In October 2025, the Australian High Court unanimously upheld Minister Tony Burke’s decision to deny Candace Owens’ entry into Australia. Owens, an American right-wing political commentator who is extremely popular in the US, was refused on character grounds, Burke stating that “Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.”

Just one month later, controversial UK “sex worker” Lily Philips, famous for bedding 101 men in one day, was spotted entering Sydney airport. In a video filmed after her arrival, Phillips stated that she was planning to “have some fun and find some Australian boys.”

The question arises, while Candace Owens’ verbalising conservative values is not in our nation’s interest, Lily Philips’ sleeping around with Australian men is? 

Political Incorrectness Punished over Promiscuity

As of November 2025, on Apple Podcasts in the category of political podcasts in Australia, Candace Owens’ show “Candace” is ranked 9th, and on Spotify charts within the Australian news category, she is ranked 5th.  While less mainstream than in America, Owens has reached global fame and her voice in Australia, while her niche is still influential. She announced her Australian tour in August 2024, and it was set to take place in November.

However, in October 2024, her visa was denied by the Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke. Owens went on to challenge the decision in the High Court, arguing that denying her visa was a misuse of implied freedom of political communication within Australia, additionally arguing that Tony Burke misinterpreted his powers under the Migration Act. On October 15th, 2025, the High Court unanimously supported Tony Burke’s decision, finding his reasons for denying the visa valid.  

In November 2025, one month after the Court’s ruling in the Candace Owens case, Lily Phillips landed in Sydney. Phillips is most well known for her stunt of sleeping with 101 men in 24 hours, which gained her both a significant following and controversy. Though there is no confirmed reason for Philips’ Australian visit, there is speculation that she will be attending schoolies with Australian sex worker Annie Knight. 

Schoolies are end-of-year celebrations most popularly held on the Gold Coast. It is a week of parties held to celebrate high school graduations. It has often been connected to the use of drugs, alcohol, and violence, specifically sexual violence, and is known for sexual promiscuity amongst a high percentage of young adults attending.  While it isn’t confirmed if Lily Phillips will be attending, her intentions are clearly to promote herself and her content within Australia. 

The Double Standard 

Although there are significant differences between Candace Owens and Lily Phillips, as well as their reasons for visiting Australia, they would both be expected to attract considerable attention and spark controversy. According to section 501 of the Migration Act, the character test, which both Owens and Phillips underwent, is based on a criminal record, which neither Owens nor Phillips is known to have. While there has been a request by the advocacy group, Collective Shout, to clarify Philips’ Visa status, whether she is on a working or tourist visa is still unclear. Nevertheless, regardless of the type of visa, one was granted entry, the other was not.

The point is not that Phillips should be banned. But rather that it is highly questionable that someone who normalises and even glamorises extreme sexual promiscuity, which undoubtedly sooner or later will take a physical and psychological toll on the people involved, should be allowed entry into Australia, when somebody who scrutinizes the mainstream narratives of political, social, and cultural issues, is not, merely because we are dealing with political correctness in the latter case. These occurrences point to a clear double standard and bias in judgment. 

It is to be expected that both women incite discord; they are both controversial. But while Philips’s is culturally and morally controversial, Owens’s is politically. In comparison, Phillips’ actions are prone to criticism within our Christian culture, while the views Owens represents are more likely to draw criticism from politicians and the government. Rather than discord between citizens themselves, there could be discord between Australians and the Australian government. 

The Fear of Discord 

The argument that Tony Burke used, and the argument that won in the Australian High Court, was that Candace Owens could incite discord, saying that; 

“In the current environment where the Australian community is experiencing heightened community tensions, as per the advice of Australia’s security apparatus, I find that there is a risk that Ms  FARMER’s [Farmer being Owen’s married name] controversial views will amplify grievances among communities and lead to hostility and violent or radical action.” 

Theoretically, if Candace Owens did tour and her speeches motivated tension among different communities in Australia, more so than creating division, she would bring into the light the division that already exists. Through challenging political, moral, and values narratives, Owens could encourage people to question commonly accepted views as well as their own. 

But, is it really where we are at as Australians that the discourse of different opinions among us could provoke us to violence? Wouldn’t we rather be mature enough to use the discourse as a chance for growth and healthy communication? Where is the government’s trust in the maturity of its own people?

 A strong country with trustworthy leaders would not need to shut people out but would rather welcome the voicing of differing opinions. This makes sense if the aim of the government is the national interest. 

The Minor Treatment 

To showcase the dynamics at work, we can use the example of the relationship between overprotective parents and their children, as the Australian government’s reaction could be interpreted as one of overprotective parents.

Just as a parent wants to protect their child from potential dangers, it seems the Australian government has acted in this case. However, the issue is that not being shielded from difficulties but rather being trusted and supported to learn from them is crucial to a healthy development of a person. The same applies to the development and continuation of a country, especially a democracy.

A child who is not allowed to have their own opinions and express them will have a much harder time understanding and communicating with others. In contrast, a child who, from a young age, has been taught to think critically and have their opinions matter will develop the capacity to respect and accept others. 

It can be argued that Lily Phillips’ actions will have a negative impact on (young) men and their families. However, in this case, as in others, the responsibility should be in the hands of each individual to be accountable for their actions. Just as Candace Owens cannot be blamed for the actions her words incite in others. 

Australian adults are not children; they do not need to be shielded from the consequences of being exposed to controversial views. For the most part, they are fully functional and developed adults, mature enough to accept a worldview that challenges their own, without collapsing into national chaos or violence.

Times of division among Australia’s people are inevitable, as all countries constantly face change in ways that could create disagreement among their citizens. And, just as a person who has to learn to accept and understand other opinions while reflecting on their own becomes stronger, so too does a country with many different people, cultures, and backgrounds become stronger when it confronts discord and division rather than avoiding it.