[ad_1]
Jerry Lynn is here. I stumbled across this interesting video from Glenn Greenwald discussing vaccine authorization and the Djokovic situation. Get a mug – or pot! – Coffee and enjoyment.
American tennis player @TennysSandgren He has had great professional success in Australia. But this year he chose to stay at home in protest of his vaccine mandate. I spoke to him about this sacrifice, the Djokovic controversy, and the general demand for a vaccine:https://t.co/Y4v2acBDKF
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 12, 2022
By Joshua Jowitt, Lecturer in Law, Newcastle University.Originally Posted in dialogue
Since the pandemic began, anyone wanting to enter Australia has had to contend with one of the strictest immigration and quarantine regimes in the world. While the need for vaccinated visa holders has loosened, strict rules have imposed on the unvaccinated to stay in place.
Naturally, Australian residents and others around the world are surprised by unvaccinated tennis star Novak Djokovic Announce He is travelling to Melbourne to defend his Australian Open title and has been exempted from quarantine requirements.
This exempt Djokovic Looking at many like the rules are bent for the benefit of the rich and powerful in a way that doesn’t happen to an ordinary citizen. The virus didn’t give him a free pass because he’s a high-profile tennis player – so why should immigration authorities?
While the outcome of Djokovic’s visa issue is uncertain at the time of writing, the double standard of the rules raises a larger question for legal philosophy: whether the application of the rules can be so unfair that we have no justification follow it?
The question of “one rule for them, another rule for the rest of us” often draws attention. Popular throughout the UK, deep pockets claim – often unbelievably – that their behaviour is allowed by the rules that limit the rest of us.Consider Dominic Cummings’ claim that his 50-mile round trip from Durham to Barnard Castle is a “Local Tour”, or Downing Street officials claim their late-night cheese and wine party is Not a party, but a work meeting.
The consequences of a system where one rule seems to apply to a few and another to everyone else has been warned by legal philosophers Gustav Radbruch. Given that he served as Germany’s Minister of Justice during the Weimar Republic and later as a respected legal scholar, we might as well draw on his views on how laws are made and maintained.
Lagerfeld argues that not putting the same rules in similar situations would be so unfair that it destabilizes the entire legal system. If the wider population believes that one person is exempt from the rules for no reason, others will (rightfully) point to the rules. They may ask why they should continue to follow it – if enough people do, the reason for having the rule in the first place disappears entirely.
This real drop Cummings’ public adherence to COVID guidelines following his trip to Barnard Castle is a case in point.
This phenomenon damages not only the rules concerned, but the system as a whole. If citizens lack confidence in a single rule, they may be more skeptical of other rules and refuse to follow them. Before we knew, we could reach a critical mass with so much uncertainty about which rules should all be followed that society would become ungovernable.
Radbruch Finish A rule that does not treat the same cases in the same way simply cannot become law. This is because a key requirement of the legal system is that it must be stable, which means that people need to know what the law is and when it applies. If a rule does not treat everyone equally, it can backfire and even increase skepticism and uncertainty about the law. If enough rules exist to create uncertainty about what the law is and when it applies, the system breaks down. Rules that undermine the legal system in this way cannot really be regular at all, and legal officials should not create or maintain them.
send him home
Ra’s might conclude that Djokovic’s exemption from Australia’s vaccination requirements is illegal and should be rejected. Treating a similar situation the same, requires us to ask Djokovic only if he is vaccinated – he is not, then the government will have the right to withdraw his visa.
Djokovic fans might claim that his recent COVID-19 infection means his immunity is equivalent to a vaccination, which should be enough, but regardless of these details, the perception is that Djokovic is clearly affected. Treated differently from other visitors. Therefore, the validity of this rule is questionable.
The fact that Djokovic is so ambiguous means we don’t even fully understand what the law is. The stability of our legal system depends on whether those who make the rules are transparent about those rules — and the reasons behind any exemptions.
The COVID restrictions have already been questioned, and Djokovic’s situation has worsened. Research from nearly a year ago showed that When people see more privileged people ignoring them and getting away with it, they are already starting to break the COVID rules. This disillusionment will likely only intensify as people’s patience wears off.
[ad_2]
Source link