Australia Abandons Rule of Law

One of the fundamental principles of a bourgeois democracy is its adherence to The Rule of Law.  Basically, it means that everyone is equal before the law, so that no one is subject to arbitrary action being taken against them, even by the state itself.  Australia has just  abandoned that fundamental principle.  Its just the latest example of how increasingly authoritarian governments, have utilised Covid paranoia, to systematically remove basic bourgeois rights and freedoms from individuals, via a process of salami slicing.

The Australian government has decided to abandon The Rule of Law, and to ignore the legal decision of a properly constituted court of law, and to arbitrarily impose a sanction on Serbian tennis player Novak Jokovic.  Despite the court, having considered the relevant facts, and laws, deciding that Jokovic had a valid visa, enabling him to compete in the Australian Open Tennis Tournament, the Australian government has overridden the court, and withdrawn his visa.  Its necessary to sort out what is relevant and not relevant, here.

Jokovic has spoken out several times against vaccination.  It appears that he is in the camp of the had core anti-vaxxers.  Let me be clear, I have no time for the anti-vaxxers.  However, when it comes to the question of Jokovic's visa, what I, Jokovic, or the Australian government think about them is irrelevant.  Only what the law says, and whether Jokovic complied with it is relevant.  The court decided that Jokovic had complied,, because, although he had not been vaccinated, he had a valid exemption, based upon having been infected with Covid in December.  The Australian government has abandoned The Rule of law, because, although Jokovic has, thereby, abided by it, confirmed by an Australian court, the Australian government is acting as though he had not, which is an arbitrary act by the government.  It means that, in future, no one can now be sure how the Australian government might act, because its actions have become arbitrary and no longer consistent with the Rule of Law.

Now, Jokovic may feel, as many more people do, who are not hardline anti-vaxxers, that, because he is young, fit and healthy, Covid poses no threat to them.  On that I would agree with them, because we know that Covid is a virus that almost exclusively affects the elderly or with compromised immune systems.  They may think that its safer for them, whatever the small risk, not to be vaccinated, also, in the process making available vaccines for them who actually do need them.  Again, whatever I, Jokovic, or anyone else might think on that matter is irrelevant.  All that matters is what the law currently says, and the law currently requires anyone entering Australia to have been vaccinated unless they have an exemption.  But, again, Jokovic did have such an exemption, and so was in compliance with the law.  There was no reason for the visa not to be valid, therefore, and so the government's action is arbitrary and an abandonment of the Rule of Law.

I think that the law requiring such vaccination is itself idiotic, and illiberal.  Why should people who are fit, and healthy, and at no real risk from Covid have to be vaccinated?  What the law should do is ensure that those actually at risk can be protected, by ensuring that there are plenty of vaccines available to them, that health and social workers have proper PPE, and adequate contact protocols are in place to prevent spread of the virus to the vulnerable etc.  But, again, what my opinion or anyone else's opinion might be is irrelevant, because it is the current law, however, irrational that has to be complied with.  However, Jokovic did comply with that law, it is the Australian government that is not complying with its own laws, that has set aside the decisions of a properly constituted court, and which is acting arbitrarily, and outside the Rule of Law.

It has been suggested that part of the reason for the governments actions is in retaliation for Serbia pulling out of a deal with Australian based mining company Rio Tinto.  Possibly, but more likely seems to be that the Australian Prime Minister had gone out on a limb to proclaim that Jokovic would be sent back home, even before he knew the facts, and before the court had ruled in Jokovic's favour.  In other words this is simply a matter of a Prime Minister who lost face having jumped feet first into his own wide open mouth.  But, this is also a prime Minister, who like many across the globe has got used to simply making pronouncements without having to justify them with facts, or according to the law, as a result of a growing Bonapartism made possible under cover of Covid paranoia.

Rather like Boris Johnson in Britain, this is a Prime Minister who would rather abandon the Rule of law, in order to save his own face than to admit he was wrong.