The absurd argument of Djokovic’s opponents. That’s why he’ll be deported

The case of Novak Djokovic is so multifaceted that I do not understand those who can clearly take one side. An Australian court ruled that the tennis player was due to leave the country, his visa was canceled. Serb will not be able to appear at this year’s Australian Open. The attitude of the Australian authorities is and will continue to cause a rightful controversy.

Why were they letting him in?

Let’s start with the most important thing: Novak Djoković could get vaccinated. Had he done so, he would have avoided all the fuss of the Melbourne show. He would not be detained at the airport, he would not be held in a hotel, there would be no first decision to cancel his visa, release from custody, no second decision to cancel his visa and no final decision ordering deportation.

The problem is that the Australian authorities are not without blame either. In the fall of 2021, they suggested that only fully vaccinated players would be admitted to the Australian Open. Then they changed their minds, created a “wicket” in the form of a “medical exception” for those tennis players who did not take the vaccine, but met the relevant conditions.

Djoković met one of the conditions – he had COVID in the last six months before crossing the Australian border. He presented evidence of this in the form of a positive test result of December 16, 2021. He was granted permission to come. Despite this, representatives of the Scott Morrison government, led by the Prime Minister of Australia himself, did not want to let him into the country.

The rulers initially questioned the permission the Serb had received from the state authorities. Meanwhile, tournament director Craig Tiley fell underground. Last Monday, Djoković won the first court hearing. He was released, began training, and again faced the threat of deportation on Thursday. But then Immigration Minister Alex Hawke surprised everyone: “Minister Hawke admitted that unvaccinated Novak Djoković entered Australia on valid medical leave and had a low risk of contracting the virus while in the country and passing it on to others. Djokovic’s presence in Australia is expected to threaten not so much the spread of the virus as the spread of anti-vaccine ideology –

Total change of tactics

The Australian government has completely changed tactics. At the hearing, he explained the revocation of Djoković’s visa not with errors in his documentation, but with the potential danger that may arise from the strengthening of the anti-vaccine ideology, which may be influenced by the presence of the Serb in Australia itself.

people will imitate Djokovic given what we know about the power of famous and popular people. According to him, Minister Hawke did not have to show evidence that Djoković influenced the views of Australian society in order to cancel his visa – it was enough to show that there was such a risk. Ultimately, it had to be convinced by the adjudicating panel, because the decision was made unanimously.

I will not argue with the court’s decision because I do not know Australian law. It is very possible that the government side was enough to justify the very possibility of Djokovic’s influence on the development of the anti-vaccine movement in Australia. This, as the minister argued, would threaten “public order”.

Djoković was no more equal

But I’m not buying the main argument of the delighted supporters of Djokovic’s deportation: “Bravo Australia. There are no equal or equal. There are no sacred cows. “This argument is absurd, it did not prevail. We do not have clear evidence to formulate the thesis that the Serb was putting himself in the role of a more equal, enjoying the privilege of being a popular athlete, and even the best tennis player in the world. Canadian tennis player Vasek Pospisil he tweeted: “Novak would never have traveled to Australia if he had not received government permission to enter the country. He would have missed the Australian Open and would be at home with his family.”

We don’t know if Djoković would have come to Australia anyway, but his supporters rightly point out that he has received formal permission to enter the country. The Australians created a procedure that they used. And then they themselves admitted that he had legally entered the country. That is why for anti-vaccines, Novak Djoković is a martyr today, who was banished from a democratic country for his views. The Australian authorities have allowed such a message to go out into the world.

On the other hand, it is hardly surprising for Australians that the vast majority do not want a Serb. They live in a country with very strict pandemic rules, and in Melbourne itself, six lockdowns have already been introduced, which lasted for a total of nine months. Australia’s rulers boast that they prevented the spread of the pandemic.

I owe it to myself

Serb’s defenders argued at the hearing that there was no evidence that he adhered to anti-vaccine views. However, the leader of the ranking, as one of the three top 100 players in the ranking, still has not been vaccinated. – In April 2020, long before COVID vaccines were available, Djoković said he was “against vaccination.” He later explained his position, adding that he was “not an expert” and would have an “open mind” but wanted to have an “option to choose what’s best for my body. ” During a Facebook performance, he explained that he “would not want to be forced by someone to take the vaccine” to travel or participate in tournaments, the BBC reads.

If it were only for vaccines, but Djoković is well known for his para-scientific theories. He argued that you can influence water with emotions and words, he believes in obtaining energy from hugging trees. In the summer of 2020, he organized a series of Adria Tour tennis tournaments without maintaining the rigors of safety. There was no social distance, masks, tennis players, including Djoković, fell ill.

It all worked against the best tennis player in the world. The Serb must have been aware that he is a public figure and that his statements weigh more. Words unproven scientifically could and have turned against him. Are they grounds for deportation due to a threat to Australian public order? Certainly, there would be less doubts if the authorities of this country had acted differently in this matter from the very beginning.

Djoković lost, Australia by no means

Then there would be no such comments as the famous tennis journalist Carole Bouchard. – The way Djokovic has been treated since winning the first appeal is a complete disgrace. It does not pose a threat to Australia. He was not here to reinforce any anti-vaccination movement. They know it perfectly well. But after a week of not being able to ensure they win on procedural errors, Australian authorities have taken a path where they don’t even have to provide evidence of what they accuse him of, she wrote.

Today the Australian government is triumphant, but I cannot predict how this story will be judged in the future. On the one hand, Djoković is to blame for himself because he has questioned vaccinations. He also admitted that despite the knowledge of a positive test result on December 16, he met with a journalist and photographer “L’Équipe”. On the other hand, the Australian authorities made a number of mistakes. They are not an example of how to solve such cases, because they lacked transparency and consistency and assessing the possible outcomes of your decisions.

If the Australians had argued from the very beginning that they would not let Djokovic in because his views threaten the public order, there would be much less doubt that since they did not prove him with procedural errors, they would use an ideological argument. It happened otherwise. The case of Djokovic will further divide the world into supporters and opponents of vaccination, it will not convince anyone.

According to Sweeney from the Australian Associated Press, with his deportation, Djoković will be banned from entering Australia for three years. There are exceptions to it, such as “important circumstances that affect the interests of the country”.