By JOHN YOUNG
The expulsion of Novak Djokovic from Australia by the Australian government has made worldwide headlines. The government claims this ban is justified, even though it deprives Djokovic of the chance of achieving a world record in the sport to which he has contributed so much.
This issue involves more than a decision about a particular individual. It raises very serious concerns about government power and how it was exercised in this case. Consider the reasoning given by the authorities for their action.
It is summed up in these words from Stephen Lloyd SC, lawyer for the Immigration Minister Alex Hawke. “Rightly or wrongly he is perceived to endorse an anti-vaccination view and his presence is perceived to contribute to that.”
The implications of that statement are serious. He is expelled from the country not for a clearly held anti-vaccination view but for the perception that he holds such a view.
But what if he does hold an anti-vaccination view? Is the government justified in banning someone from Australia who expresses opposition to the COVID-19 vaccination? The government thinks so, seeing that he has been banned merely for the perception that he holds that view.
If the government is entitled to do this, surely it is entitled to ban Australians from expressing the same view.
There is also the possibility, even the strong probability, that the government’s action will fuel anti-vaccine opposition, the very thing this decision is alleged to guard against.
The decision to expel Djokovic from the country is bad enough, but the implications are much worse. If this action were justified it follows logically that a harsh clampdown on the expression by Australians of concern about the vaccine would be justified.
After all, Djokovic has not opposed the vaccine, so influential people who do oppose it must present a far greater risk, if the government’s action against Djokovic is justified.
Not only that, but the same principle should logically be applied in other matters. If the expulsion of Djokovic is justified, so is the government’s perception of other disputed matters: If it is judged that harm will be done to the community by a particular stand, then the government is entitled to ban the expression of that particular stand.
Not only in Australia but internationally we are already a long way down that road, with bans and threatened bans on so-called hate speech when commonsense statements are made about essential differences between males and females, or about the unhealthy nature of homosexual activity.
Looking at the implications of this government ban, together with other unwarranted restrictions on freedom in our alleged democracies, it is clear that the so-called ratchet principle is operating: A ratchet turns only in one direction, leading to a progressive tightening. Laws tend to take away more and more of our freedom, with no equivalent gaining of freedom.
This situation is motivated in part by a lust for power in too many political leaders. We see this historically, with men risking their lives to gain power. The Roman Empire is an example, with the struggle for power leading to the assassination of emperors, yet the contenders continuing to take that risk.
A healthy society is based on the freedom of the person, with only such restrictions as are required by the common good. For each person is not just a part of a whole, like so many bees in a hive, but a being of intelligence and free will, with an eternal destiny.
From this understanding of the human person flows the principle of subsidiarity, so insisted upon by the Popes in their social teaching. This is the principle that what can be done by an individual or a lesser group should not be done by a larger group.
So if private enterprise can do a job efficiently it should not be done by the government; and if it is a task for government it should be done by the lowest level of government capable of doing it efficiently.
Certainly the menace of COVID-19 justifies a degree of government intervention that would be wrong in normal circumstances. But it should be strictly limited to what is necessary for the common good. And judgment of what is necessary will depend on our philosophy.
Our attitude to death is one factor. A person who sees our life on Earth as the beginning of an eternal existence will view things very differently from one who sees death as the end.
One who sees the state’s function as providing us with everything “from the cradle to the grave” will make different judgments from one who sees the state’s function as providing what we can’t get otherwise.
I believe we should see the expulsion of Novak Djokovic as unjust regardless of our philosophy. I think it will have the opposite effect to that intended, fueling opposition to the vaccine.
But it is more disturbing than that. It is a symptom of the threat of Big Brother to our freedom.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress