The government has cancelled the visa of a Jewish influencer who has previously called for the ban of Islam and was booked to speak at several events in Australia.

The right-leaning Australian Jewish Association (AJA) said Sammy Yahood’s visa was cancelled three hours before his flight was due to depart.

The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, confirmed he had cancelled the visa on Monday evening, and said “spreading hatred is not a good reason to come”.

“If someone wants to come to Australia they should apply for the right visa and come for the right reason,” Burke told Guardian Australia in a statement.

In response to the decision, Yahood took to social media overnight to accuse Labor of “tyranny”, insisting his spirits remained high despite the block.

  • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Dont ban a religion, just ban the practices and beliefs that are detrimental.

    Religions need to reform to be constructive or die.

  • fizzle@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Sorry but… I just don’t really understand what the Jewish Assoc is playing at, honestly.

    Very recently there was a massacre in Sydney. It was awful. Of course the Jewish victims and their community has my sympathy.

    In the wake of that event, questions have rightly been asked as to what governments and communities are doing to manage hate speech and anti-semitism. New federal hate speech laws have been passed just in the last few weeks.

    Sorry but importing some asshole to stoke more hatred and animosity between these communities is not the way to manage this problem.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      This asshole shouldn’t be allowed to enter the country I agree but prohibiting speech you disagree with everywhere on the planet is tyranical

        • fizzle@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Paradoxically, the paradox of tolerance is often used as an argument for intolerance.

          You just have to brand someone you don’t like as “intolerant” and then the paradox of tolerance gives you an ethical fig leaf for refusing to tolerate them.

            • fizzle@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 hour ago

              You’re intolerant of my views!

              The paradox of intolerance therefore demands that we refuse to allow you amongst us, lest your intolerance spreads like cancer.

          • Deme@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 hours ago

            The so-called paradox dissolves away once you recognize tolerance as a social contract between parties, instead of some immutable principle.

            They break the contract, so they’re no longer covered by it. Treat others as you would like to be treated. It’s not that complicated.

            • fizzle@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              This is the same picture.

              If you arbitrarily decide who has “broken the contract” then you arbitrarily decide who you will not tolerate.

              Being tolerant does not merely mean allowing the presence of those who do not bother you.

              Its not that complicated.

      • fizzle@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Not really.

        You’re absolutely correct that any limitations to free speech needs to be considered very carefully. Of course, an arbitrary ban on ideas you disagree with is something to be avoided.

        However, that doesn’t mean that there should not be any limitations to the things people are free to say and the ideas they’re free to promote.

  • starik@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Great. Now he can start a GoFundMe and a podcast and be a millionaire by next year

  • ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Sick of the reporting on situations like this highlighting the fact a person is Jewish over the fact they are an Israeli or a Zionist. It contributes greatly to the idea that it is Jewish people as a whole and not specifically Zionists that are spreading this hatred. Heck “notorious Islamaphobe” is probably way more relevant than the fact he happens to be Jewish.

    • JerryMerweather@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      The same thing with muslims and immigrants.

      IMMIGRANT SAYS BAD WORDS TO AN AMERICAN!!!
      “MUSLIMS” ARE BEING RACIST WITH TRUMP!!!

      reading such headlines are enough to convince someone to change their opinion on something.

      This is a very common problem unfortunately.