It would be a stretch to describe celebrity chef Nigella Lawson's encounters with American and New Zealand immigration authorities as Kafkaesque. (The term comes from the work of Prague-born writer Franz Kafka, and applies to a surreal and sinister sequence of events in which an individual is harried and thwarted by a faceless authority for no apparent reason.)
It's nevertheless troubling that Lawson's admission, under oath in a case in which she wasn't the defendant, of minor drug use may have led to her being barred from entering the United States, putting paid to her American TV career.
While it's true that America has enough drug users of its own - tens of millions - allowing one more in would hardly be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That particular camel's spine caved in years ago. It also seems anomalous that the authorities should act on a forced confession delivered in extraordinary circumstances while turning a deaf ear to the frequent, freely volunteered revelations of drug use from showbiz stars such as Miley Cyrus and Charlie Sheen.
Under New Zealand law anyone who has been denied entry by another country is ineligible for a visa. Lawson isn't in that category yet, because of the confusion surrounding the American stance. But if "her circumstances change" (Immigration Department-speak for "if the Yanks do ban her") she will have to rely on ministerial or official discretion to enter New Zealand, despite never having been charged with a crime.
In that eventuality, as the Herald's Claire Trevett pointed out this week, Lawson would effectively be deemed a less desirable visitor and attract more scrutiny than Jordan Belfort, the Wolf of Wall Street, who went to jail for ripping off investors to the tune of $200 million and did more drugs before breakfast than Lawson has taken in her entire life.
