The Australian Open is scheduled to begin January 17th in Melbourne, the epicenter of Australia’s totalitarian COVID mandates. Australia granted unvaccinated tennis superstar Novak Djokovic a visa to compete. Australian border officials then attempted to block his entry and deport him, because he was unvaccinated. Novak Djokovic took the issue to the federal court in Australia, and won his legal case against the Australian government. The government then decided unilaterally to revoke his visa on immigration grounds. Djokovic appealed.
The world #1 ranked tennis player Novak Djokovic lost his appeal today to remain in Australia and play the Australian Open tournament. He was immediately escorted to the airport and kicked out.
The government did not hide their reasoning, as immigration minister Alex Hawke said getting Djokovic out of the country was “fundamental to safe-guarding Australia’s social cohesion which continues to strengthen despite the pandemic.”
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison echoed the Hawke sentiment saying forcing Novak Djokovic out of the country quickly was a matter of “public interest“, because his continued presence would destabilize the government. Morrison further stated, “Australians have made many sacrifices during this pandemic, and they rightly expect the result of those sacrifices to be protected,” allowing an unvaccinated person to enter Australia was a threat to the social fabric that has bowed to the controls and threats of government vaccination mandates.
None of the statements by the government, and none of their legal arguments had anything to do with COVID-19, or any medical issue or threat represented by Mr. Djokovic. The government didn’t even attempt to make any such case in their court arguments. Instead, the government relied upon convincing the court that Djokovic’s physical presence represented a threat to “social cohesion“.
To support the position of the government, Australian Chief Justice James Allsop stressed the court was ruling on the “lawfulness and legality” of the decision and not whether it was right or wrong to deport him. {LINK} The government can arbitrarily decide who comes and goes into the country, therefore, if the government wants to ban Djokovic for whatever reason, they can. That was the determining legal factor, nothing else.
Now we get to the key distinction between Americans and Australians. This is the point where many Americans find it difficult to reconcile with the outlook of Australians. This is where the distinctions in democracy become very important to understand.
Americans view any form of tyranny as bad. Americans, in the whole, view any effort to crush your freedom as a negative. Australians only view tyranny as bad if it is not applied equally. As long as everyone suffers the punishment of government equally, the pain is approved.
In Australia, government oppression is only bad if it is applied unequally.
If every Australian is forced to have their right hand removed to comply with government rules, then the removal of the hand is permitted. Everyone gets in line at the hand-chopper. However, if someone jumps out of the line and tries to escape, because they don’t want their hand removed, all the other people in line will chase him down, bring him back and hold him down while the government hand-chopper does the removal.
The American looks at this mindset with jaw agape and says, “F**k you, my hand isn’t getting removed, and neither should anyone else’s; and I will fight the government hand-chopper if it means stopping them, even if you are okay with your hand getting chopped.”
Generally speaking, the line of Americans to get their hands chopped will look scornfully as the two-handed rebel departs, but they accept his decision. (Although this outlook is changing in America – SEE HERE)
When an American sees a person fighting Australian tyranny (Djokovic), our gut instinct is to support him (we would if his confrontation was inside America – his location is irrelevant). We support the freedom fight, because we see the underlying reason for him fighting -his medical and health freedom- as having merit.
However, most Australians, who would fight for the type of freedom defined by their version of democracy, see Djokovic fighting for a specific freedom their mob democracy has already conceded and lost.
The anti-vax movement, writ large, does not independently support Djokovic on principle, because Djokovic is not acquiescing to the same rules they are subjected to.
There’s also a weird part of this where we recognize that Australians are unwilling to contemplate or accept that non-Australians might have different inherent rights because, well, they are not Australians.
The Australian system of government is based on a pure democracy. Extreme democracy. As soon as 50% plus one is achieved, the other 50% accept the rules of the majority, regardless how small that majority position might be. This is why everyone in Australia is required by law to vote.
The concept of minority rights or individual sovereignty, restrictions on the mob’s ability to interfere in your life, is unfathomable to Australians. Once a law is passed by majority consent, they all agree to follow it. That is their social compact.
As a result, when the government of the majority tells them to do something – they comply.
This is the “social cohesion” that was threatened by Novak Djokovic being allowed to exist as an unvaccinated sovereign citizen in the country.
♦ One man standing against Tyranny brings Americans to their feet in support.
♦ One man standing against Tyranny in Australia immediately triggers the crabs in the bucket…
Last point. Notice how there are some very famous people in Hollywood from Australia? There are hundreds of them, and many of them are very wealthy. Notice how they refuse to go back to Australia? Their ideological hypocrisy is rather stark. The Hollywood Australians are the worst kind of Australians; they have left the bucket, will not return to the bucket, yet advocate for the bucket crabs to keep everyone else in the bucket.
Centinel2012 