It has nothing to do with sports
The Australian government wanted to gain political money from canceling the visa of Serbian tennis player Djokovic
Djokovic's supporters gather in front of the Australian Supreme Court during his visa review.
dad
Australians are demanding not to deport Djokovic.
dad
Djokovic screams ecstatic victory in one of his competitions.
dad
picture
The issue of Australia's revocation of visa for Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic, considered by many to be the greatest tennis player of all time, has nothing to do with sport, but rather politics, and has some commonalities with the issues of Afghan refugees in Australia.
When Djokovic entered Australia last week for the Grand Slam tournament, he was surprised by his detention by immigration officials, and his detention revealed the punitive and abusive nature of the country's immigration system, just as he did to a group of Afghan Hazara asylum seekers 20 years ago when the Australian Navy intercepted them at sea in what became It is known as the "Tampa Affair", in reference to the Norwegian freighter MV Tampa, which picked up migrants at sea after their boat sank and tried to bring them to Australia.
Immigration regimes are often abusive; So it's hard to analyze the details of both stories, but here's what we know about Djokovic: On November 18, 2021, the Australian government granted Djokovic a temporary visa to compete in the Australian Open, and soon after the Australian Tennis Organization decided that any previous infection of the player with the "Covid-19" virus or A report from the doctor will be sufficient to obtain an exemption from the vaccination rule for all players. Note that Djokovic was infected with the virus in December 2021. On January 5, Djokovic, unvaccinated, arrived in Australia and sees himself as exempt from his previous injury. After he arrived, Australian border officials took his passport and interviewed him, and the next day his visa was revoked because, according to the Australian government, previous injury was not sufficient reason to exempt him from mandatory vaccinations for incoming travelers.
In the Tampa case, international treaties, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, obligate Australia to take in Afghans fleeing war, which is why these Afghan refugees traveled to Australia believing they could apply for asylum there, but as with Djokovic, It turns out that the rules did not work at the point of entry. On the same day in August 2001 that former Prime Minister John Howard ordered the military to stop the MV Tampa from docking in Australia, the Border Protection Bill was introduced into Parliament, and the bill was implemented retroactively to prevent "unauthorized individuals" from Landing on Australian soil, even for the purposes of claiming refugee status.
The women and children on the ship were resettled in New Zealand, and most of the men were sent to Nauru, the world's smallest island country, where some spent years waiting for their status to be processed by the Australian government. (Many families on the ship were not reunited until 2004.) For Howard, he benefited from the immediate consequence, as his hard line on the border became a cornerstone of his successful campaign for re-election in November 2001. It is worth noting that the promise he made in his speech after the Tampa incident, “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” In it", it became his unofficial campaign slogan, as well as a road map to victory for conservative Australian politicians in later years.
The Djokovic visa revocation scandal must be seen in the context of the Australian elections, this story has nothing to do with sports but politics despite Djokovic expressing his doubts about vaccinations and refusing to be vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccine, which is the apparent reason why Australian border guards denied him entry.
When Djokovic's visa was revoked for the second time on Friday, after a federal court rejected the revocation on the grounds that Djokovic had not been given enough time to find legal counsel, the Australian government revealed its motives.
The reason for the cancellation was not because he had previously refused to vaccinate, or because he had broken the rules after he tested positive for COVID-19, but "for reasons of health and strict discipline, in the public interest", as stated in an extraordinary decree from Australia's Minister of Immigration, Alex Hawke. , who invoked his "immaculate powers" to justify this.
As Djokovic's lawyer pointed out, this decision did not take into account the impact that Djokovic's deportation might have on anti-vaccination sentiment.
Indeed, there were protests in support of Djokovic in the capital, Victoria, Melbourne, which led to fans being peppered and police injured.
These gatherings have been small so far, perhaps because Australia is one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, with a COVID-19 vaccination rate of about 90% in the country, making Djokovic's potential impact small and making Hook's justification for canceling his visa flimsy.
During the first day of his detention at the Park Hotel, Djokovic complained about food;
The Australian authorities refused to bring his chef to prepare food for him at the hotel.
The Serbian government stepped in, with Prime Minister Anna Brnabic saying: "We've been able to agree that he's getting gluten-free food, that he's getting his exercise equipment, and that he's already got a laptop and a card for his phone so he can call his family."
Without the help of their governments, life inside the Park Hotel would likely be dreary because they were not provided with amenities, and without Djokovic in a room next to the other refugees, no one outside would have known what food to serve to the refugees while they also waited for their cases to be adjudicated. of asylum. Protesters hoping to take advantage of the international media's presence to draw more attention to the refugees' plight have gathered outside the hotel in recent days. One refugee law advocate said Djokovic's case is, in many respects, similar to those of her clients: "procedural unfairness, preventing them from communicating with their lawyers, not giving them enough time to properly deal with the revocation."
As he did with Djokovic, Hook could use his massive discretionary powers to meddle in other immigration issues if he feels it is in his favour. In addition to the refugees stuck in limbo inside the Park Hotel, one case that has drawn attention is that of the Murugaban family. A family of Tamil descent from Sri Lanka fought a long legal battle to stay in Australia, as they were brought over from Christmas Island after one of their daughters, Tharnica, fell ill while on an island. Oddly enough, Djokovic's story has shed light on two decades of indefinite detention inside and outside Australian borders of some of the world's most vulnerable people.
Many questions remain, including why Djokovic's visa was issued in the first place if, as the government stated, it conflicted with the non-vaccinated entry policy.
The prime minister must answer other questions too if he is to win the election, as the Omicron mutation has hit the economy and healthcare sector hard.
There are reports of empty supermarket shelves and a dearth of rapid antibody tests, so why, then, Morrison in particular did not plan to buy enough boosters before strict border policies were imposed.
electoral gains
The scandal of Djokovic's visa revocation must be viewed in the context of the Australian elections, this story has nothing to do with sports but rather to do with politics despite Djokovic expressing his doubts about vaccinations and refusing to be vaccinated with the "Covid-19" vaccine, which is the apparent justification that prompted Australian border guards to prevent him from entering.
Many questions remain, including why Djokovic's visa was issued in the first place if, as the government stated, it conflicted with the non-vaccinated entry policy.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news