1) He was refused entry. 2) He appealed in court and got it overturned. 3) The government overruled that using their power and threw him out.
Surely that’s it. How can he overule the government of the country he is trying to get into?
Surely that should be that.
If he wins the appeal, can the government just overule it again and throw him out?
Can the tournament organisers throw him out?
Ot seems their government have an alternative option to refuse his via if he wins this appeal. He only won the previous appeal on a procedural issue (only given 20 minutes in the middle of the night) and not the merits of his case, anyway
If only his supporters could take some of the facts on board. His martyr status is plain ludicrous.
Hmm. Having read the summary of Health Minister Hawke’s case, I was surprised and a bit concerned that it let him off things like his dodgy test, and focused on his status as a potental civil flashpoint; because that is a qualitative judgement, difficult to prove ahead of events. I ws even more puzzled because I’d assured my wife that Hawke would have done his homework before revoking a second time because of the global focus.
However I think this Guardian article may hold the key to Hawke’s strategy
I now reckon it wasnt just lawyers hard at work last week but diplomats. The Serbian govt. may have had - or been given reason to have- second thoughts about dying on the hill called Novax.
The journalist who has penned that is Serbian and in Belgrade, btw.
1) He was refused entry. 2) He appealed in court and got it overturned. 3) The government overruled that using their power and threw him out.
Surely that’s it. How can he overule the government of the country he is trying to get into?
Surely that should be that.
If he wins the appeal, can the government just overule it again and throw him out?
Can the tournament organisers throw him out?
Ot seems their government have an alternative option to refuse his via if he wins this appeal. He only won the previous appeal on a procedural issue (only given 20 minutes in the middle of the night) and not the merits of his case, anyway
If only his supporters could take some of the facts on board. His martyr status is plain ludicrous.
Emergency appeal hearing underway. Government arguing that his presence in Australia will encourage the anti-vax community and therefore poses a health risk.
In defense, they say denying his entry could have the same effect.
Surely all of that is completely irrelevant as he lied on official papers? Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if court overturn the decision.
Emergency appeal hearing underway. Government arguing that his presence in Australia will encourage the anti-vax community and therefore poses a health risk.
In defense, they say denying his entry could have the same effect.
Surely all of that is completely irrelevant as he lied on official papers? Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if court overturn the decision.
Exactly! Why aren't the Oz government going down that route? I feel same as you and wouldn't be surprised either. I believe the government have another option they can go for if he wins this appeal which should mean he will run out of time. Not sure why the judges are being as they are - the only thing I can see is why would any decent lawyer in Australia, or the UK for that matter, work for the government on government wages when they can ern oodles more working for the super rich?
A sad incitement on society that the best don't work for the public purse because the privileged and super-rich can pay them so, so much more. No wonder the Djoker thinks he is above everyone else and can do the feck he wants.
Ah of course. A public opinion poll submitted to a federal court hearing…. And supporters saying we should support him on the court, not in one.
Losing my marbles a bit over here.
Agreed. How can the (woke?) judges question the impact of anti-vaxers compared to that of those who don't support Novac which must be circa 80% other than the anti etc ones being more fervent And Serbian?
Ah of course. A public opinion poll submitted to a federal court hearing…. And supporters saying we should support him on the court, not in one.
Losing my marbles a bit over here.
What about a (anonymous) poll of tennis players and pundits? Novac has lost respect whatever the record books record re his results. He is never going to be a Federer and may have issues going to the US and potentially elsewhere in future. Quite rightly
Last week, much was made of Djokovic's error on his travel entry form into Australia. But the government is not using that error in its legal argument - wtf? He lied, repeatedly. I don't understand why they aren't going down this (obvious?) route?
Last week, much was made of Djokovic's error on his travel entry form into Australia. But the government is not using that error in its legal argument - wtf? He lied, repeatedly. I don't understand why they aren't going down this (obvious?) route?
I think that could be overlooked as just and error and not help Govt case. I have read the documentation from the Australian Govt, submitted yesterday to the court. This does include the fact that he met with the journalist on 18/12, when he was positive. Also that he has admitted to that. The thrust of this from AG is that his actions show a blatant disregard for others health and could likely influence others with Covid to do the same. The judges would no doubt have to consider this information as it reflects upon his character.
Nothing new to add but I've always loathed Djokovic and now he's really shown his true colours... arrogant shit of the highest order. Hope this experience messes with his head just as he has used gamesmanship to mess with opponents.
Actually his character (before this debacle) was nearly as perfect as his tennis playing. A man of sincere faith, set up schools for the poor with his wife and he seems to have a zillion really good testimonies. And unlike the fake charity types he doesn't make a noise about the good he does for others.
It looks as though he is history and will be on the first flight out of Australia.
While this might satisfy angry Vax types and bigots who hate Serbs (there are many) I can't help thinking that the tournament will be so much less without the best player in the world participating. Whoever wins it will always know in his heart of hearts "I didn't beat the best tennis player in the world to get this trophy".
I fully get the argument that rules are rules and everyone must abide by them. But I wonder whether we are all 100% consistent with this. Djokovic isn't "just another passenger on a plane flying to Australia". He's the best tennis player on the planet. The planet therefore wants to see the best player playing. I wonder if views would shift if England were playing Brazil in the World Cup final in Qatar and there was some issue with Harry Kane's "papers". Would we join the mob demanding Kane be sent packing (because everyone else in his situation would because of the "rules" or otherwise ...
OK - I'll feed the troll just this once.
There is no doubt that a Grand Slam tournament will be the lesser if (arguably) the greatest tennis player of all time isn't there. People have the right not to take the vaccine - I have an issue with that choice but fully accept it is a decision that should be accepted if not respected. Whatever he has done in the past, however sincere his faith (not sure what a belief in a big man in the sky has to do with it) it appears he has lied and placed others at risk.
I would fully support the Australian Government's decision to decide for themselves whether or not that is acceptable, but in my opinion it isn't.
Jokes aside; a good rich person who gives to charity and "starts up schools", does it unconditionally. They don't assume that because they've given to charity etc, they can lie and do what the f*** they want.
Relatively speaking (to their individual wealth), there must be 100,000s of people across the world who have given a lot more of their time and money to charity than Djokovic has, and they wouldn't be getting a squeeze on the rules.
Unconditionally ~ Yes I agree. And this seems to be what he and his wife have done for some years I understand. Unlike suspect celebs who are at pains to tell the world how generous and loving and caring they are. I think with this couple they seem like decent people. I'm not sure the people calling him a "chronic liar" are being altogether fair here. It's clear his stance on the vaccine differs from the stance the Australian Govt have taken. If that means he is sent back to Serbia ~ so be it. But chronic liar? I'm not convinced. Hancock, Johnson, Fauci ~ yes I can see someone arriving at that definition where they may be concerned.
I hope, for tennis, he IS allowed to compete. Defer the court debacle until after the tournament and, if banning him for 3 years after this year's grand slam is their verdict ~ so be it.
Last week, much was made of Djokovic's error on his travel entry form into Australia. But the government is not using that error in its legal argument - wtf? He lied, repeatedly. I don't understand why they aren't going down this (obvious?) route?
I would guess that denying him entry because of the effect his presence might have during the country's vaccination effort has a significant difference to denying him entry for lying, insofar as future years.
It could be argued that, if he were to apply for a visa next year, it works be harder to grant him one of he'd been previously reported for lying on a visa application.
But denying him entry this year because of a material effect he'd have on the vaccine rollout this year works not necessarily cause future years' application to be turned down.
In other words, they've made it easier for him to come back in the future.
Hmm, I hope I’m right that the strategy the Oz govt took in court has been agreed with Serbia- that they would not shame the country by going hard on the dodgy PCR test and the dodgy doctor - because the first thing I heard in reaction was journo from the Torygraph highlighting the weakness of the evidence, and thus implying that its a stitch-up.
As I think we all agree, none of the main actors come out of this with any credit, though the top players like Nadal and Murray do, IMO, for their measured but principled stance.
Hmm, I hope I’m right that the strategy the Oz govt took in court has been agreed with Serbia- that they would not shame the country by going hard on the dodgy PCR test and the dodgy doctor - because the first thing I heard in reaction was journo from the Torygraph highlighting the weakness of the evidence, and thus implying that its a stitch-up.
As I think we all agree, none of the main actors come out of this with any credit, though the top players like Nadal and Murray do, IMO, for their measured but principled stance.
Think the Aus government look pretty good from what I’ve seen, took a reasonable stance and stuck with it.
Comments
However I think this Guardian article may hold the key to Hawke’s strategy
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/14/novak-djokovic-fans-fury-serbian-politicians-tone-rhetoric-down?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I now reckon it wasnt just lawyers hard at work last week but diplomats. The Serbian govt. may have had - or been given reason to have- second thoughts about dying on the hill called Novax.
A sad incitement on society that the best don't work for the public purse because the privileged and super-rich can pay them so, so much more. No wonder the Djoker thinks he is above everyone else and can do the feck he wants.
And supporters saying we should support him on the court, not in one.
I think with this couple they seem like decent people. I'm not sure the people calling him a "chronic liar" are being altogether fair here. It's clear his stance on the vaccine differs from the stance the Australian Govt have taken. If that means he is sent back to Serbia ~ so be it. But chronic liar? I'm not convinced. Hancock, Johnson, Fauci ~ yes I can see someone arriving at that definition where they may be concerned.
I hope, for tennis, he IS allowed to compete. Defer the court debacle until after the tournament and, if banning him for 3 years after this year's grand slam is their verdict ~ so be it.
It could be argued that, if he were to apply for a visa next year, it works be harder to grant him one of he'd been previously reported for lying on a visa application.
But denying him entry this year because of a material effect he'd have on the vaccine rollout this year works not necessarily cause future years' application to be turned down.
In other words, they've made it easier for him to come back in the future.
Put a sign round his neck saying: "No thanks, we dont want this one"