A sad commentary on respect for freedom of thought in Australia.
SYDNEY—Australia’s decision to cancel tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa for a second time was driven by fear that letting him stay could foster antivaccine sentiment during a surge in Covid-19 cases, court documents show.
Immigration minister Alex Hawke didn’t dispute Djokovic’s claim of a medical exemption from rules that travelers to Australia must be vaccinated against Covid-19, according to documents made public Saturday. Hawke, who canceled Djokovic’s visa on Friday, said allowing the player to stay could sway some Australians against getting vaccinated.
“Mr. Djokovic’s presence in Australia may pose a health risk to the Australian community in that his presence in Australia may foster antivaccination sentiment,” Hawke said in a document detailing his decision.
This is from Stuart Condie, “Australia Feared Letting Novak Djokovic Stay Would Fuel Antivaccine Settlement,” Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2022.
READER COMMENTS
Jerry Brown
Jan 16 2022 at 12:42am
So what.
If the guy wants to visit Australia, he should comply with their rules. Or just not go. His choice. It is not like someone is forcing him to go there.
I don’t see how this is a freedom of thought issue. He is free to think whatever he likes. As am I.
MarkW
Jan 16 2022 at 5:57am
The point isn’t sympathy for Djokovic — he’s arguably the greatest tennis player of all time. He’ll be fine. The point is that Australia is excluding Djokovic not because he presents a health risk but because he represents a risk to the government’s imposition of its preferred messaging and a risk to successful suppression of opposing views. THAT is what is chilling. Even more chilling to me are the large numbers of people who appear to support his deportation for those reasons — to ‘send a message’ (the official government message, that is). We’re having quite the authoritarian moment.
Jon Murphy
Jan 16 2022 at 6:06am
He did comply with the rules. He got a valid exemption and was issued a visa. The visa was revoked not because he violated any rule, but because this one minister believed he threatened the narrative.
Jens
Jan 16 2022 at 8:23am
It sounds very problematic that there are laws in Australia that give so much weight to government discretion over individuals. From what I’ve heard, this decision is legal. But this form of “control” over one’s own borders seems to be quite popular there.
Funny quote from Mr. Hawke:
Nobody joins the Liberal Party to be left-wing, If you stand for compulsory student unionism, drug-injecting rooms and lowering the age of consent, you can choose the Greens, Labor or the Democrats.
Steve
Jan 16 2022 at 8:29am
Attempt #2 at making the block quote work…
I imagine most readers of this website would agree that communism is bad but also that McCarthyism is bad. Can’t we also agree that vaccination is good but (extralegal) persecution of antivaxxers is bad?
Steve
Jan 16 2022 at 8:35am
I imagine most readers of this website would agree that communism is bad but also that McCarthyism is bad. Can’t we also agree that vaccination is good but (extralegal) persecution of antivaxxers is bad?
steve
Jan 16 2022 at 6:49pm
Der Spiegel says he lied several times in his application. Do you have some information otherwise?
https://theprint.in/world/did-djokovic-lie-about-covid-test-in-serbia-report-casts-doubt-on-players-claims/804455/
Steve
David Henderson
Jan 16 2022 at 8:14pm
No, I don’t. Thanks for the link.
Daniel B
Jan 16 2022 at 8:51pm
I think whether or not Djokovic lied is irrelevant to the point of this blog post. The decision to use the logic of “his presence may foster antivaccination sentiment” was made as if he had never lied. The minister “didn’t refute Djokovic’s contention that he posed a negligible health risk” and “didn’t dispute” the medical exemption. So the minister’s argument reads like, “Even though he has a medical exemption, he still shouldn’t be allowed in, because his presence may foster antivaccination sentiment.”
In other words, following the medical exemption rules isn’t enough. You also have to follow the thought and influence rules ;). This decision would be like denying David from traveling to Australia, because even though he’s vaccinated, his opposition to vaccine mandates “may foster antivaccination sentiment.” Hopefully this makes the dangers in this precedent clearer.
David Henderson
Jan 16 2022 at 9:23pm
Good point, Daniel B. I had time over dinner to think about this and came back to make this point. Thanks for making it.
Monte
Jan 16 2022 at 9:49pm
Precisely. Australia has become puritanical in its attitude towards vaccine mandates and public health policy. All opposed are viewed as heretics, who must convert, comply, or be punished. In Djokovic’s case, denied the privilege to compete in the Open and a pilgrimage back to Serbia. Thus, the men’s final will have an asterisk.
steve
Jan 17 2022 at 9:53am
If Der Spiegel is correct, he got his exemption based upon a lie so your premise that “following the medical exemption rules isn’t enough” would be incorrect. If Der Spiegel is correct then denying him entrance was the correct decision. ( I may be biased since I hire a lot of people and lying on an application is pretty much an absolute no-no. Maybe it is OK in the econ profession.)
Anyway, per the BBC the final call was actually made by a panel of judges, not the Minister. The judges said that they would release the reasoning behind their ruling a couple of days so at this point we dont know why they decided. Of note, the defense for Djokovic claimed that he should not be deported because it would increase anti-tax sentiment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-60014059
Steve
Jon Murphy
Jan 17 2022 at 10:25am
The article you linked to says otherwise:
The judges were looking at whether or not the minister exceeded his authority. They were not deciding on the visa.
Again, whether or not he faked documentation is irrelevant here. The decision was not based on an accusation of forgery. Any claim of forgery being the motivating factor is a post hoc and contradictory argument.
Daniel B
Jan 17 2022 at 4:04pm
If it really is the case that he lied about his exemption then Australia would have every right to deny him entry. I’m not aware of anyone here who argued that if he lied he should still be let in.
As the quotes in my earlier post demonstrate, the minister made his decision assuming that Djokovic’s exemption was legitimate. Just like how a man who cheats on his wife with another woman would still be cheating on his wife even if the woman was paid by his wife to test him. The man’s decision was made assuming she wasn’t paid to test him, that she wasn’t an actor. There’s a YouTube channel called To Catch a Cheater that’s very relevant here; I think the videos are probably staged but watch some of them and ask yourself how you’d react if your partner behaved in the ways some of the test subjects behaved. If you’re like me you’d break up with them. If your partner gave an “but it was a setup” defense after getting caught cheating, wouldn’t you think that’s an irrelevant distraction from the fact that they were very willing and able to cheat on you?
If the man knew she was acting, of course he wouldn’t cheat (he knows he would just get caught), and similarly if the minister knew for sure that Djokovic’s application was deceitful, then of course he’d argue differently. But the cold fact is that those ifs are irrelevant, because the men’s decisions were made on other grounds.
robc
Jan 17 2022 at 1:53pm
We know it is totally irrelevant, as I have heard no claims that Renata Voracova lied on her application.
And Natalia Vikhlyantseva is vaccinated, but apparently Sputnik doesn’t count in Australia.
Nathan
Jan 16 2022 at 7:17pm
But no one complained when they banned David Irving from entering Australia. Seems like some of you are happy with banning the “right” people
David Henderson
Jan 16 2022 at 8:13pm
I didn’t complain because I wasn’t even blogging at the time. I think that was a bad move too.
Tom West
Jan 16 2022 at 10:11pm
I believe that Canadian and American authorities can and do deny entry of non-nationals into their respective countries for arbitrary reasons. (10 seconds Googling gave me a Canadian who was denied entry being told that marching in a Woman’s Day march wasn’t a good enough reason to be allowed entry and I’ve read stories of Americans being arbitrarily denied opportunity to speak in a booked engagement in Canada.)
I can certainly understand one’s objections to this, especially since a minister is involved. But this is, as far as I am aware, common practice in almost all countries. Australia is no exception here.
Jon Murphy
Jan 17 2022 at 5:42am
Ok but that makes it worse.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jan 17 2022 at 5:29am
Doesn’t this turn on the legitimacy of the initial “medical exception?” My suspicion is [I don’t know, but how many other commentators do?] that the initial “exception” was exceptional and at least the perception of it not being legitimate is what made his eventual denial of entry popular.
Jon Murphy
Jan 17 2022 at 8:39am
Of course, that’s true by definition 😉
Not according to the minister. Again, like steve’s comment about the false application, it is irrelevant. The minister made it explicit why he was revoking Djokovic’s previously-approved visa. We shouldn’t attempt to read in potentially more legitimate interpretations of the minister’s statement.
Monte
Jan 17 2022 at 11:44am
So Djokovic had an incontrovertible right, by both the letter and spirit of the law (natural immunity), to enter the country with an expectation to compete in the Open.
The chief justice is gaming the system here, by giving deference to the letter of the law over it’s intent.
This trumps all, regardless of which side of the debate we we’re on.
Comments are closed.