Opinion

The rebellion against nothing

photo_camera antivacunas

Few causes are as incomprehensible, unfounded and incoherent as the anti-vaccine movement that has flourished around the world, with more strength in some countries than in others. The stupidity and incoherence of the anti-vaccine alliance has been starkly exposed during the Djokovic affair in Australia

After the ATP No. 1 refused to declare whether he was vaccinated for Covid19, border authorities in Australia detained him for four days. After being released by a judge, the Australian Immigration Minister decided to use his prerogative to overturn the court decision and deport the Serbian tennis player on 14 January. 

The anti-vaccination movement has made Djokovic an emblem of freedom. In many quarters, his detention and subsequent interrogation has been categorised as a gross injustice, a flagrant violation of his human rights, an attack on his ability to cross a country's borders. In short, Nole's defenders, buying into the anti-vaccine discourse, point to what they see as a clear example of overreach by state authorities, resulting in an infringement of individual liberty. 

Herein lies the big problem for the pro-Djokovic movement and antivaccinationists in general: under the pretext of controlling a virus, democratic countries are veering towards an authoritarianism in which the unvaccinated will bear the brunt, being discriminated against by public authorities and society, deprived of a return to the much-vaunted new normality. This new normality will in reality be that of a much more authoritarian world, with draconian and arbitrary measures for those poor citizens who do not conform to the dictates of the authorities. Thus, the Djokovic case is a symptom of what is to come. If the ATP No. 1 is subjected to such humiliations, what will happen to the rest of the unvaccinated?

The ideological profile of those who have supported Djokovic and criticised the Australian authorities is quite marked. In Spain, it has been mainly prominent members of Vox who have defended the tennis player, treating him as "a symbol of the struggle for real freedom around the world", according to Isidoro Sevilla, the party's head of internal communications. "We owe Djokovic a lot" for having exposed the shame of "the irrationality and perversity of the politics of social control", tweeted Hermann Tertsch, MEP of the national-conservative party. Beyond Spain's borders, the political line of Nole's defenders is similar to that of Vox - whose voters, let us not forget, are the most reluctant to be vaccinated against Covid19. 

The anti-vaccine narrative is simple enough; the conjuncture it poses, simple: governments are arrogating to themselves a power they should not have at the expense of the individual sphere of citizens; we must be more vigilant than ever, especially the most vaccine-sceptical people, who will be singled out by the growing state Leviathan. Despite the simplicity of this message, its incoherence and absurdity come to light when one tries to conceptualise it. Likewise, the intellectual basis of this movement is conspicuous by its absence: its postulates are not based on any logical or ideological foundation worth mentioning. Nor is it clear what it actually claims, or what it is directed against. And, of course, it is a movement that refuses to rely on empirical and scientific evidence. Let's take it one step at a time.

The incongruity of the discourse in favour of the Serbian tennis player becomes very clear when the same people who advocate freedom of movement for the unvaccinated adopt a radically opposite discourse on EU borders and immigration. How curious that the political leaders most favourable to Djokovic have a markedly anti-immigration profile (both legal and illegal), especially with regard to migrants from developing countries. When is it justifiable for a state to defend the security of its citizens and close its borders to those it considers a threat? Why is Djokovic a victim of an outrage, but the millions of refugees rejected by an unchanging Europe are not? 

The inconsistency here is even more glaring when one considers that the Serbian tennis player had the option of vaccination; asylum seekers rarely have any choice but to risk their lives for a better future. In the case of Australia, the harshness with which it treats its migrants from developing countries is well known. The abuse and mistreatment suffered by thousands of asylum seekers in the detention centre on the island of Nauru over the past two decades has been denounced by experts, the UN and NGOs such as Amnesty International. But we will not see those who were outraged by the Djokovic affair. 

It is remarkable that a movement that claims to defend vulnerable citizens against state arbitrariness should end up defending the privilege of an elite athlete, who simply has to meet the same entry requirements for Australia as any other citizen. It is also surprising that they regard the call for a vaccination state as so horrible for freedom, but make no fuss about other illiberal policies widespread among democratic states, such as the restriction of the right to demonstrate in Spain or the UK, or the exaggerated scrutiny of Muslim minorities in France or Austria, to name but a few examples in Europe over the past decade. 

In short, the staunch defence of individual liberty that Nole's defenders claim to espouse is nothing more than a liberalism of the thumb.

Djokovic's apologists claim that no restrictive measures are necessary for the unvaccinated if, like the tennis player, they are not infected. However, in the same way that tropical countries require yellow fever or malaria vaccinations, what Australia requires is that those who enter its territory minimise their chance of infecting those around them. And vaccines are, at the moment, the only way we have to reduce this possibility. As much as sceptics may not believe that vaccines are a guarantee of anything, science has shown over the last year that the best way to protect against Covid19 and return to a longed-for new normal is mass vaccination. 

And just as almost all of us are (or will be) vaccinated for Hepatitis B, measles or flu, we have had the Covid19 vaccine. How curious that the same voices that lament the docility of the public with regard to the coronavirus vaccine do not do the same with regard to other vaccines that have presumably been given without complaint. The lack of scientific basis is coupled with the lack of intellectual basis for this alliance between anti-vaccine and Djokovic supporters. 

This is linked to another major shortcoming of this movement: its direction. To what, or whom, is it directed? What is it against? At its root, a rebellion must be against something, but the anti-vaccine cause has not found its nemesis. It is not an opposition to a threatening state, as it is not, as far as we know, opposed to other restrictive measures at the borders of countries, from visas to random checks, or to much more restrictive policies more damaging to human rights than asking for a vaccination certificate, such as those mentioned above in several European countries.

Nor is it a rebellion against the imposition of the common good on the individual. After all, when an individual's (legitimate) decision not to be vaccinated puts public health at risk, it is only logical that there should be firewalls. Recognising the right to privacy and the right to make decisions about one's own body does not mean denying the common space of coexistence, especially as far as health is concerned. 

In short, it boils down to an illogical and fictitious defence of the power of the individual, a nostalgic plea for a misunderstood individualism that makes no distinction between the private and the public, and which is only defended when it is in one's interest to do so. It is, in short, an empty rebellion, against everything and nothing at the same time, perhaps responding to the childish impulse to stand out from the crowd, to be rebellious just for the sake of being rebellious

Clearly, a reasonable discussion is needed on the Covid passport19 and the suitability of the measures dedicated to curbing the pandemic, far from stridency and simplifications. This writer does not even agree with the Australian and other states' policy of requiring visitors to have the Covid19 vaccine

In the end, the crux of the matter lies in the main inconsistency of the advocates of this misunderstood "freedom": libertarianism has as its fundamental concept not only the defence of individual rights, but also the personal responsibility to accept the consequences of decisions. And in the case of the Covid19 vaccines, the decision not to vaccinate does not only imply freedom of choice, but also the conscience that comes with it. Novak Djokovic is a functioning adult who understands the consequences of not vaccinating. It is time for him and his supporters to behave as such