Chuck The Lying Asshole Out!

[andrewfi]

Chuck the self-obsessed tennisist out of Australia.

The guy lied, broke the law in Serbia and Australia and wants 'special treatment' because of his status.

He has admitted lying. He met with people after he knew that he had a positive test result for Covid-19 and wanted to get into Australia to earn a shit-tonne of money even though he knew that he was not eligible to enter the country unvaccinated.

I have my suspicions about the very convenient timing of his 'infection' although an antibody test might clear that up. Nonetheless, he was not eligible to go to Australia.

He planned a deceitful, dishonest course that other players chose not to take.

Whether you think that the regulations are good or not, he had no right to choose to break them.

If he was infected and infectious it was wrong and irresponsible to be meeting with other people knowing that he was infected with covid-19.

I surmise that his actions before going to Australia suggest he knew that his test was a fake.

Tell me how wrong I am.

[Contrarian]

Chuck the self-obsessed tennisist out of Australia.

The guy lied, broke the law in Serbia and Australia and wants 'special treatment' because of his status.

He has admitted lying. He met with people after he knew that he had a positive test result for Covid-19 and wanted to get into Australia to earn a shit-tonne of money even though he knew that he was not eligible to enter the country unvaccinated.

I have my suspicions about the very convenient timing of his 'infection' although an antibody test might clear that up. Nonetheless, he was not eligible to go to Australia.

He planned a deceitful, dishonest course that other players chose not to take.

Whether you think that the regulations are good or not, he had no right to choose to break them.

If he was infected and infectious it was wrong and irresponsible to be meeting with other people knowing that he was infected with covid-19.

I surmise that his actions before going to Australia suggest he knew that his test was a fake.

Tell me how wrong I am.

Don't really care one way or the other but if Australia wants to toss him they should.

[AvHdB]

Found this on line. It seems a bit more messy, my guess Aussies are like the English rather intolerant of line jumpers. He is though Serbian and they tend to be hot headed.

“It’s a dog’s breakfast,” said Mary Crock, a law professor at the University of Sydney. “The rules are changing all the time, no one knows which rules apply, that’s the essence of this. You’ve got a massive conflict between the migration law, the biosecurity law, state decision makers and the federal government, and everything is in conflict.“

[andrewfi]

Except it isn't. To get a visa you must be vaccinated. Previous, convenient, infection does not give an exemption for the vaccine requirements. It's on the relevant website for all to see.

Before you ask, I checked, I went to the site, I read the words. I checked the exemptions.

[Contrarian]

Except it isn't. To get a visa you must be vaccinated. Previous, convenient, infection does not give an exemption for the vaccine requirements. It's on the relevant website for all to see.

Before you ask, I checked, I went to the site, I read the words. I checked the exemptions.

Yeah, the problem with natural immunity is that it works so much better and doesn't contribute to the narrative. But getting a vaccine and still getting sick with Covid does. 

https://babylonbee.com/news/vaccinated-denied-treatment-for-overwhelming-hospitals

[Markje]

Except it isn't. To get a visa you must be vaccinated. Previous, convenient, infection does not give an exemption for the vaccine requirements. It's on the relevant website for all to see.

Before you ask, I checked, I went to the site, I read the words. I checked the exemptions.

Except a judge ruled on it and said his visa was valid because of the 'medical excemption on getting vaccinated' is valid.
His excemption was prior infection with Covid. So apparently that judge either consulted medical experts and does not agree with his/her politicians , or something we didn't see is going on.

Mark.

[andrewfi]

No, Mark, that's incorrect.

He was allowed to stay because he had not been given adequate time to prepare for a challenge before the visa was withdrawn. A procedural matter. On that basis, the judge may well have had a point - although mere mortals would not, I am sure have received the same treatment as he did! We'd have been on the return flight from whence we came. There's not, it seems, been a load of people being able to appeal their visa denials in court in Australia.

In addition, it now turns out that he lied on his application form. Had he filled out the form correctly he would likely not have been given the visa in the first place.

It also now appears that my suspicions about the 'convenience' of his testing positive were not misplaced. There's more to come on that score I am sure.

[andrewfi]

Except it isn't. To get a visa you must be vaccinated. Previous, convenient, infection does not give an exemption for the vaccine requirements. It's on the relevant website for all to see.

Before you ask, I checked, I went to the site, I read the words. I checked the exemptions.

Yeah, the problem with natural immunity is that it works so much better and doesn't contribute to the narrative. But getting a vaccine and still getting sick with Covid does. 

https://babylonbee.com/news/vaccinated-denied-treatment-for-overwhelming-hospitals

As I carefully noted, this was not an issue of the effectiveness of vaccines or similar. It is about whether the guy chose to mislead, lie and thus break the laws of the country he wanted to visit.

To be quite honest, I do not think that banning all travel unless the passenger is double vaccinated is the 'right' thing to do. However, I do not think that gives me an excuse to lie on my visa application form and then use my social position to enforce my desires in breaking the law of the countries I visit.

The main reason that I was keen to be vaccinated early on, and why I did so when I could was in order that I could comply with travel regulations. While I was not tested, I was sure that I had been infected with and recovered from Covid-19 before I was vaccinated and had no great concerns for my health or for the health of those around me.

If people like the lying tennisist get away with this behaviour then it makes it harder to justify people doing as I did - and that is objectively a bad thing. In a wider context, if the lying tennisist gets away with it, then it makes it harder to justify visa regulations in ALL cases, not just public health.

[AJ]

Money talks.


I don't think he did the right thing and should face consequences.(but is unlikely to)

I also think the rules * set up were laking and semi foolish,but they were what he agreed to

[Markje]

If people like the lying tennisist get away with this behaviour then it makes it harder to justify people doing as I did - and that is objectively a bad thing. In a wider context, if the lying tennisist gets away with it, then it makes it harder to justify visa regulations in ALL cases, not just public health.

Our royals were caught twice breaking the law of Netherlands with regards to covid. Seems a private-plane does get you places if all public-transport-over-the-air is grounded  When caught by the tabloids, they immediatly ended their vacation, returned to netherlands and apologized.

Our minister-of-defense was caught breaking the rules with his marriage , he was fined 350 euro just like other dutchies and payed/apologized for being wrong.

Or minister-of-health was also caught breaking the rules , apologized for it but if he was fined remains a mystery.

Many female members of our cabinet got caught on-photo/ on-camera with nice expensive haircuts, when the rules said all hairdressers should be closed for business.

All of the above means that dutch get the impression the rules are not for 'them' but only for us to follow. Even though all of them were fined  / apologized / etc.

[andrewfi]

Well, the Lying Tennisist has had his visa revoked again.

Of course there'll be an appeal but this was the right choice.

Let's see what the Spanish and Serbs end up doing as well.

Hubris can be a b!tch, eh? Now the Lying Tennisist will be introduced to Nemesis, the vengeful sister of Hubris

[Markje]

Well, the Lying Tennisist has had his visa revoked again.

This time not on medical grounds, but simply the fact that he lied on his application (not having traveld abroad whilst clearly being in public abroad .etc.)

Too bad, I would have loved an official answer if "infection" == "vaccination".

[andrewfi]

Hawke said: "Today I exercised my power under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act to cancel the visa held by Mr Novak Djokovic on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.

https://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/12514730/novak-djokovic-faces-deportation-after-australian-government-revokes-his-visa-for-a-second-time

The visa was revoked under the discretionary powers of the immigration minister. As far as I can tell, he could revoke an applicant's visa because he spoke funny if he wanted to.

However, lying on a visa application is a perfectly valid reason to revoke a visa. Remember that a visa is permission to enter a country, it is not a guarantee of it.

If the Lying Tennisist does leave the country then all that will have happened is what should have happened. The tennisist will not have been given permission to remain in the country. He should not have been given permission to enter the country and the border force agents did the right thing by rejecting his entry to the country. It might've been better had they allowed him access to appeal, however, even if they had done that, he'd still have been in the quarantine/detention hotel.

One wonders what would've happened had his flight arrived during normal working hours. The cynic in me wonders whether the flight the tennisist chose was a conscious choice, knowing that had he arrived during the day that the process of his refusal and deportation could've happened much more smoothly and easily.

[andrewfi]

From the statement made by Alex Hawke, the Australian immigration minister:

Today I exercised my power under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act to cancel the visa held by Mr Novak Djokovic on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.

This decision followed orders by the Federal Circuit and Family Court on 10 January 2022, quashing a prior cancellation decision on procedural fairness grounds.

In making this decision, I carefully considered information provided to me by the Department of Home Affairs, the Australian Border Force and Mr Djokovic.

The Morrison Government is firmly committed to protecting Australia’s borders, particularly in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I thank the officers of the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Border Force who work every day to serve Australia’s interests in increasingly challenging operational environments.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-lawyers-fight-visa-cancellation-at-late-night-court-hearing-live-updates/ar-AASLAYe?cvid=99aff11e61ab4997bbb1c6d83170a89a&ocid=winp1taskbar

The article notes the much narrower grounds for appeal against this decision.

Under the section that gives the minister personal discretion, there are fewer avenues of appeal so Mr Djokovic could not appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

All he could do is seek judicial review in the courts. And what the courts doing judicial review is determined whether the power has been exercised lawfully.

So it would all depend on how the minister exercises the power and whether he does so in a manner which is lawful.

The discretion that the minister has is very broad, so realistically, unless the minister makes a procedural error, doesn’t comply with the terms of the Act, or unless the decision is really has no basis then Mr Djokovic is unlikely to succeed.

Australian public law expert Assoc Prof Janina Boughey - from the same article.

All spelling and typographical errors are in the original quotes.

[Manny]

infection does not give an exemption for the vaccine requirements.

It should.

But that rule in itself sets a dangerous precedent.

[andrewfi]

I might agree with you but there are issues with that. Privacy and trust spring to mind here.

In the case of the Lying Tennisist, we have an example of the problem of trust. There are question marks over the validity of the test he took. It's all too easy to get a test faked. Quite a lot harder to fake up a vaccination certificate.

No single system is perfect but it is for the Australians to set their standards. We have the choice to go along with it or not.

The Lying Tennisist chose to ignore the regulations and bluster and bully his entrance to Australia.

[andrewfi]

Appeal dismissed. Lying Tennisist gets to pay the legal costs. The lying asshole gets to return to Spain.

All's well that ends well.

Now its time for breakfast.

[2tallbill]

Novak Djokovic in the wake of his Australian visa blow as he now faces being banned from the FRENCH OPEN in May
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10410441/Novak-Djokovic-faces-banned-French-Open-May.html

[andrewfi]

Perhaps by the end of February the French will be past Peak Omicron and can emulate the British policy. In which case the Lying Tennisist will be able to take part.

I hope that happens, not for the Lying Tennisist, but for everybody.