Djokovic suffered an unprecedented ups and downs in 48 hours, having announced on social media the day before that he had received a medical exemption from Victoria and would be successfully participating in the Australian Open. However, this news then aroused australia's "public anger" and the Australian government's attention, the latest news is Australian Prime Minister Morrison announced that Djokovic's visa was cancelled, the incident eventually inevitably led to a farce.
So far, all the focus of the debate has been on whether Djokovic used "privilege". So is Djokovic's medical immunity a privilege? In a sense, yes. Privilege, also known as the right to liberty, is a political and economic right outside the law and the system. The word "exemption" for medical exemption actually means that this is an "exception" outside the regulations.
However, now people will immediately explode when they hear "privilege", but in fact, privilege is sometimes not necessarily a bad thing, regulations are often blunt, for some special groups and special circumstances, it is necessary to provide some exemption channels, so that law enforcement is more humane and warm. A typical example is the emergency lane on the highway, which is usually forbidden to go, and when your life is in danger, you have a temporary "privilege".
This privilege depends on your "special circumstances," and what we call the masses usually says about privileges depends on "special status." Therefore, in Western countries that are very sensitive to "privilege", the Australian Open has also produced some evidence to prove that Djokovic's medical exemption is due to his specific circumstances rather than special status, and there are two arguments:
First, Djokovic's medical exemption was assessed by a panel of experts after hiding some of the key information. In other words, the panel did not know at the time of its assessment that the person it was evaluating was Djokovic, and was judged by "circumstances" rather than "identities."
Second, in addition to Djokovic, there are other athletes who have passed medical exemptions, and of course there are athletes who have not passed medical exemptions.
From these two points, djokovic's legal logic of obtaining medical exemption is closed-loop, the first is that Djokovic is eligible to apply for medical exemption, the existence of medical exemption itself is for people to apply, and the second is that the medical exemption review method itself also takes into account the avoidance of "privilege" interference.
But everything went in a different direction, and the Australian epidemic prevention department finally determined that the evidence provided by Djokovic was insufficient to be evidence that he was exempted from medical treatment, which was equivalent to the high court changing the judgment of the lower court. Border Customs immediately revoked Djokovic's visa, Djokovic will be on the repatriated flight, and some more information is gradually revealed.
Does Djokovic meet the requirements for a medical exemption? Judging from the relevant provisions of medical exemptions, Djokovic is relatively likely to meet the situation that he is only a fierce physical reaction to the vaccine or has been infected with the new crown virus within six months.
The Australian government revealed that it has written to the Australian Internet Association on several occasions saying that people infected with the new crown virus within six months are not enough to grant medical immunity. This has led to the assumption that djokovic's evidence is likely that he has been infected with the new crown virus in the past 6 months and cannot be vaccinated. This means that Djokovic may have had another viral infection during last year's Tour.
However, if this is the case, whether this provision written in the medical exemption can be invalid because of a letter of specific concern for specific issues of the government seems to require a more detailed Australian judicial interpretation. In this regard, Djokovic's legal team is also ready for appeal.
From the currently known information, if the Australian Open and the Victorian government did not release Djokovic's information during the medical exemption review process, it can be said that Djokovic's special status does not seem to allow him to obtain additional convenience, and even allows him to apply for medical exemption as an ordinary person with more restrictions and privacy exposure, and "enjoy" his "privileges" in the opposite way.
Therefore, some people who are considered to be "privileged" may also lose the rights of some ordinary people when they are supervised by public opinion, especially in the context of the epidemic, in this populist Internet era. I am against privilege, but I am also against the carnival of lust in the name of opposing privilege.
We welcome you to discuss the logic of the whole thing, and hope that under the various so-called "isms" and "positions", we can learn to pay attention to the chain of evidence and argue the logic between law and facts, so that we can remain sober in this unpredictable era