Right: Rafael Nadal: Djokovic ''knew the conditions since a lot of months ago''.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments supporting Novak Djokovic playing in the Australian Open
1. Djokovic is unlikely to have recontracted or spread COVID19
Supporters of Djokovic being able to play in the Australian Open claim that as someone who has contracted the disease twice in the last six months his acquired immunity would be sufficiently high to mean that he would pose no health risk to other players, court attendants or officials.
Djokovic announced that he had tested positive for COVID in June 2021, shortly after having played in an event in Belgrade and then another in Zadar, Croatia.
After Djokovic's arrival in Australia, it was reported that he had also tested positive for COVID on December 16, 2021. Herald Sun and Weekly Times commentator, Andrew Bolt, has stated, 'The now twice-infected Djokovic would have more antibodies than any twice-vaccinated player. He couldn't be less of a risk on our streets, so there's no rational reason to keep him [detained]... Let me stress this again: Djokovic poses less health risk than the average Australia Open ball boy. To ban him seems not just irrational but spiteful...' Queensland senator, Matt Canavan, has also claimed that allowing Djokovic to play posed 'little risk'. Canavan stated, 'Natural immunity by multiple studies is much, much stronger than the immunity you get from having a vaccination.' The same point was made by several international commentators and medical authorities. On January 11, 2022, Harry Rakowski, writing for the Canadian National Post, explained the very low level of risk Djokovic poses. Rakowski states, 'It is highly likely that Djokovic's December infection was with the Omicron strain now dominating worldwide cases. He is now at least three weeks post infection and almost certainly no longer contagious. Indeed, he is now safer to be around than virtually any uninfected person with full vaccination. The Omicron strain frequently pierces immunity in vaccinated people who themselves can thus transmit infection to others even when asymptomatic. Individuals with recent Omicron infection are highly likely to have high levels of selective antibodies against the new strain. It is akin to having been vaccinated with a special vaccine specifically developed to prevent Omicron infection, a specific vaccine being considered but not yet available to anyone.'
On January 15, 202, Theresa Raphael, writing for the New York-based Bloomberg Opinion, stated, 'Assuming he did indeed test positive on Dec. 16, or around then, his antibody levels would presumably be comparable to someone who has been vaccinated. Australians can usually get a temporary exemption of up to six months for a PCR-confirmed infection.' A very similar position was put by Dominic Wilkinson, Professor of Medical Ethics, and Member of UKRI Pandemic Ethics Accelerator, University of Oxford, in a comment published by Science Media Centre on January 14, 2022. Professor Wilkinson stated, 'A key ethical question is whether countries like Australia that wish to reduce spread of Omicron should take into consideration the fact that someone (who is unvaccinated) has confirmed evidence of a recent infection. If he had a positive PCR test in December, there is good reason to think that he would have a comparable (low) risk of being reinfected and then passing on the virus, as if he were doubly vaccinated1. He does not pose a risk to other players or to the wider community - any more than the other players in the Australian open. That is not current Australian policy, but it would be an ethically proportionate, logical and rational way of making decisions about entry.'
2. Djokovic received different and conflicting directions from Tennis Australia and the Federal Government
Supporters of Djokovic note that the tennis player came to Australia in good faith to play in the Australian Open having been informed by Tennis Australia that he had valid grounds for a vaccination exemption. The original directions he received were later overturned by the Federal Minister for Immigration, Alex Hawke. The original advice from Tennis Australia was supported by a federal circuit court judge.
A leaked document from Tennis Australia reveals that the organisation informed unvaccinated players and other tennis-related people that they could enter the country for the Australian Open if they had caught COVID within the last six months. Information published from this leaked document by The Herald Sun on January 8, 2022, stated that among the grounds for vaccination exemption was being a recently recovered COVID sufferer. The document states that a recent PCR-conformed COVID infection (occurring after July 31, 2021) would allow vaccination to be deferred for six months.
Djokovic supplied documentation claiming that he had been diagnosed with COVID via a PCR test on December 18, 2021. Therefore, according to the advice he received from Tennis Australia, Djokovic would not have needed to be vaccinated until June 18, 2022. His supporters claim that the tennis player had every reason to believe that he would be allowed to play in the Australian Open. In total, 26 'tennis-related people' applied for vaccination exemptions to attend the Australian Open. These applications were vetted by two separate panels and the vetting was 'blind', that is, the panels did not know the names of the people making the applications. This means there was no opportunity for Djokovic to be given special consideration because he was the most recent former winner of the Australian Open. Victorian government minister Jaala Pulford said the 'blind' assessment process ensured nobody knew the identity of any of the 26 people who applied for exemptions. She stated, 'Novak isn't coming to play the Australian Open [with an exemption] because he's the biggest tennis star of them all. He's coming because he has been able to demonstrate through this process that he has an eligibility under the rules that apply to everybody else in the country.' The two-panel process involved exemption applications being considered by multipole doctors. Pulford further stated, 'They're considered by not one doctor that you know, but six that you don't.'
The federal Government subsequently overturned Djokovic's medical exemption and held him in immigration detention while the tennis player's legal challenge was being heard. In challenging the over-turning of his exemption, Djokovic's lawyers noted that in addition to meeting all stated requirements, Djokovic had received a document from the Department of Home Affairs on January 1, stating '[his] Australia Travel Declaration [had] been assessed', and that '[his] responses indicate[d] that [he met] the requirements for a quarantine-free arrival into Australia where permitted by the jurisdiction of your arrival'.
Djokovic's challenge was upheld by Federal Circuit Court judge, Anthony Kelly. Kelly noted that Djokovic had provided officials at Melbourne's airport with a medical exemption given to him by Tennis Australia and two medical panels. The judge concluded, 'The point I'm somewhat agitated about is, what more could this man have done?'
3. Many athletes, other than Djokovic, have been granted full or partial exemptions from COVID regulations
Supporters of Novak Djokovic being allowed to remain in Australia note that throughout the COVID epidemic exemptions have been granted and exceptions made to allow sporting competitions to continue. Many argue that these exemptions are valid and that high-level sporting competitions should be able to continue, with safeguards, even if this means treating competitors differently from the general public.
Those managing sporting competitions can be relied upon to organise them in a way that will protect public health and safety. Keith Rathbone, Senior Lecturer in Modern European History and Sports History at Macquarie University has stated, 'We should trust the [sporting]organisations to work closely with the Commonwealth and state governments to develop COVID protocols that will allow sports to continue and keep locals safe. These should be bespoke rather than general and could include a range of strategies other than vaccine mandates, such as masking, quarantines, social distancing, and COVID bubbles.'
Special exemptions have already been made for athletes other than Djokovic so that sporting competitions can continue. Most countries have a special visa procedure for elite athletes, for instance. Before COVID, athletes coming to Australia also bypassed many ordinary border rules around importing equipment and goods and earning money without long-term working rights. These special rules have continued during the pandemic. Freedom for athletes to travel has been a cornerstone principle for many sporting organisations, such as the International Olympic Committee. For example, the IOC is currently working with the Chinese government to allow travel for unvaccinated athletes for the 2022 Winter Olympics (with a 21-day quarantine), even though China's borders have been closed to most other travellers. The US Open did not mandate vaccines for players in 2021. Players were instead tested when they arrived in the United States and then every four days after, and they were ordered into isolation if they returned a positive result. (Fans, however, were required to be vaccinated.)
As of February 22, 2022, the United Kingdom, now states that elite athletes arriving in the country 'who do not qualify as fully vaccinated will have to take a pre-departure test and a test on or before day 2 after their arrival but are no longer required to take a test on day 8. They are no longer required to self-isolate when they arrive unless their test is positive.' Under these conditions, Djokovic would be allowed entry to the United Kingdom. Australia has already made special provision for athletes to travel within Australia more freely than ordinary citizens have been able to. In 2020, AFL and NRL players - and in some cases, their families - travelled widely into states with border lockdowns. Australian athletes have also been the beneficiaries of special hotel quarantine provisions, priority access to vaccinations, and forewarnings from government officials about border closures. Even without vaccines, the 2021 Australian Open was kept safe using restricted fan zones, mandatory masking, social distancing, frequent testing of players and staff, electronic line calling, and mandatory 14-day hotel quarantine on arrival.
Supporters of special exemptions being granted elite athletes argue that sporting competitions make a particularly valuable contribution to the morale and mental wellbeing of a nation, especially in times of hardship such as a pandemic. In an opinion piece published in The Canberra Times on February 11, 2021, John Warhurst, an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University, stated, 'Community morale...may just mean the reassuring sense that life can continue as normal in the worst of times. Sport is not the only contributor to this reassurance. But it can provide diversion from the boredom and hardships that pandemic life serves up for many people in the community.'
4. Banning Djokovic based on his views is a threat to freedom of expression
It has been argued that the decision of the Minister for Immigration, Alex Hawke, to withdraw Novak Djokovic's entry visa based on his known anti-vaccination views represents a threat to freedom of expression,
The immigration minister cited Djokovic's high profile and previous statements against vaccination and claimed that these statements might encourage others to refuse vaccination. He further claimed that Djokovic's presence could lead to civil unrest.
Those who reject this view argue that Djokovic's ejection from Australia is more likely to provoke civil unrest than his continued presence would have been. Djokovic's lead counsel argued that his client has played in tournaments all around the world without inciting anti-vax protests. His counsel further pointed out that the anti-vax protests that had recently erupted in Australia concerning Djokovic were against the government's decision to cancel his visa. Djokovic's lead counsel stated, 'It is irrational and unreasonable to only look at one side of the coin.' Civil liberties groups are concerned about the way the government handled the situation and have warned that democratic freedoms could be placed at risk. Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns, SC, has released a statement claiming that this case sets a dangerous precedent. Mr Barns has stated, 'Our concern is the Federal Government's view that it did not have to prove that Mr Djokovic would foster views about vaccination that are contrary to the government, but simply that he may foster those sentiments. This is a very low bar for excluding a person from Australia particularly in circumstances where the power to review or appeal the decision is so limited.'
Mr Barns has stressed the concerning risk to freedom of expression that the Djokovic expulsion poses. He has noted, 'Using the criteria of a possible risk to public order as a reason to refuse a person entry into the country is troubling in a society supposedly committed to freedom of speech and freedom of thought.' Michael Stanton, president of Liberty Victoria, has additionally claimed, 'It's very different from [denying a visa] for someone who has expressly said something about inciting violence or encouraging unrest.
The reliance on how someone might be perceived sets an impossible standard for that person to meet.'
Migration law experts have noted that the Djokovic case demonstrates the laws could be used to exclude a person who has previously expressed political views the government did not agree with. Michael Stanton has stated, 'Deportation of a person because of a purported risk as to how others might perceive them and then act sets a terrible precedent.
It can and will be used in the future to justify the suppression of legitimate political expression because others might engage in unrest.
One danger of largely unfettered discretions, or "God powers", is that decision making just becomes political and populist ... eroding the integrity of the executive and the rule of law.'
Greg Barns has further claimed, 'The federal government's attitude could see other high-profile visitors to Australia refused entry to suppress alternate views. If, for example, a high-profile visitor to Australia expressed negative views about the Australia-US alliance, would the government ban this person because this view may encourage people to protest at Pine Gap?'
5. Djokovic was deported for political reasons
Supporters of Djokovic being allowed to remain in Australia to play in the Open argue that his deportation was largely politically motivated, that is, that the federal government was seeking to increase its popularity with voters by having the tennis player removed from the country.
Some opponents of Djokovic's removal argue that the federal government was seeking to show its strong position on Australian border protection and on maintaining public health. Border protection, in particular, is a politically sensitive issue in Australia and one on which some former governments have succeeded in winning elections. Saskia Peachey, writing for the Australian magazine Jacobin, in January 2022, began by outlining what she claims is the Australian government's current mishandling of the pandemic and then suggested that the deportation of Novak Djokovic was an attempt to gain some political advantage by appearing to be taking strong action.
Peachey states, 'Over the last week, the COVID caseload in Australia has skyrocketed... The health system is overwhelmed, the economy is reeling, and gaps are beginning to appear on supermarket shelves. Much of the blame should be directed at Scott Morrison's federal Liberal government.' She then suggests that the government's action against Djokovic is a political distraction, claiming, 'Seen in this context, rescinding Djokovic's visa is a shallow political stunt. It's an attempt by the Morrison government to regain a degree of credibility and authority in the face of a looming election and a health crisis for which it bears overwhelming responsibility.'
Herald Sun and Weekly Times commentator, Andrew Bolt, has similarly stated, 'Why have politicians been so keen to abuse Djokovic and ban him, when he poses virtually zero risk of infection and has followed the law to the satisfaction of a judge? I suspect it's because they are cheap populists who reckon there are more votes in this election year in pleasing an irrational hate-baying mob than in defending sweet reason.'
This view has also been put by many overseas commentators. Vasek Pospisil, a Canadian who won the 2014 Wimbledon men's doubles title and has worked with Djokovic to form an association to represent players, has stated, 'There was a political agenda at play here with the (Australian) elections coming up which couldn't be more obvious. This is not his [Djokovic's] fault. He did not force his way into the country and did not "make his own rules"; he was ready to stay home.'
No 1 British tennis player, Andrew Castle, a British broadcaster, and former no. 1 tennis player, has also concluded, 'I think we'd be pretty naive not to think there were some politics at play here with the decision of the immigration minister in Australia to bring this to bear in the first place.' The same point has been made by Djokovic's father, Srdjan Djokovic, who has stated, 'This has nothing to do with sports, this is a political agenda.' The Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has similarly accused the Australian government of 'harassing' and 'maltreating' Djokovic for political purposes to gain popularity before the 2022 elections. The Serbian Tennis Association (TSS) has claimed that Djokovic was being exploited by Australian politicians for their own political purposes and that this had implications for all international sporting competitions held in Australia. The TSS stated, 'It begs the question whether athletes will from now on be incarcerated like criminals and deported when it suits the political interests of powerful individuals.'