Posted on 01/17/2022 5:02:41 AM PST by Kaslin
On Sunday afternoon, Sydney time, the Australian courts backed the Australian government’s decision to deport tennis icon Novak Djokovic in the interest of public safety. And so, the current top-ranked player, possibly the greatest of all time, would not be allowed to play at his favorite Grand Slam tournament, the Australian Open. Djokovic, as an unvaccinated player known for advocating personal choice when it came to vaccinations, was not welcome.
This ended almost two weeks of international drama, where Djokovic was first granted a medical exemption by the tennis association, based on his testing positive for COVID in December, only to learn that the federal government did not accept the exemption when he arrived in the country.
From there, he was detained overnight at the airport, then sent to an immigration hotel (not five-star!) while his appeal was heard, at which point a judge ruled in his favor, saying that proper procedure had not been followed.
By this point, the prime ministers of both Australia and Serbia (Djokovic’s home country) were openly and vocally involved, with Djokovic’s father likening his son’s treatment to the crucifixion of Jesus.
As for opinion within Australia, Djokovic had become a persona non-grata in the eyes of many, the image of a rich, privileged athlete making up his own rules while the nation itself had sacrificed so much in the interest of health and safety.
For others, Djokovic was the image of integrity and conviction, refusing to bow down to government overreach and putting his legacy on the line rather than capitulating to tyranny.
In the end, the government’s primary argument was not that there was a risk that Djokovic could infect others with the virus.
Instead, the claim was that Djokovic was known for his anti-vax, anti-mask position, and allowing him to play in such a nationally prestigious tournament might encourage others to follow his example.
Based on that, he was deported. As argued by Stephen Lloyd on behalf of the government, “His presence in Australia was seen to pose an overwhelming risk . . . .” Note those words carefully: “an overwhelming risk.”
This was affirmed by Chief Justice Allsop, who stated that he accepted Djokovic could be seen as “an iconic sports star that is setting an example that is not ideal to be followed.
“If Mr Djokovic won the Open, as he has in the past, there is an example embedded in the Minister's reasoning that this is an example for young and not so young fans of tennis.”
So, the world’s number-one ranked tennis player, in pursuit of another title that would have pushed him ahead of his revered colleagues Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, should be banned from playing in Australia lest his potential victory encourage others not to get vaccinated or wear a mask. Really?
To be sure, the Australian Open has the right to determine what vaccination policies it will follow, and players can choose to comply and play or not.
In the words of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, “This tournament, this Grand Slam tournament – one of the big four – is much bigger than any one person. It’s very simple, just get vaccinated. And then everyone's time wouldn't have to be wasted with this.”
And, whether or not we agree with the government’s decisions, Australia is a sovereign nation and has the right to set its own policies.
Plus, as argued by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Australians had already made great personal sacrifices to keep their country safe “and they rightly expect the result of those sacrifices to be protected.”
He added, “Strong borders are fundamental to the Australian way of life as is the rule of law.”
As for Djokovic, he certainly made some mistakes along the way, a few of them quite publicly, as he himself acknowledged.
But was it right to deport him simply because of potential thought crimes? Was this yet another shocking example of Australia’s draconian efforts to combat COVID?
On January 6, conservative cultural commentator Bill Muehlenberg posted:
Good on him for standing against health fascism
Australia‘s response has been an utter joke
First he is granted an exemption while millions of ordinary Aussies do not get an exemption – money talks
Then we back-flip and his visa is rejected – follow the science
Australia is the laughingstock of the world
Covid is now the biggest sham and scam around
Medicine has become politicised
Politics has become tyrannised
Our leadership has become lobotomized
He also cited the words of Alan Jones, who wrote: “Is this an appropriate image for Australia? That the world’s leading tennis player, with no convictions of any kind other than the fact that some may disagree with his views, is now being treated like a criminal; firstly, reportedly, hauled up in a room at midnight with armed guards and then, reportedly, being told to leave the country tonight. And now, politically, it is being weaponized.”
He added, “Admittedly, people are angry that apparently unvaccinated people, be they tennis players or anyone else, are allowed into the country when other Australians have made massive sacrifices. But Djokovic did not make the rules. He just applied for an exemption. The exemption was objectively assessed by ‘medical experts’. Djokovic was granted an exemption.
“Now it appears that the visa rules which have applied to others who were granted exemptions, do not apply to Djokovic. It is easy to see Djokovic as the villain; but the image of an Australia treating a bloke like a common criminal owes more to the behaviour of a police state than it does to a liberal democracy. You either have rule by law or rule by the mob. Which is it?”
Once again, I am not for a second belittling the very real dangers of COVID, as I said repeatedly for almost two years now. And I am not minimizing for a moment the difficult decisions that governments must make during this pandemic.
But to ban one of the world’s top athletes from playing in your country simply because his personal choice not to be vaccinated might influence others is to set a very dangerous precedent, confirming the worst fears of many within Australia. How far will this go?
As tweeted by writer and artist Alexandra Marshall, “I don't know about you, but I feel *so* much safer now that our government has deported someone for wrong-think. Australia and the Morrison government are such a shining pillar of Western Enlightenment. /sarcasm.”
Dispropaganda
@Dispropoganda
Novak Djokovic becomes the first professional athlete in history to be banned from a major sporting competition for not taking drugs.
5:22 AM · Jan 16, 2022
“And no other players objected on principle and left the country too?”
With Djokovic out of the way, the others’ chances of grabbing the trophy improved. It’s about the win, fame and the money that they expect to follow. So “no”, no principles - not in an unprincipled world.
Bumper sticker
Countless Australian lives were probably saved by keeping Novak Djokovic out of the country. / s
Yeah, now we can say misery loves forced company.
“It ain’t fair that he didn’t have the death jab and we cowered to the tyrants and he didn’t. Throw the bum outta here, we don’t wanna have to look at ourselves. Whew, we are safe now”.
“What if the U.S. decided to ban Chinese citizens from entering due to COVID concerns?”
Every nation gets to control its borders, is not in dispute.
It seems this case points a new angle in border control in a country long thought to have political freedom of thought and expression. Also, as reported, and like in the US (illegal aliens vs citizens), non-citizen AUS visitors had process to seek virus exemptions not available to AUS’ own citizens. Djokovic, a person presumably with the natural antibodies, went through the legal process for exemption, which was so granted before it was rescinded. The reasons appear to be based on his expression of the virus issue which counter what the political powers’ are saying and doing. Apparently they fear that his presence may cause a domestic disturbance from within. Is shutting down the internet content on the horizon for Australia? After all, they control their borders - real and virtually, no? Can it happen here too?
Rumor has it that several other players were complaining about chest pains.
If vaccines are safe and effective, why do people have to be kept under literal house detention to force them to take them, and why is it repeatedly called an “enormous personal sacrifice” to take 2 shots?
Novak Djokovic’s career is probably over, because many other countries will not allow him to enter for the same reason. No jab.
Since the aussie government made crystal clear that this is a political issue, and Novak was on the wrong side, it’s time to relegate this tournament, and the entity known as australia, to the junior leagues for 40 or 50 years.
Maybe they can petition to get back to the adult table then.
RE: Their country, their rules.
No one, not even Djokovic himself disputes that. But is it based on sound science? Not really.
Rules can also be unscientific and illigical, which is the case in Australia.
“Their country, their rules.”
“That’s what I said about Germany in 1939.”
So true. What allows evil to prosper is for good men to just shrug their shoulders and do nothing.
No, and that's precisely the point. Even though their rules were in effect, I would have been morally bound to assess their import, rather than simply dismiss the whole thing with a casual "well, that's the way they do things in Germany." Now whether I, or anybody else, ought to have participated in the tournament is a completely different question.
And? Australia is free to set whatever criteria it wants based on whatever standards it wants.
If you are alluding to the following:
"A nationwide travel ban from China took effect on January 31, 2020, with a few confirmed cases in the United States. This ban was only for non-U.S. citizens who had been in China within the last 14 days and were not the immediate family member of U.S. citizens or/and permanent residents."
This was not a political targeting of Chinese individuals. Stop buying into the Dim talking points.
Djokovic's case was political. He was granted an exemption, then denied do to the fear that he would pose a "bad example" to the fans. From the article:
"This was affirmed by Chief Justice Allsop, who stated that he accepted Djokovic could be seen as “an iconic sports star that is setting an example that is not ideal to be followed.
“If Mr Djokovic won the Open, as he has in the past, there is an example embedded in the Minister's reasoning that this is an example for young and not so young fans of tennis.”
Of course, that wouldn't fly and they'd be rightly exposed as hypocrites. These athletes make fortunes playing in countries like China and radical Islamic kingdoms in the Middle East.
I never said it was. It is a decision the U.S. made that it thought best for its own security. Australia is free to make the same kind of decision.
Yes, but that was not the issue under consideration, and you're making my point for me. The issue was whether anyone should simply shrug his shoulders and dismiss the evil being done on the basis of the fact that it's "their country, their rules." Obviously the answer is no.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.