Djokovic

[markjay]

So he was worried that the vaccine will have a negative impact on his performance.

What was he expecting then? To be the only unvaccinated competitor in a match where everyone else is vaccinated?

Nice one... if you can pull it off, that is.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

What has Novak Djokovic actually said about vaccines?

The tennis ace had his visa cancelled in a row over jab exemption. But what's he said about vaccines?

www.bbc.co.uk

now you know

 

[ChipChop]

Is this a new Covid thread?

Seems so when the vocal few, some vehemently opposed to other points of view on this subject, are now commenting freely it seems.

The BBC hit piece on Novac Djokovic is par for the course from an organisation who choose to tell the public only what suits their own agenda. They seem a bit desperate at the moment as their narrative for the last 2 years falls apart day by day, imho.

 

[Londonscottish]

Is this a new Covid thread?

Seems so when the vocal few, some vehemently opposed to other points of view on this subject, are now commenting freely it seems.

The BBC hit piece on Novac Djokovic is par for the course from an organisation who choose to tell the public only what suits their own agenda. They seem a bit desperate at the moment as their narrative for the last 2 years falls apart day by day, imho.

Djokovic's stance on Covid is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his understanding of science and medicine.

To him, the ducking of witches would represent a massive intellectual breakthrough.

It would be funny if he didn't have so many people listen to his badly thought through and dangerously misleading guff.

He's basically a Serbian David Icke. With a massive following.

 

[ChipChop]

Djokovic's stance on Covid is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his understanding of science and medicine.

To him, the ducking of witches would represent a massive intellectual breakthrough.

It would be funny if he didn't have so many people listen to his badly thought through and dangerously misleading guff.

He's basically a Serbian David Icke. With a massive following.

What a lot of pejoratives there are in your post.

 

[Swotty]

Djokovic's stance on Covid is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his understanding of science and medicine.

To him, the ducking of witches would represent a massive intellectual breakthrough.

It would be funny if he didn't have so many people listen to his badly thought through and dangerously misleading guff.

He's basically a Serbian David Icke. With a massive following.

here is another and far more objective article on the politics and real reasons behind the decision to deport ND.

Some of the grounds and the wording thereof are actually chilling. Basically thought crime ... distinctly Orwellian.

Novak Djokovic: thoughtcriminal

Australia deported him over his personal beliefs. What a dreadful precedent to set.

www.spiked-online.com

Could this happen in the UK?

 

[E55BOF]

here is another and far more objective article on the politics and real reasons behind the decision to deport ND.

Some of the grounds and the wording thereof are actually chilling. Basically thought crime ... distinctly Orwellian.

Novak Djokovic: thoughtcriminal

Australia deported him over his personal beliefs. What a dreadful precedent to set.

www.spiked-online.com

Could this happen in the UK?

Objective? One-sided anti-Establishment conspiracy theorist rubbish, I'd say.

The objective view is:

Djokovic came to Australia.

He did not qualify for entry to Australia under Federal law, but was led to believe that he would.

The federal government stepped in and, after an initial hiccup, enforced that law.

The Judicial Review application failed because the three-judge panel that heard it was unanimously satisfied that the decision was sound and in accordance with the law.

Djokovic left Australia.

(The suggestion elsewhere in the thread that the decision was politically influenced is accurate, but ignores the fact that Australians are famously egalitarian, and strongly imbued with the notion that nobody, no matter how rich, famous or influential, should be above the law. Once the case became news, as it inevitably would, I think any conceivable Australian government would inevitably have taken the same action.)

And no, it couldn't happen in the UK; I think we'd have fudged the issue and let Djokovic in.

 

[Londonscottish]

What a lot of pejoratives there are in your post.

Yes, that's because he believes in and promotes a lot of anti-science.

 

[Swotty]

Objective? One-sided anti-Establishment conspiracy theorist rubbish, I'd say.

The objective view is:

Djokovic came to Australia.

He did not qualify for entry to Australia under Federal law, but was led to believe that he would.

The federal government stepped in and, after an initial hiccup, enforced that law.

The Judicial Review application failed because the three-judge panel that heard it was unanimously satisfied that the decision was sound and in accordance with the law.

Djokovic left Australia.

(The suggestion elsewhere in the thread that the decision was politically influenced is accurate, but ignores the fact that Australians are famously egalitarian, and strongly imbued with the notion that nobody, no matter how rich, famous or influential, should be above the law. Once the case became news, as it inevitably would, I think any conceivable Australian government would inevitably have taken the same action.)

And no, it couldn't happen in the UK; I think we'd have fudged the issue and let Djokovic in.

Yes, ND didn't do himself any favours and he is not my favourite tennis player.

However, the reason for cancelling the visa openly stated by Hawke is very sinister. Had he said that ND could not come in because he was not vaccinated ... their castle, their choice, as you say. He did say that ND was "a negligible risk to those around him".

From the Guardian:

"Australia’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, personally cancelled the unvaccinated world No 1’s visa, arguing his presence in Australia could incite “civil unrest” and encourage others to eschew vaccination against Covid-19.

Documents filed in the court reveal the minister’s reasons sent to Djokovic as justification for cancelling his visa.

Hawke said he accepted Djokovic’s recent Covid-19 infection meant he was a “negligible risk to those around him”, but that he was “perceived by some as a talisman of a community of anti-vaccine sentiment”.

“I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission."

So, this time not allowed to come in as he may become "an icon for free speech" relating to vaccination.

What about "other kinds" of free speech? Sounds like free speech is now cancelled in Oz at the whim of Mr Hawke.

 

[Londonscottish]

here is another and far more objective article on the politics and real reasons behind the decision to deport ND.

Some of the grounds and the wording thereof are actually chilling. Basically thought crime ... distinctly Orwellian.

Novak Djokovic: thoughtcriminal

Australia deported him over his personal beliefs. What a dreadful precedent to set.

www.spiked-online.com

Could this happen in the UK?

I'm not saying the Aussies have covered themselves in glory. But, clearly, the other players cottoned in quite early that to play you needed to get vaccinated.

Djokivic's team though they'd found a loophole and they might have been correct if they'd applied for the exemption on or before Dec 10th. But as he didn't "catch covid" until the 16th that was never going to work.

So the whole thing was on a wing and a prayer. Or, in his case, a wing and a vibrating crystal.

Yes, ND didn't do himself any favours and he is not my favourite tennis player.

However, the reason for cancelling the visa openly stated by Hawke is very sinister. Had he said that ND could not come in because he was not vaccinated ... their castle, their choice, as you say. He did say that ND was "a negligible risk to those around him".

From the Guardian:

"Australia’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, personally cancelled the unvaccinated world No 1’s visa, arguing his presence in Australia could incite “civil unrest” and encourage others to eschew vaccination against Covid-19.

Documents filed in the court reveal the minister’s reasons sent to Djokovic as justification for cancelling his visa.

Hawke said he accepted Djokovic’s recent Covid-19 infection meant he was a “negligible risk to those around him”, but that he was “perceived by some as a talisman of a community of anti-vaccine sentiment”.

“I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission."

So, this time not allowed to come in as he may become "an icon for free speech" relating to vaccination.

What about "other kinds" of free speech? Sounds like free speech is now cancelled in Oz at the whim of Mr Hawke.

Djokivic is free to say what he likes. And he's free to do what he likes.

But he now can't play in the French Open either unless he gets vaccinated.

But it seems as if he's "done his own research" into Western medicine and would rather believe a load of crackpots on the internet.

Fair enough. He'll have plenty of time on his hands to look up some more nonsense whilst he "purifies water through his emotions" or whatever Gwyneth Paltrow-esque claptrap he's stumbled across lately.

 

[markjay]

I think that the adventures (or misadventures, depending on your point of view) of one Novak Djokovic is a fascinating topic, which will cause some to gloat and other to lash-out (among other reactions).

However, ultimately, (my understanding is that) he was lawfully removed from a county that he wasn't a citizen of.

We have quite a few people in this country, on this forum even, who think that the UK needs to 'take control of its borders' and take a much tougher stance on immigration. There are many over here who consider our border agency as a 'soft touch' on both legal and illegal immigration.

In this context, what happens to Novak Djokovic is perfectly in-line with Australia's notorious (or famous, depending on your point of view) uncompromising approach to any immigration issues, from the detention centres on Christmas Island to Johnny Depp's dogs.

The reasons for rejecting Novak Djokovic may have been political, or medical, or otherwise, by the simple fact - to my mind - is that we should respect the decision made by a sovereign government in respect to who they grant a visa to, and they won't.

Again, some over here who dream about the UK having tougher immigration policies may look with envy at how effective Australia's immigration services can be when it comes to removing a persona-non-grata (in the UK it often involve years of legal battles with the Home Office efforts repeatedly frustrated by the courts), while others may shriek in horror while looking up to Germany's 'open borders' policy under Merkel.

 

[E55BOF]

We have quite a few people in this country, on this forum even, who think that the UK needs to 'take control of its borders' and take a much tougher stance on immigration. There are many over here who consider our border agency as a 'soft touch' on both legal and illegal immigration.

We have, and there are, because it is. Australia has not, and there are not, because it is not.

However... Immigration control is expensive - very expensive - to enforce, and there is no political will on either side to spend a huge amount of money controlling it. If we denied everybody who is not here legally all access to benefits of any kind, and economic migrants the chance to bring their dependants here, the UK would become a much less attractive country to come to, but are we prepared to see children starving on the streets as a consequence? Of course not, and I would not want to live in a country that was.

But we digress; Djokovic is unlikely to claim asylum here. On the other hand, depending on what Covid restrictions are in force in the summer, unless he is vaccinated that might be the only way he can play at Wimbledon this year, though...

 

[E55BOF]

Yes, ND didn't do himself any favours and he is not my favourite tennis player.

However, the reason for cancelling the visa openly stated by Hawke is very sinister. Had he said that ND could not come in because he was not vaccinated ... their castle, their choice, as you say. He did say that ND was "a negligible risk to those around him".

From the Guardian:

"Australia’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, personally cancelled the unvaccinated world No 1’s visa, arguing his presence in Australia could incite “civil unrest” and encourage others to eschew vaccination against Covid-19.

Documents filed in the court reveal the minister’s reasons sent to Djokovic as justification for cancelling his visa.

Hawke said he accepted Djokovic’s recent Covid-19 infection meant he was a “negligible risk to those around him”, but that he was “perceived by some as a talisman of a community of anti-vaccine sentiment”.

“I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission."

So, this time not allowed to come in as he may become "an icon for free speech" relating to vaccination.

What about "other kinds" of free speech? Sounds like free speech is now cancelled in Oz at the whim of Mr Hawke.

The Australian government perceived - and the three judges on the panel concurred - that there was a risk of Djokovic's presence promoting unrest in the country, so they put a stop to it; quite rightly, that's a government call. There's a limit to free speech, even in a democracy; you just try an "other kind" of free speech by putting up a lectern at Speakers' Corner and declaiming that all non-whites, or all Muslims, or all LGBTQ people, should be deported from the UK, and see how long it takes before the police arrive...

 

[Londonscottish]

We have, and there are, because it is. Australia has not, and there are not, because it is not.

However... Immigration control is expensive - very expensive - to enforce, and there is no political will on either side to spend a huge amount of money controlling it. If we denied everybody who is not here legally all access to benefits of any kind, and economic migrants the chance to bring their dependants here, the UK would become a much less attractive country to come to, but are we prepared to see children starving on the streets as a consequence? Of course not, and I would not want to live in a country that was.

But we digress; Djokovic is unlikely to claim asylum here. On the other hand, depending on what Covid restrictions are in force in the summer, unless he is vaccinated that might be the only way he can play at Wimbledon this year, though...

Good post.

Minor point though; Djokovic will be able to play Wimbledon under the UK's current exemption for sports people - unless that changes, of course.

But Oz has now gone, he's ruled himself out of France and the US authorities historically look very dimly on anyone who's been denied entry to another country.

Meanwhile, here's one of his little gems;

“I’ve seen people and I know some people that, through that energetical transformation, through the power of prayer, through the power of gratitude, they manage to turn the most toxic food or the most polluted water into the most healing water. Because water reacts and scientists have proven that molecules in the water react to our emotions, to what is being said.”

Err, OK Novak...............whatever.....

 

[E55BOF]

It's not illegal to be a bit potty, fortunately. They walk among us (and some of us are part of 'They')...

 

[ChrisHGTV]

Meanwhile, here's one of his little gems;

“I’ve seen people and I know some people that, through that energetical transformation, through the power of prayer, through the power of gratitude, they manage to turn the most toxic food or the most polluted water into the most healing water. Because water reacts and scientists have proven that molecules in the water react to our emotions, to what is being said.”

Err, OK Novak...............whatever.....

Id like to see what these people he knows could accomplish with some of my Mums rock cakes! Im a Geologist and they're way beyond my powers! Maybe prayer is the answer.

 

[st13phil]

The Australian government perceived - and the three judges on the panel concurred

My understanding is that the judges agreed that the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, was legally entitled to do what he did in respect of withdrawing the visa.

Did they also agree with the reasoning behind that action (I don't know, which is why I'm asking)?

 

[markjay]

....there was a risk of Djokovic's presence promoting unrest in the country...

Happens all the time.

E.g.:

Controversial preacher Todd Bentley refused entry into the UK

A controversial Canadian preacher, who claims he can cure illness by kicking people in the face, has been refused entry to the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

'A Home Office spokesperson said: "We can confirm that Mr Bentley has been excluded from the UK."

"The government makes no apologies for refusing people access to the UK if we believe they are not conducive to the public good.

"Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who might seek to undermine our society." '

Novak Djokovic, is, obviously, a celebrity, hence the intense media attention. But other than that? Happens all the time.

 

[Deleted member 159894]

Is this a new Covid thread?

Seems so when the vocal few, some vehemently opposed to other points of view on this subject, are now commenting freely it seems.

The BBC hit piece on Novac Djokovic is par for the course from an organisation who choose to tell the public only what suits their own agenda. They seem a bit desperate at the moment as their narrative for the last 2 years falls apart day by day, imho.

Fair point.

 

[E55BOF]

My understanding is that the judges agreed that the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, was legally entitled to do what he did in respect of withdrawing the visa.

Did they also agree with the reasoning behind that action (I don't know, which is why I'm asking)?

If the Australian Judicial Review procedure is the same as ours, the review examines not only whether the decision was legally taken and correct in law, but whether it was reasonable in the circumstances. I recall seeing something on the news to the effect that Djokovic's lawyers' line of attack at the JR hearing would be that the decision was unreasonable, which would suggest that the Australian procedure is indeed the same as ours.