for women in the new Turnbull government, emphatically endorsed the decision to ban Chris Brown from Australia.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments opposing the denial of an entry visa to Chris Brown
1. Chris Brown's character does not pose a risk to public safety in Australia
Those who believe that Chris Brown should be granted a visa to visit Australia argue that his criminal record does not pose a risk to public safety in this country.
Some argue that Brown's criminal past will have little to no impact on criminal behaviour in Australia. From this perspective, Brown is seen as merely a transient, imported entertainer, while the origins of Australia's domestic abuse problems derive from intrinsic features of our own society.
In an article published in Mamamia on September 30, 2015, Alex Greig wrote, 'It's easy to denounce a musician for sending the wrong message, but it's more important to understand that our domestic violence is home-grown, it comes from Australian culture, and "sending messages" by banning people like Brown does little to address the real issue.'
Other supporters of Brown's entry into Australia note that his crime was committed five years ago, that he has completed his period of probation, the community service assigned him and the year of anger management therapy that was ordered.
Contrary to the view of those who see him as unreformed and unrepentant, Brown has recently claimed that has changed and that his altered attitudes could act as a positive example for other young men with violent tendencies.
Brown has stated, 'My life mistakes should be a wakeup call for everyone. Showing the world that mistakes don't define you. Trying to prevent spousal abuse.
The youth don't listen to parents nor do they listen to PSA's. The power that we have as entertainers can change lives.'
Brown's capacity to reduce the likelihood of young men abusing women has been noted by a number of Maori campaigners for women's rights who have called on their government to allow Brown into New Zealand.
Maori women's advocate Dame Tariana Turia has stated, '[Brown] has said himself, he has changed his behaviour and is willing to talk about the impact that assault charge has had. We believe having done the crime and done the time he should be allowed to enter our country.'
Another Maori women's advocate, Ms Raukawa Tait has also stated, 'If he has said he is a changed person and he is prepared to put out that message, why wouldn't we use him? Why wouldn't we take advantage of him?'
2. Denying Chris Brown entry to Australia is tokenistic opposition to domestic violence
There are many who claim that denying Chris Brown entry to Australia is no more than a gesture of opposition to domestic violence.
From this perspective, what is important is to create social conditions that support at-risk women. The federal government's new domestic violence initiatives have been seen as a positive step.
In an opinion piece published on the ABC's current affairs opinion site, The Drum, Catherine Gander states, 'Malcolm Turnbull's announcement yesterday of a $100 million package to address domestic and family violence through a Women's Safety Program was welcomed across the nation.'
Gander went on to claim, however, that the new package was insufficient. She stated, 'On the positive side, the package focuses on shifting culture and changing attitudes towards women to reduce and prevent domestic violence in the long-term...
But what is missing from the announcement is investment for those women who do need to leave, and who will need a women's refuge, shelter or safe house.
This investment is required to give women the choice to leave, or to have somewhere safe to go while the security upgrades and legal interventions are made to enable them to return home safely.'
Gander demonstrated the extent of the problem by quantifying the unmet need. She stated, 'In Australia last year, 2,800 women who chose to go to a women's domestic violence refuge could not be accommodated, and this figure does not include accompanying children.'
In this context actions such as preventing an entertainer such as Chris Brown from entering Australia are seen as essentially window-dressing.
In an article published in The Guardian on September 25, 2015, Jeff Sparrow, stated, 'Foreign musicians are not the reason so many Australian women are being killed by their partners. By focusing on one man, we let the government off the hook.'
Sparrow went on to claim, 'At best, a ban on Brown is a distraction, a cheap headline-grabbing stunt that takes the focus away from the real work - and the allocation of real resources - necessary to make women safe.
By emphasising the menace of a foreign entertainer, it obscures the real locus of violence: the nuclear family. It's much easier for politicians to denounce musicians than to acknowledge that most women are hurt or killed within their family, a fundamental social institution.'
In an opinion piece published on SBS on September 28, 2015, Catherine Lumby stated, 'It's a shibboleth of middle class dinner parties that most social ills can be traced to a named individual - usually a celebrity or politician- who must be named and shamed...
The rapper Chris Brown, who was convicted of domestic violence and whose lyrics and public comments suggest he has questionable views about women, is the latest target of this ritual cursing...
I worry about the tokenistic nature of the call to ban...[Brown]. He's an obvious target: a black rapper. And, as offensive as his attitudes and his violence to his partner are, I also wonder about what a ban will genuinely achieve.'
3. Other entertainers with similar backgrounds have not been denied entry to Australia
Critics of denying Chris Brown entry to Australia have suggested that the action is inconsistent as many other public figures with a similar criminal or personal history have been allowed into Australia. It has been noted that even Brown himself has been allowed into the country twice since his infamous assault on Rihanna, playing the 2012 Supafest festival and also performing Down Under in 2011.
Tommy Lee and Vince Neil of Motley Crew both have domestic violence records; however, they were allowed into this country to complete their recent 'farewell' Australian tour. In 1998, Lee was sentenced to six months in jail for kicking former partner Pamela Anderson while she held one of their children.
Neil was charged with assaulting a prostitute at a Las Vegas brothel in 2003, as well as charged with battery of his former partner in 2011. Neil was not convicted on the latter charge, instead pleading guilty to a disorderly conduct charge.
Former basketball star Rodman has been involved in several instances of domestic violence throughout his career. In 2008, he pleaded no contest to spousal battery after striking his partner. He has also been arrested and charged relating to other domestic violence incidents. However, Rodman visited Australia earlier this year on his 'Bad Boy' speaking tour.
Perhaps the most dramatic instance of inconsistency that critics note relates to former world heavy weight boxing champion, Mike Tyson. Tyson was convicted in 1992 of raping an 18-year-old woman in an Indianapolis hotel room and sentenced to 10 years in jail. He served three. Tyson's ex-wife, Robin Givens, also alleged domestic abuse when she filed for divorce from the boxer in 1988. In 2012, however, Tyson was granted an Australian visa for a speaking tour.
In an article published in The Adelaide Advertiser on September 30, 2015, Tory Shepherd suggested that the inconsistent and ad hoc manner in which visas are granted or denied leaves room for people to be sceptical about why a particular action is taken against one individual and not another.
Shepherd stated, 'There's no argument that men who bash women are abhorrent, that holocaust deniers spread vile ignorance, that extremists spread hate that could convert to action, and that the extreme anti-abortionists are a pox.
What we need, though, is a clearer idea of how people end up on the blacklist, and a reassurance that it's not just because GetUp launched a petition against them, or that the Government happened to be spruiking their anti-domestic violence credentials.'
4. Racism is an element in popular opposition to Chris Brown
It has been claimed that the negative attitudes toward Chris Brown, culminating in a number of nations refusing to give him a visa, is the result of racial prejudice which tends to demonise black men.
Brown's 2009 assault of Rihanna attracted enormous and continuing media attention. Some media commentators have suggested that the assault formed such a focus of popular interest because of the already-established celebrity of Rihanna and Brown.
Those who reject this view note the comparable instance of Sean Penn and Madonna. Both were very well known at the time Penn was charged with assault for having hit Madonna, his then-wife, over the head with a baseball bat. Penn, however, did not carry the stigma of this assault with him, and went on to win two Academy Awards, without ever being the centre of the negative media interest that has followed Brown.
Critics of the treatment that Brown has received claim that the difference between the two cases is race and that racial stereotypes of violent black men make it easy for the white Western world to focus on Brown's supposed enduring and possibly inherent brutality.
On February 23, 2015, in an article published in Buzz Feed, Ira Madison noted, 'Unlike Chris Brown, Penn has continued to be lauded by his Hollywood peers and has since won Oscars for his roles in Mystic River and Milk (in 2004 and 2009 respectively). Penn is not the subject of frequent thinkpieces or Twitter harassment by Jenny Johnson, a fan of attacking Brown whenever the spirit moves her.'
Madison goes on to ask, 'Is it that it's easier to classify a young black musician as dangerous in the media than it is an established white actor?'
On November 29, 2012, The Huffington Post published an opinion piece by Brendan O'Neill, in which O'Neill compared the media treatment of Chris Brown with that of a range of other white celebrities including Sean Penn. O'Neill asked, 'How do we explain this extraordinary double standard? Why is Brown's crime seen as so much worse than similar crimes committed by other well-known people?'
O'Neill's response followed, 'In essence, Brown is being turned into the new Mike Tyson: a symbolic big, scary, cocky and arrogant black man that it is acceptable for respectable white folk to be scared of and to hate.'
On September 30, 2015, the online lobby group GetUp withdrew its petition calling for Chris Brown to be denied a visa to enter Australia and apologised to Brown for the unintentionally racist elements of its former campaign.
The GetUp website now carries the following statement, 'The intention of the campaign against Chris Brown was to use a celebrity with a well-known history of violence against women to ignite a discussion about attitudes towards gendered violence. Aspects of this succeeded but we now understand the campaign also supported a racist narrative that sees men of colour unfairly targeted, and stereotyped as more violent than their white counterparts.
We all should stand up to any man who commits violence against women, but Australia has a history of arbitrary executive decisions and disproportionate exclusion of non-white people at its borders and upon reflection our approach contributed to this.'
5. Australians should be able to choose the attitude they wish to adopt to Chris Brown
There have been a number of critics of attempts to deny Chris Brown entry to Australia who have argued that the issues surrounding him are better resolved by discussion and the individual choice of music fans than they are by governments.
It has been pointed out that many of his fans will simply see him as an entertainer distinct from his criminal record for assault. Others will associate him with his past conduct and may wish to express their disapproval with their wallets and not attend Brown's concerts. Critics of the possible ban suggest that it is a form of unwarranted censorship and that Australians should be able to decide for themselves what attitude they have to Brown and his work.
In an opinion piece published on the ABC's current affairs opinion site, The Drum, on October 2, 2015, Monica Attard stated, '[T]here's...the question of whether shielding Australians from people who've done bad things or preach offensive ideas by banning them from our midst is a step too far for a largely well-educated democratic nation.'
Attard went on to explain, 'We have a free media that can lead debate on views that are unacceptable to the majority. Remember 2013 when there were howls of protest over the Dutch anti Islamist Geert Wilders being allowed entry to Australia to preach racial intolerance. We debated his views and his events were poorly attended, chaotic debacles.'
On September 25, a petition was set up on Ipetitions calling for signatures to protest against the attempt by GetUp, another online lobby and petition site to have Chris Brown denied a visa. The petition posted on Ipetition condemns barring Brown as a form of censorship which denies Brown's fans an opportunity to make up their own minds on the issue. It states, '[T]his is an attack on our right as the Australian public to "like what we want to like" and make our own decisions. Don't tell us what we can and can't listen to.'
There are also critics who have claimed that people are capable of making a distinction between the performer and his art. According to this argument, it is possible to enjoy a piece of music without endorsing the behaviour of the person who produced it.
In an opinion piece published in The Guardian on July 15, 2012, Andrew Emery, a hip hop journalist and author stated, 'You're also in danger of tarring all his fans with the same brush. They're not some moronic entity turning a blind eye to his character faults... I know plenty of people who think he's a complete idiot but can still appreciate his music.'