Australia Says Djokovic Can Be Detained Again If He Wins Case
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
It's already a long way down that path.
This is another example of our vindictive govt that goes after anyone who causes bad press for them.
But there is still a question of equal application of the rules. It seems like this is a problem of miscommunication (he obviously had the impression he could enter) and then subsequent politicization. At the same time, we have a celebrity that doesnt think rules apply to him. There are lots of countries with rules I don't agree with, but generally I either don't go to them or suck it up and do something I don't agree with. I wouldn't expect them to put me ahead of anyone else, and I don't see why Djokovic feels differently.
He could also have said "I'm not going to Australia, I don't agree with their politics, and I won't support them". I understand this is an opportunity for him to break a record, and so maybe that plays in to why he wants to go so badly. But it's not clear to me that Australia should just let him in because they screwed up, it is a complex case.
Why not? In general, the side that does something wrong is the side that shouldn't get what they want.
This is what happens when the governments choose to downplay the problem:
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/india-e2-80-99s-true-co...
> Australia has all the right to try to protect their citizens
Authoritarians measures are always passed with the alleged consent of the people to protect the people
USA attacked seven different countries during the eight years of the Obama administration. He intervened in Syria without the consent of the Senate or of the United Nations. I think we can agree that was an authoritarian measure.
I can think of a few possible answers, but none that are both a) legit and b) make a lot of sense.
Donald Horne, 1964. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country
Today, especially with the current PM and NSW premier this quote has never been more true.