Friday, February 18, 2022

The Demonisation Of Novak Djokovic

While certain sections of mainstream media continue to vilify Novak Djokovic with the label “anti-vaxxer,” such a cliched and unthinking dismissal of his stance misunderstands both the nature of the man and the arguments he is making. The trumped up case made by the Australian immigration minister to justify  banning him from competing in Australia and then deporting him last month alleges Djokovic engaged in efforts to disssuade people from being jabbed but thus is simply untrue. Throughout the whole sorry saga, which has brought shame on the Australian government, the Serbian star has insisted he is not trying to influence anybody, merely exercising his inalienable human right (as defined by the Geneva convention of 1948, to delince a medical procedure he believes to be unnecessary for him. He has also defended the right of people to be vaccinated if they wish. 

If fault lies anywhere it is with the Austrialian government, it is their fascistic behaviour in trying to force everybody to get a shot of toxic shite that will not immunise them but is 1000 times more likely than any previous vaccine to kill recipents. (By precedent any medication that is linked to 50 deaths worldwide is withdrawn on safety grounds. To date over 50,000 deaths in UK, USA and Europe have been linked to COVID vaccination.

Novak emphasised this point in a recent BBC interview, the first he has given since his abortive attempt to win a 10th Australian Open title turned into a full-blown Covid-19 culture war. “I was never against vaccination,” he said. “I understand that globally, everyone is trying to put a big effort into handling this virus and into seeing an end to this virus.”

There is a big difference between exercising a personal choice to decline vaccination and questioning the by what right governments and scientists beleive that private citizens should be forcibly compelled, to accept a controversial medication that was rushed through development, by - passed full clinical testing and which was approved only for emergency use after vaccine manufacturers had been civen across the board idemnity from legal action in cases of physical or emotional harm arising from vaccination. Sadly, such are the efforts to caricature Djokovic as the demonic counterpoint to the faultlessly virtuous Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal that politicians, academics and the media have totally failed to recognise the virtues of his personal case for refusing vaccination, leaving him in a position where he can do nothing to dispel the misconceptions crrated by an orchestrated propaganda campaign that he is a self-absorbed menace to public health.

The strength of Novak Djokovic's self belief is beyond doubt, demonstrated b his ability to deny Federer a ninth Wimbledon crown from two championship points down or through his conviction that his superbly conditioned body has no need for the interventions of a vaccine that will neither make him immune to the disease it is marketed as a preventative for, nor stop him spreadig the disease. This is a man who described crying for three days after finally agreeing to surgery on his elbow in 2018, regarding it as an expression of weakness and personal failure.Many of us, like Djokovic, have stood by the principle of If it ain't broke don't fix it, with regard to the much hyped COVID pandemic, facing the opporobium and mass hysteria of the unthinking blob who rushed out to get vaccinated and are now blaming we the unvaxxed for the fact that they have caught COVID and are now experiencing fatigue and a series of minor health problems consistent with a compromised auto - immune system.


Even so, it was startling to hear him admit that he would give it all up – the pursuit of Nadal’s 21 major titles, the right to be acclaimed as statistically the greatest player of all time – for the sake of his belief that he should be free to refuse a Covid vaccine. 

“Why, Novak, why?” asked the BBC’s Amol Rajan, aghast. But in Djokovic’s view, such a liberty overrides any other concern. He has scaled the most improbable peaks in tennis through his obsessive control of every variable in his physical conditioning, even down to the type of water he drinks. He is not about to make any exception now, especially when his paperwork to enter Australia, admittedly much-disputed, suggests that he has already had the virus twice.

But the realities that he is young, low-risk and supremely fit afford him no immunity to the chorus of international condemnation. The received wisdom is that Djokovic, through his apparent prioritising of his own interests over the common good, must be stripped of any right to compete. 

One has to wonder in what kind of world do the baying mob of mainstream media journalists and pundits think we live, in which it is deemed appropriate for politicians, journalists and celebrities to give a complete stranger medical advice? ,It may well be the case that the average Australian politician, journalist or celebrity has a literacy level equivalent to something that dropped out of a Wombat's arse, but media contributors in morer advanced nations would do well to  research the Hippocratic Oath the Nuremberg Code, the aforementioned Geneva Convention on human rights and perhaps read Milton Friedman's book Capitalism and Freedom to get a sense of what is being fought for here.  


Simon  Briggs

Novak Djokovic’s position on vaccines is as unsurprising as it is eye-rollingly daft.

Here he is, claiming not to be an anti-vaxxer on the grounds that he has never pushed his opinion on others. And yet his interview with the BBC stood at the top of their news website on Tuesday morning, above the build-up to what some anxious observers are terming World War III.

In other words, Djokovic is denying the essential fact that his decisions have an impact on others, whether he likes it or not.

In his world, he is entitled to take control of his own body, without reference to the wider consequences. And yet, through the drama surrounding his ill-fated trip to Australia, he has become one of the highest-profile refuseniks in the world – probably THE highest-profile.

His unparalleled athleticism makes him the ultimate poster child for those who have imbibed conspiracy theories online. He comes across as a clean-running, friction-free biological machine – the key to his status as arguably the greatest male tennis player of all.

As a vaccine sceptic, Djokovic thus represents the human equivalent of the perfect storm, particularly for his many hero-worshippers in the Balkans. Put simply, his actions will make it harder to suppress the virus. So while he has the right to sidestep the vaccine, it is pure sophism to claim that this doesn’t make him an anti-vaxxer.

While the concept of athletes as “role models” has its problems – especially when used as a prurient excuse to trawl through a footballer’s bins – there is a certain responsibility that comes with the sort of fame and fortune that Djokovic has amassed.

Yes, he lives in an ivory tower – or rather several ivory towers, in Monaco, Marbella and Belgrade. But when he goes to a tournament, he will be mixing with other players, as well as fans, media, officials and so on.  

And here we return to the essential interconnectedness of things. Each person at that tournament is a little safer because of every dose of the vaccine shared by their peers. Why should they welcome someone who believes they know better, in defiance of all scientific proof.

To put it in more formal terms – and borrow a line written by the influential author Cary Doctorow – “Human beings have an undeniably entwined epidemiological destiny. There are few epidemiological choices that are purely personal - they redound to the people around you.”

from Comments:


  1. In what kind of world do you think it is appropriate to give a stranger medical advice? Another moronic piece by a deluded DT sports journo. Please research the Hippocratic Oath and the Nuremberg Code and perhaps read Milton Friedman's book Capitalism and Freedom to get a sense of what is being fought for here.

  2. ‘Each person at that tournament is a little safer because of every dose of the vaccine shared by their peers’

    We’ve got governments and pharmaceutical companies worldwide who stand to gain financially pushing these injections without anyone being prepared to take responsibility for possible future risks. You’re an idiot if you don’t take a closer look and make your own personal decision based on risk. No one can know the long term effects and with a drug that does little to prevent spread anyway. Your body, your choice.

  3. “Should be be vaccinated?” - entirely up to him!!! Good in him for standing up for choice and body autonomy.

  4. Good for Novak.

    A principled, intelligent, courageous man. A true inspiration.

    Given that these experimental gene therapies confer neither immunity nor protection from infection they should be renamed ‘treatments’.

    Given that the ‘omicron’ variant is mild to all that catch it because it affects the upper respiratory tract so is not likely to cause complications like pneumonia there is no longer any need for anybody other than the very most vulnerable to continue with these ineffective medicines.

  5. Good on him. He's a positive role model for the minority of us with our DNA still intact.

  6. Oh dear - sounds like Simon Briggs is a fully paid up Covidian bedwetter.....

    Put simply, his actions will make it harder to suppress the virus.

    No Simon it won't as the jab neither prevents infection or spread and his natural immunity from having Covid is way better than the clot shot as PROVEN in numerous medical papers (go and search for the Israeli studies)

    So Simon you're a paid up shill for the vax zealots - pathetic

  7. "Each person at that tournament is a little safer because of every dose of the vaccine shared by their peers."

    The same applies to countries. I mean, just look at Israel and its stunning success in controlling infection via vaccination.

  8. To Simon Briggs: you cite "all scientific proof" as the reason why (presumably) we should all be vaccinated. This despite the fact (now proven beyond all doubt) that the jabs prevent neither infection, illness or transmission. The side effects of the jab are real for enough people that under previous guidelines this drug would not be allowed onto the market. The data is totally clear on who may be vulnerable and to what extent. So when you use the phrase "eye rollingly daft" to describe the stance of someone who chooses not to be vaccinated, what insight do you have that the rest of the world doesn't? Life should not be about complying with the exaggerated diktats of the political class, or post rationalising your own beliefs by pouring scorn on those you disagree with.

  9. I agree Novak shall not be banned, all un-vaccinated sportsmen should be banned!

  10. Should Novak, or anyone else, be vaccinated?

    Only if they freely choose to be.

    Should Brown be ashamed of himself for suggesting anyone should be vaccinated? Yes he should.

  11. ‘In his world, he is entitled to take control of his own body, without reference to the wider consequences……… Each person at that tournament is a little safer because of every dose of the vaccine shared by their peers. Why should they welcome someone who believes they know better, in defiance of all scientific proof.’

    Where to start with this? Everyone is 'allowed' to take control of their own body for goodness sake. Lose bodily autonomy and what comes next? Mandated organ donation 'for the greater good'. Euthanasia of the unproductive 'for the common good'. Who knows?

    As for each person being safer due to the vaccines taken by others - this is misinformation I'm afraid. Really DT you should not be publishing this as it has been entirely debunked. Vaccines do not prevent infection, Vaccines do not prevent transmission, Currently they show NEGATIVE efficacy ie vaccinated people are MORE likely to be infected (and transmit) than unvaccinated. This is from UKHSA latest data. p43

  12. Djokovic has the right to be vaccinated or not as he sees fit. He is however required to fulfil entry requirements to any country he visits and any tournament he enters. The furore in Australia suggested a manipulation of the rules, the paperwork and the facts to by-pass the country and tournament requirements which does not sit well with many regardless of where they sit on the spectrums of choice and/or vaccination.

    Maybe I am not alone in seeing this interview as a well timed rallying cry attempting to mobilise support.

  13. I fully support the principles of consent and bodily autonomy. But professional athletes already don't really have bodily autonomy insofar as there is whole raft of regulations they must follow which dictate what substances they may and may not put in their bodies.

    I also absolutely do not support the wealthy and powerful trying to have their cake and eat it by not getting vaccinated, securing fraudulent documentation to 'prove' they're exempt and lying on visa applications to evade the same consequences that everyone else would have to accept. The man is a disgrace.

  14. Should we comment or have an opinion on someone’s vaccination status? Absolutely not.

  15. Why should he "absolutely " be vaxxed? Its his body - bodily autonomy is a precious thing in this Covid averse world. Natural immunity will ultimately serve him better than constant vaxxing against new varieties. See the Yellow Card or CDC reports for adverse effects of these manufactured mRNA injections.

    1. How on earth does the vacc make everyone safer when in fact all governments and stats tell you it is just making it less likely that you get severely ill, it does not prevent infection and infecting others at all. So the only reason to get it is if you believe yourself at risk of getting severely ill, that is it, there is no wider good in it.

    2. Why does the author believe that Djokovic having a vaccine will make others safer? he has been infected twice, the vaccines do not stop transmission. The argument it keeps others safe is for the birds and misses the point entirely. It is nobody's business whether he is vaccinated or not, and shame on those who continue to peddle this nonsense

    3. Why should he be vaccinated? The chances of a super fit athlete in their 30s being hospitalised with Covid is lower than being struck by lightning.

    4. I would have had far more respect for him if he had been honest about his stance rather than

      deliberately lie and use his fame. I couldn't give a monkey's whether he was vaccinated or not personally but he was rightly forbidden entrance under the circumstances he created himself.

    5. I read a piece in the Mail where Donkeyvic had said about the vaccine "he believes in the freedom to choose what to put in his body! The poor people in Srebrenica didn't have that choice, did they?

      Are you suggesting Mr Djokovic had a hand in that massacre?

      I could not understand why this was the headline news on BBC all morning until I saw the BBC advert for an interview Amol what's-his-face has done with Djokovic. In truth it really is all last month's news and since there will be no vaccine requirements for him to be at Wimbledon is all just a waste of air time!

    6. Disgusting article. Would expect it to be from the BBC or the Guardian.