Why Geert Wilders should be allowed to visit Australia

Our borders should not be used to control access to unpopular ideas, and in the internet age such efforts are futile.

According to reports, Lebanese Muslim Association president Samier Dandan​ has advised the Prime Minister not to grant a visa to controversial Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, using the example of denying a visa to American musician Chris Brown as precedent.

Chris Brown's convictions rightly led to the refusal of a visa to visit Australia.

The cases are substantively different.

The denial of US musician Chris Brown's visa is straightforward. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to assault after committing acts of domestic violence against his girlfriend. The test used to deny Brown a visa is objective. It was based on his criminal past.

The same cannot be said of Wilders. Last week Wilders was granted a visa and, unless there is evidence not publicly available, should have been.

Wilders has been to Australia before. His visits have been controversial, but he has not committed any crime. If the government had sought to deny him a visa then it had to explain what he has done to change the decision between visits.

Wilders holds strong views against Islam and immigration. That isn't an objective ground to deny someone a visa. No religion is above scrutiny, and immigration policy is and must remain a wholly debatable issue in a liberal democracy.

If Wilders breaks the law when he is in Australia then its full force should be thrown at him. But no one should be denied a visa to come to our country for expressing opinions that it are entirely lawful for an Australian to express.

If, like Brown, Wilders had a criminal background, it would be different. There would be an objective test. But he doesn't.

Denying Wilders a visa would be using the power of government for subjective, political interests. After all, he is in Australia to launch a political party.

If you disagree with Wilders, the best way to reduce the impact of his visit is to ignore him, not deny his visa. Drawing attention to him legitimises his presence and message.

Where there was a "grey area" about the government's initial decision was the refusal to issue a visa to US anti-abortion activist Troy Newman.

Like Wilders, Newman has not committed any crime. The primary complaint against the anti-abortion activist being granted a visa was a letter from a Member of Parliament who took umbrage to words in his book Their Blood Cries Out.

Reportedly (I refuse to buy a copy) his book states: "The United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty ... [which] involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people."

In a subsequent interview Newman claimed that his comments were taken out of context. Newman is reported as saying: "This was part of a semi-theological discussion on Old Testament view of punishment, which I do not support. In fact, I am against the death penalty."

It seems difficult to reconcile the quote from the book with the quote he has subsequently provided. But even if you ignore his subsequent clarification he has not crossed the line and justified the refusal of a visa.

According to the MP, the comments in his book "could lead to threats or the commission of acts of violence". That doesn't stack up. Newman emotively debated the legal definition of murder and the role of the death penalty. We must be free to debate these issues.

Let's be clear: his comments are despicable, absurd, distasteful and deeply offensive, but entirely lawful. They are not incitement. Incitement occurs when people are called to break the law.

Context also matters. Newman stating his views in his book are not incitement. Nor are others restating them, as demonstrated by the MP who complained about his visit and included them in their public letter.

Newman was initially on safe ground to protest the subjective denial of his visa. His acts then justified his exclusion, when he boarded a plane without a visa. Doing so provided a credible and objective basis for the contention that he may not be a credible character or prepared to respect our laws.

Stopping people physically coming to Australia because of their offensive views is self-evidently pointless and self-defeating in an age when someone can record a YouTube video or website accessible anywhere in the world.

We should always be wary when the government uses migration law to indirectly decide the views that can be expressed, and more importantly the views that Australians are allowed to hear.

Tim Wilson is the Human Rights Commissioner.