An Australian judge decides that the world’s number one in men’s tennis is allowed to travel to Down Under. The politicians should be careful not to overturn this judgment.
The trophies won from the Australian Open are honored together with their hero in Novak Djokovic’s homeland.
You can think what you want of Novak Djokovic. Refusing to be vaccinated can be seen as a right or stupidity. One can rightly ask why such a stir is made about a guy who is characterized by the fact that he hits yellow balls better than other people. And one can also find it annoying that international sports events – tennis, Formula 1, the Olympic Games – take place while the world is still characterized by travel restrictions and entry quarantines because of the pandemic.
But that’s not what the drama about the world number one in tennis and his trip to the Australian Open is about. The point is that there is an Australian exemption, according to which unvaccinated players can travel to the tournament in Melbourne. Novak Djokovic is not vaccinated. But Djokovic fulfilled the exceptional conditions – two independent commissions found that.
It is needless to discuss whether this rule is correct. It is understandable that it is badly received by the Australian people. Australians were cut off from the outside world for almost two years in the name of fighting pandemic. You missed out on special birthdays and weddings of your best friends. They were missing when grandchildren were born. They could not accompany close relatives to their death.
However, those responsible should have considered in advance whether an exception rule for unvaccinated tennis players is reasonable for the people or not. And not only when they saw that the people’s soul was cooking because of Djokovic.
When the border guards canceled Djokovic’s visa and put him in extradition custody, Prime Minister Scott Morrison tweeted: “Rules are rules – especially when it comes to our borders. Nobody stands above these rules. ” The Prime Minister believed that this would score points with the voters and distract them from his own failure to fight the pandemic. That was the cheapest populism.
What Morrison and the other politicians who play as defenders of Australia probably did not expect: Djokovic did not just get on the plane and fly home. He did not accept the cancellation of his visa.
Usually backpackers and illegally entering migrants get stuck in the network of the Border Force. Or refugees whose need for protection is recognized under international law, but who are kept in camps for years (some in the same hotel as Djokovic). All of them can hardly defend themselves against the decisions of the powerful immigration authorities, which have a great deal of discretion.
Djokovic was able to defend himself. And he did.
Anthony Kelly, the judge who gave Djokovic back his freedom, seemed to have bothered mainly with formalities. Put simply, Kelly realized that someone who has fulfilled all the requirements for a visa to the best of their knowledge and belief should not simply lose it again. “What else could the man have done?” Asked Kelly rhetorically.
In theory, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke can again cancel Djokovic’s visa despite the judge’s ruling. Its powers in this regard are almost unlimited. But he would do well to let this be. The damage to the image for Australia is already big enough. Anyone stuck in a hole should stop digging.
For the chest-drumming politicians that means: “Admit to yourself that you have miscalculated.” All you have to do is watch the Australian Open on TV – and hope that Djokovic doesn’t win the tournament too. Otherwise, in addition to the damage, they also have the mockery.