The other side of the court: what the Djokovic debacle teaches us about liberties, government and refugees
Novak Djokovic — 20-time grand slam winner, record 9-time Australian Open champion, and, earlier this month, detainee in Melbourne Park Hotel, one of Australia’s border detention centres.
The Serbian tennis star found himself at the heart of a media frenzy, when his entry into Australia to participate in the hugely anticipated Australian Open was denied. Long story short, after a lengthened legal process, Djokovic was given a visa to enter the country and then had it revoked over the course of a few days. In the end, he was deported. The state argued this was on the basis that he had failed to accurately complete a medical exemption form to validate his entry into the country without Australia’s usual requirement of a double vaccination; Djokovic, his legal team, and both the Serbian president and prime minister all argued the move was a political power play.
At its simplest, this is an instance of justified deportation based on a failure to adhere to the immigration rules of a country. However, introduce a pandemic and a refugee crisis into the mix, and the core issue is revealed to run deeper. After a dramatic turn of events, this multifaceted debacle has stoked widespread debate on a number of pertinent issues — most importantly, Djokovic’s seemingly anti-vaccination stance and the treatment of refugees by Australia’s notorious immigration policy.
Living through a pandemic has constantly drawn our focus to our fundamental civil liberties. While civil liberties are the cornerstone of any democratic society, they have proved to be somewhat more malleable in these ‘unprecedented times’. Public health interests have allowed governments to spur their citizens towards getting vaccinated. Though Djokiovic has never officially disclosed his vaccination status, he has made this view clear before in a Facebook live where he said that he "wouldn't want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine" to travel or compete in tournaments. As an individual with autonomy and free will, Djokovic has the right to decide what goes into his body; it is on this basis that we can presume he has indeed decided to remain unvaccinated. This by no means justifies the galvanisation of anti-vaccination activists following Djokovic’s visa dispute, as he has never endorsed the more extreme positions on that spectrum. However, former British no. 1 Tim Henman has expressed his belief that it will be “very difficult” for Djokovic to further his professional career without changing his stance on vaccination against Covid-19.
Criticism for Djokovic on this basis takes root more in opinion than fact, so it falls beyond the purview of this article. However, throughout his detention in Melbourne Park Hotel, the tennis star has also been criticised for a failure to use his situation to emphasise the plight of refugees who go through a similarly humiliating process but without the funds, political support, and popularity that Djokovic has.
Australia’s immigration system is controversial at best and morally bankrupt at worst. While Djokovic was detained with the prospect of a quick turnaround for visa hearings and the support of the world’s press, the same hotel houses 33 refugees — some of whom have been detained there for years, subject to a blatant disregard for their fundamental human rights.
As of December 2020, at least 1,500 refugees remain in a limbo in such detention facilities. Upon arrival to Australia, a staggering number of refugees are kept in offshore detention facilities on neighbouring islands for years, before even being allowed inland. The Migration Act 1958 endows the Australian immigration minister with discretionary powers to cancel a visa. In some instances, the requirement of due process can even be circumvented — such as where a “person’s past and present general conduct” suggests “the person is not of good character”, or represents “a danger to the Australian community”. This power to cancel visas retroactively on tenuous grounds evidences the overstated, arguably draconian ability of a singular individual within government.
Some have argued this instance represents the wider tendency of political systems with powerful executives to exercise their power arbitrarily. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been criticised for escalating the dispute with Djokovic to distract the Australian public from the government’s Covid-19 failures. The allegation was tweeted by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who accused Morrison’s government of using the scandal as “one big political distraction from empty shelves and the national shortage of boosters & RATs”.
Scratch just the surface, and the Djokovic scandal appears an amusing scuffle between a privileged sportsman and an incoherent immigration system. But strike deeper, and the matter becomes microcosmic of the issues of our time. It highlights the growing hostility of governments to accountability, the slow encroachment against individual autonomy, and reignites the eternal suspicion that all are not truly equal before the law.
