The decision in the Djokovic case

should be ringing alarm bells. 

It is sending the wrong signal on so many fronts. 

First of all, it is our responsibility to know the law. We don't know the law in fine detail of course but we are presumed to do so. Our legal system could not function in any other way. This applies to everyone, even visitors.

If someone is applying for a visa to enter the country then it is also up to them to provide all the relevant information and do so in a way which can be verified. It is also the responsibility of the visitor to apply for the correct visa. 

You must also comply with all the conditions of getting the visa and keeping it.  

Djokovic is apparently known to be "anti-vaccination" and that alone should have been a warning signal. He also says he has had Covid,  is therefore "immune", and is not required to be vaccinated. As yet he has not answered the questions surrounding the allegations that he was seen, apparently fit and healthy and without a mask, at a public event on the day after he supposedly knew he had Covid. All that has happened is that some "medical experts" have informed the relevant authority that this is the case. Yes, we have to accept that they are telling the truth but when elite sport is involved then questions might well be raised.

And then there are the curious demands Djokovic made. He has his own personal chef? He is "vegetarian" and then (or so we are told) he is "vegan"?  If people wish to be vegetarian or vegan or anything else then it is up to them but does an elite sportsperson really rely on only plant-based sources of protein? What sort of money is someone getting in order to be able to afford their own chef - along with the rest of his "team"? Is being able to hit a ball over a net really worthy of being so highly paid? Does the law really need to consider someone like this a special case - so special that the court timetable had to be cleared in order to hear it immediately?

There are other people in detention in this country and elsewhere. Some of them have been in detention for years. There are people who have left voluntarily because their visas have run out of time or were not correct. There are other people who have been deported.  Similar situations exist in many other countries. 

Just a short while ago I was included in an email from a doctor who has spent some years living and working in another country. He went there on the right visa. The visa was renewed more than once so that he could go on working there. He has seen a medical centre built. He has trained staff to run it. Along the way he has performed many life saving operations.  He has done a great deal of good and this has been acknowledged by many people, some of them very senior people indeed. This time though, when he applied for another visa extension, it was not granted. He is leaving the country he loves and feels more at home in than anywhere else. Those responsible for the granting of such visas have made a decision that he has to accept, that the people around him have to accept. 

I would rather see the doctor than the tennis player win. It seems to me the doctor has much more to offer. There has also been far more attention given to Djokovic than someone like Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. That all seems wrong to me.

And is this decision actually saying to the federal government, "No, you don't have the right to decide who comes into the country?" The judge is reported to have said, "What more could this man have done?" Was he suggesting that the airport staff responsible for border security should allow everyone in regardless - simply because they have done all they could do? 

There are all sorts of other questions which could be asked but perhaps the one we really need to ask is this, "Is the ability to hit a ball over a net really that important?"