Ends justify the means.
For what it’s worth, for me it’s not “ends-justify-the-means”, it’s more “ha ha! Antivaxxer is (hopefully) screwed!”
ETA: I would be equally happy if he was stopped at the door of Hamilton after having bought $10,000 tickets because they found his vaccine card to be fake.
No, it sounds exactly like what I posted…but I can see why the rewrite was necessary for you to try to make your point
I would be happy too. A fake vaccine card is not compatible with operating in good faith. So far the facts I’ve read about this story are compatible (though I agree with @kenobi_65 that they are also compatible with him trying to cheat and getting caught, and if so none of my arguments apply).
Just for the record (AIUI) when the visa applications are checked, it is done as a ‘blind’ process with numbers assigned to the applicants instead of names. So Djokevic was not being picked on maliciously, and in fact two other players have had their visas rescinded too.
In this case, yes, I think they do.
Do you think that the process did not do what it is intended to do in this case?
Per the website I linked to above, the process is supposed to not let you on the plane if you can’t enter the country. I’d be a lot less sympathetic if he’d been turned away at the airport.
One way to phrase it is: Every person who flies to a country thinking they can enter it and has to turn around and fly back home is a major policy failure.
Another way of responding to your question is: yes, the process did what it was intended to do in this case. I’m not super convinced that it didn’t do so at least a little by accident, and there are many better processes that could have accomplished these goals and also wouldn’t have so much collateral damage.
You can’t determine whether a policy is good by looking at a single example.
This thread isn’t examining the policy in general, tho. This thread is examining the policy as it applies to Novak Djokovic.
Is it the best policy or process? I don’t know.
Is it getting the job done in this instance? Yes.
You wrote this earlier (bolding mine):
Sure; how many people are you willing to employ full-time to do that job? One per visa application, so everyone has a personal contact point? Who’s gonna pay for that?
You talk of “absurd hoops” but then offer absurd solutions.
Rather than paying someone to review applications and try to reject them, we could pay someone to review them and try to help people fix them. We could also make the whole process less error prone. If we wanted to. Not doing so is a policy choice.
When rejected and you have to reapply, someone has to go through the application again. It’s a policy choice to force people to wait 2 weeks and submit through the mail rather than just fixing it right then.
It’s a little sad that “imagine a government bureaucrat who would help you fill out the form” instead of one with a big “REJECTED” stamp is seen as absurd. There are many organizations that manage to accomplish things effectively without perfect forms filled out in triplicate.
There are even government organizations that operate on this sort of principle (at least with respect to their own citizens). Unfortunately, as Americans we have little experience with that and assume that inefficient and inhumane government bureaucracy is a natural state of the world.
I would love to get this back on track to talk about Djokovic-specific info as it arises, or, lacking that, just laughing at him.
My suspicion is that Djokovic get a visa based on an exemption but couldn’t provide required proof when he arrived at the border and that’s what screwed him up. But I could be wrong on that.
Interesting to hear a hyper-local report, keep us posted!
I can’t like this enough.
This has been alluded to in the media (and is referenced above). He supposedly applied for an exemption based on having had COVID within the past 6 months (supply proof on arrival). On arrival, he had nothing (since he actually had COVID 18 months ago, not 6).
By about lunchtime there were six police cars, eight police, two media photographers and a dozen very determined refugee advocates who kept up the chanting despite it bucketing down and all their signs being drenched (the police snagged the dry spot in the entranceway - smart!)
Absolutely nothing else of note happened.
Winners of the day - dry policefolk getting an easy shift + refugee advocates getting their cause in the paper for a second day running
Most recent news is that he is relying upon documentation that shows him having had Covid. This raises two questions for me
a) is a previous infection sufficient to allow one into the country or the state? (I was under the impression that it wasn’t)
b) Isn’t it very convenient that he was positive on Dec 16th and clear by the 30th? Call me cynical if you like.
Not really - that’s actually a plausible interval to clear the virus. But I have zero problem with another test being required to prove he’s negative.
My scepticism isn’t about the period to recover, more that the timing was perfect. Outside of the season but just in time to travel to Australia (he thinks).
If recent previous infection is an acceptable criteria then fine, he just needs to prove it in the same way as absolutely everyone else. Knowing the Aussie people I suspect they aren’t taking kindly to anyone assuming to be above the regulations that everyone else has to adhere to.
Yes, well, I get that it’s convenient - but then, my covid isolation ended the day before my vacation time started. But I didn’t plan to get covid, and I asked for the time off a month and a half before I got covid. On the other hand, I had absolutely zero problem with providing legitimate documentation when requested. Not sure Mr Djokovic was as cooperative.