Yesterday, Djokovic's trip to the Australian Open was once again variable. First, in the afternoon, Immigration Commissioner Hawke announced that Djokovic's entry visa had been cancelled again, followed by another hearing in the Australian Federal Court last night. This morning, Djokovic was again detained by australian border authorities.
According to the information at the current hearing, Hawke's reason for making this decision this time is not the information that Deryo filled in the entry declaration that was discussed earlier, nor is it the reason for canceling the Djokovic visa for the first time: the question of Djokovic's medical exemption.
Hawke's basis is that Deyo's consistent position, non-vaccination attitude, and the huge impact of this incident may affect public attitudes towards vaccines, thus interfering with Australia's overall epidemic prevention work and affecting the "public interest".
Now things have been reversed twice, although it seems too complicated for a viewer, but in the law gradually tends to be standardized and clear, but also clearly shows how the judicial system of the Western countries with separate legislative, executive and judicial powers operates. Because this system is different from the legal system of our country, it will indeed make many people unable to understand, but understanding the logic behind it will be more conducive to the analysis and judgment of this event.
The advantage of the system of separation of powers is that power is fully limited, but there are also drawbacks of low administrative efficiency, often having to fight for several years on some complex matters, and there are cases of mutual conflict between deliberations and actions, and different government decrees.
So some people will say that if the Australian government does not engage in this set of moths, Djokovic will not run in vain. However, it is not so much the responsibility of the Australian government as it is the drawback of the system itself, and it is difficult to form a clear consensus in a short period of time under special circumstances.
But the interests of all parties have jointly pushed things to this point, which of course includes Djokovic's interests in wanting to participate in the Australian Open without vaccination. (As mentioned in the previous video), Djokovic is indeed basically compliant on the issue of medical exemptions, but he is also on the edge of the rules.
Djokovic is not well aware of the public opinion and administrative retribution of his public influence. Deyo's re-infection with the coronavirus on December 16 means that he suddenly has the possibility of medical exemption, but even if he announces that he is applying for a medical exemption immediately after infection, the Australian legal debate may not give him an accurate answer for a month, let alone he did not make it known before he left.
Some say he voluntarily released the news without being obligated to inform the public that he had a medical exemption, showing a sense of responsibility. But judging from the subsequent developments now, if Djokovic had announced that he was applying for a medical exemption early on, the chances of him being able to obtain a medical exemption were slim to none. If he had quietly arrived at the Australian Open without announcing his medical exemptions, the reaction from the Australian masses and the government could have been even more intense.
So, considering these situations, you will feel that Djokovic has his own "wrong" and his own "should". As for the other fans who emphasize that Djokovic just does not get vaccinated himself, rather than opposing the vaccine, or questioning the efficacy of the vaccine, this is actually not the focus of this matter.
Maybe Djokovic is indeed not opposed to vaccines, but in this black-and-white world, how many people will study their partners, from personality to growth experience, and even analyze the blood type of the constellation to understand the true intentions of a public figure? The public figure himself insisted on not vaccinating, and the symbolic meaning represented by the fermentation of society was to oppose vaccines, which had nothing to do with his original intentions.
In the era of individual media, public figures can have some personal choices on some social issues, but when these choices must be made public for specific reasons, these personal choices have social influence, and they need to bear corresponding social responsibilities and risks for this influence.
This year, some domestic stars have been exposed to smaller moral flaws and still turned over without breaking the law, which is also the case. If you say injustice, it is also a bit unjust to analyze rationally and rationally. But public figures who are on the edge of the rules are certainly more likely to get into trouble than the average person.
I don't advocate over-blaming Djokovic, because he is also an ordinary person, and it is not difficult to understand that these things happen to an ordinary person. But when you become a public figure, you are really no longer an ordinary person.