Quite correctly, the Chief Justice has reminded the government that deporting Djokovic would result in public anger, discord and protests: less than ideal during a pandemic.
Equally correctly, the government have responded that this is outweighed by people emulating Djokovic.
Equally correctly, the government have responded that this is outweighed by people emulating Djokovic.
In other words: the short term pain of those protests are outweighed by the long term gain of not having let through an anti-vaccine 'hero' and role model.
Further, the defence's argument that the *real* risk is posed by deporting Djokovic rather collapses when we consider the following:
The defence is arguing that Australian sovereignty is, in practice, superseded by the desire not to upset an angry minority... and it should therefore *reward* someone who's not been vaccinated.
That's clearly absurd and the precedent it'd set is ludicrous.
That's clearly absurd and the precedent it'd set is ludicrous.
As the government are also pointing out, the defence devoted a large section of their argument to "the minister didn't consider X, Y and Z" - which is curious when there is no statutory requirement in this case to even provide reasons.
Yet the minister provided substantive ones.
Yet the minister provided substantive ones.
Presentationally, Djokovic's counsel, Nicholas Wood, was infinitely more impressive than Stephen Lloyd, the minister's representative.
But I think the latter has the substance very much on his side.
But I think the latter has the substance very much on his side.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
