8 ms·

World No.1 tennis player has his visa rejected and asked to leave Australia

41 points by andrewstuart 5y ago

schappim 5y ago
For those who hit a paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20220105215604/https://www.smh.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-djokovic-s-entry-into-australia-20220105-p59m75.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220105215604/https://www.smh.c...
thriftwy 5y ago
Such issues really need to invalidate the whole event. You can't just go on pretending you still run a fair championship. Unless it's a tournament of "COVID-ball"
- jpgvm 5y ago
  He knew the rules. If he was serious about competing in the Australian open he would have gotten vaccinated.
  - verdverm 5y ago
    He knew they made an exception, and now they have gone back on that once he was there. If they were clear from the start, he wouldn't have gone
    - jpgvm 5y ago
      They didn't. The state made it clear they wouldn't sponsor his visa if he arrived unvaccinated unless he had at the time of arrival documentation of his case for exemption. Clearly he failed to furnish either vaccination or appropriate exemption documentation at entry. As I said if he was serious about competing he wouldn't take the chance and would have gotten vaccinated just like everyone else that wants to come to Australia for any other purpose. He already gets special treatment and entry when others aren't able to travel here, the least he can do is follow the rules.
      - ciupicri 5y ago
        He gets special treatment and entry because Australia decided to host an _international_ sporting event during a pandemic. If health is so important to the government, they should have just canceled the event, or make it only national.
        thrill 5y ago
        They hardly need to cancel since the risk of hosting vaccinated players is deemed acceptable.
        mewpmewp2 5y ago
        Why wouldn't PCR test and isolation be enough? Besides with Omicron spread risk is not really reduced. Seems irrational decisionmaking to me and more of a power move.
        jpgvm 5y ago
        Because the rules are the same for everyone. You are either double vaccinated at least 14 days before arrival or you have a qualifying medical exemption. You are free to disagree with the rules (and not come to Australia) but you can't just ignore them.
        jpgvm 5y ago
        Yes he gets a chance at entry when all other non-citizens are denied even the chance. That doesn't mean he gets to ignore all the rules, if anything because he has been offered such a privilege he should go above and beyond to follow the rules. It's like being invited to someones home that has a shoes off policy and refusing to take your shoes off because it "violates your freedoms". Then them offering an exemption if you show a medical reason for needing to keep your shoes on followed by you telling them to go shove it when you actually arrive. Is it surprising when they decline to let you into their home?
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    The rules are no longer compatible with hosting any sporting events other than the said COVID-ball. Maybe we should not be doing sports tournaments at all given the epidemics.
    - jpgvm 5y ago
      No. The rules are incompatible with people that refuse vaccination being entered into international sporting events on Australian soil. This doesn't appear to be a big loss or problem as the ITF has fully supported the Australian Open. If players wish to remain unvaccinated they are self-excluding themselves from international events - that is their choice. No one is forcing them to attend just as no one is forcing them to be vaccinated.
      - thriftwy 5y ago
        If he had a confirmed case of COVID recently, I can't see why he would need to vaccinate on top of that. The common sense is that he doesn't. You are advocating self-medication.
        jpgvm 5y ago
        No. I'm advocating for following the border policy: https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/vaccinated-travellers#toc-6 https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/vaccinated-travellers#toc... Australia only allows unvaccinated travelers that -can't- be vaccinated for medical reasons. Not wanting to be vaccinated or not "needing" to be vaccinated are not the same thing as -can't-. No proof that vaccine will be harmful to your health == vaccine required for entry. Very simple.
        thriftwy 5y ago
        The problem here is the conflict of interest. World No. 1 tennis player does not consider entry to Australia a privilege, worthy of taking a medical procedure which he does not have to perform otherwise. Australia does not want to take many people in, and many people do not desire to enter Australia. But that ruins the idea of tournament. Which is based on assumption of admission on liberal terms.
- joelbondurant1 5y ago
jokethrowaway 5y ago
- jpgvm 5y ago
  This isn't a random government. It's the government of the host country of an international event. Just because it's an international event it doesn't invalidate the sovereignty of the host nation. In this case Australia is rightfully enforcing it's border rules. You might disagree with Australia's policies but they are created by lawfully elected representatives of the Australian people. Attempting to ignore or bypass these policies is actually impinging on the freedom of ordinary Australians to have their voices heard and their safety protected by their elected government.
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    Then they should not host rhe event/the event should not choose them.
    - peapicker 5y ago
      The event in question is The Australian Open… making your comment sound very strange.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
andrewstuart 5y ago
This is a victory for ordinary Australians. There's a sad history of rich and famous getting special treatment to get into Australia. If you're coming here you should follow the same rules as everyone else - even rich and famous tennis players.
- Jansen312 5y ago
  Everywhere rich and famous getting special treatment. So, it is NOT just affecting ordinary Aussies. There is a reason for Squid Games being so popular.
- foogazi 5y ago
  How is this a victory for ordinary Australians ? What do they win ? Djokovic doesn’t have covid, he is in good shape and wont overburden their medical facilities This just saves face for the government that is imposing travel restrictions on ordinary Australians
  - mbg721 5y ago
    It's a victory for misery's love of company, and little else. He's not suddenly going to find Jesus and promote vaccines for those sweet Australian dollars; he's just going to get annoyed that he was jerked around.
benmmurphy 5y ago
The whole thing is insane. What is the marginal cost of Novak entering the country unvaccinated?
- plantain 5y ago
  Reputational damage for the government?
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    Somewhat. If he had kept his exemption status private and had the appropriate documentation to support it there is a good chance he could have entered the country without fanfare. I think the problem stems from the fact that a) that documentation wasn't up to the level expected at entry and b) he and his associates made a big deal about his vaccination status, thus making it impossible for the government to make a special exemption - atleast without the support of the Victorian state government which had already made it abundantly clear the price of such endorsement was being fully vaccinated.
- jpgvm 5y ago
  Low but that isn't the point. Given the restrictions ordinary Australians have lived under and the vaccination rate (90%+ of those eligible) it's simply politically untenable to allow someone to bypass the entry rules. It's not like Australia hasn't been utterly clear on its stance for months, he had plenty of time to remediate his vaccination status.
- detaro 5y ago
  As another commenter points out: it would send the message that the rich and famous get to ignore the rules everyone else follows.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- sidibe 5y ago
  Likewise what is the cost of Novak getting vaccinated?
acqbu 5y ago
bigodbiel 5y ago
From other sources; His medical exception was approved, so he hopped on a plane, and mid flight Morrison’s government had a change of mind now blaming Victorian Government and Tennis Australia for giving Djokovic a pass. https://news.yahoo.com/dennis-young-novak-djokovic-denied-221800636.html https://news.yahoo.com/dennis-young-novak-djokovic-denied-22...
- detaro 5y ago
  Curious what the actual structure of the "permit" looks like. E.g. that article says > On Tuesday, the Australian Open announced that it had given the player a medical exemption, which to me reads like the tournament approved it. Which I guess it has to do if it enforces the rule otherwise for participants, but why does that matter for the visa (except that he needs to play the tournament to get a visa for the tournament of course)? Was there some explicit agreement along the lines of "we approve your decision process, and then will allow everybody you accept in", was it just an expectation that immigration would accept the same standard, ...? EDIT: a slightly older article about the decision also frames it as purely the tournaments decision: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-to-novak-djokovic-decision/100738780 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-t... EDIT2: https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-djokovic-s-entry-into-australia-20220105-p59m75.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-... also reads similar. So unless there's something missing in that reporting (quite possible), it doesn't really sound like "he got permission and then they changed their mind" quite fits what's going on? But rather "it was approved tournament-side and assumed whatever he provided there would also be enough for the visa, turns out it isn't/he asked for the wrong visa/..."? Especially for comparison with other people with exemptions it sounds like details that aren't public matter, i.e. the specific documentation provided.
thisrod 5y ago
The details of this are obscure, due to medical privacy, and I don't know more than anyone else. On the other hand, this isn't the first time that someone has arrived in Australia with a visa, been taken aside at the airport, questioned by immigration officials, and told to leave the country. The usual reason it happens is when the immigration officials suspect that the person told some some fibs on their visa application. To my ears, "failed to provide adequate documentation" sounds very much like a euphemism for "told us a pack of porkies." This would explain the confusion over what the Immigration Department and the Victorian Government discussed after he arrived, and the Victorian Government's rush to distance themselves from him after that discussion.
- thisrod 5y ago
  This retired immigration official makes a good point: if Djokovic was suspected of doing anything dodgy, there were lots of opportunities to question him before he boarded a plane. To that extent, it's an Australian stuff up. And the immigration authorities are notorious for stuff ups. https://www.theage.com.au/national/djokovic-farce-at-airport-the-product-of-a-chain-of-australian-failures-20220106-p59mab.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/djokovic-farce-at-airport... More cynically, this is a great opportunity for the most dishonest prime minister, and most corrupt government, in recent Australian history to put on some theatre about their respect for the rule of law.
acqbu 5y ago
I fully support him. He has the right to do whatever he wants when it comes to his own body. Go Novaks!
- YPPH 5y ago
  Support him how? Support him as a tennis player, or support him being allowed into Australia? He can uphold his bodily integrity by leaving the country without being vaccinated. Nobody is compelling him to have the jab. It's a reasonable condition particularly because most Australians are by virtue of employment restrictions are required to be vaccinated. It would be unfair to have one rule for celebrities and another for ordinary people.
  - acqbu 5y ago
    Support him as a tennis player. I don't think anyone should legitimise a country that bans its owns citizens from entering it, detains refugees on islands and is generally backwards, racist and repressive.
    - YPPH 5y ago
      >bans its owns citizens from entering it How so?
      - acqbu 5y ago
        https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-australias-india-travel-ban-legal-moral-just/13335360 https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-australias-india-travel-b...
        YPPH 5y ago
        I somehow missed this. That is disappointing. There may be reasons to doubt the constitutional legitimacy of that law were it not constrained to emergency situations.
- ZetaZero 5y ago

41 points by andrewstuart 5y ago

For those who hit a paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20220105215604/https://www.smh.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-djokovic-s-entry-into-australia-20220105-p59m75.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220105215604/https://www.smh.c...

thriftwy 5y ago

Such issues really need to invalidate the whole event. You can't just go on pretending you still run a fair championship. Unless it's a tournament of "COVID-ball"

jpgvm 5y ago
He knew the rules. If he was serious about competing in the Australian open he would have gotten vaccinated.
- verdverm 5y ago
  He knew they made an exception, and now they have gone back on that once he was there. If they were clear from the start, he wouldn't have gone
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    They didn't. The state made it clear they wouldn't sponsor his visa if he arrived unvaccinated unless he had at the time of arrival documentation of his case for exemption. Clearly he failed to furnish either vaccination or appropriate exemption documentation at entry. As I said if he was serious about competing he wouldn't take the chance and would have gotten vaccinated just like everyone else that wants to come to Australia for any other purpose. He already gets special treatment and entry when others aren't able to travel here, the least he can do is follow the rules.
    - ciupicri 5y ago
      He gets special treatment and entry because Australia decided to host an _international_ sporting event during a pandemic. If health is so important to the government, they should have just canceled the event, or make it only national.
      - thrill 5y ago
        They hardly need to cancel since the risk of hosting vaccinated players is deemed acceptable.
        mewpmewp2 5y ago
        Why wouldn't PCR test and isolation be enough? Besides with Omicron spread risk is not really reduced. Seems irrational decisionmaking to me and more of a power move.
        jpgvm 5y ago
        Because the rules are the same for everyone. You are either double vaccinated at least 14 days before arrival or you have a qualifying medical exemption. You are free to disagree with the rules (and not come to Australia) but you can't just ignore them.
      - jpgvm 5y ago
        Yes he gets a chance at entry when all other non-citizens are denied even the chance. That doesn't mean he gets to ignore all the rules, if anything because he has been offered such a privilege he should go above and beyond to follow the rules. It's like being invited to someones home that has a shoes off policy and refusing to take your shoes off because it "violates your freedoms". Then them offering an exemption if you show a medical reason for needing to keep your shoes on followed by you telling them to go shove it when you actually arrive. Is it surprising when they decline to let you into their home?
- thriftwy 5y ago
  The rules are no longer compatible with hosting any sporting events other than the said COVID-ball. Maybe we should not be doing sports tournaments at all given the epidemics.
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    No. The rules are incompatible with people that refuse vaccination being entered into international sporting events on Australian soil. This doesn't appear to be a big loss or problem as the ITF has fully supported the Australian Open. If players wish to remain unvaccinated they are self-excluding themselves from international events - that is their choice. No one is forcing them to attend just as no one is forcing them to be vaccinated.
    - thriftwy 5y ago
      If he had a confirmed case of COVID recently, I can't see why he would need to vaccinate on top of that. The common sense is that he doesn't. You are advocating self-medication.
      - jpgvm 5y ago
        No. I'm advocating for following the border policy: https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/vaccinated-travellers#toc-6 https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/vaccinated-travellers#toc... Australia only allows unvaccinated travelers that -can't- be vaccinated for medical reasons. Not wanting to be vaccinated or not "needing" to be vaccinated are not the same thing as -can't-. No proof that vaccine will be harmful to your health == vaccine required for entry. Very simple.
        thriftwy 5y ago
        The problem here is the conflict of interest. World No. 1 tennis player does not consider entry to Australia a privilege, worthy of taking a medical procedure which he does not have to perform otherwise. Australia does not want to take many people in, and many people do not desire to enter Australia. But that ruins the idea of tournament. Which is based on assumption of admission on liberal terms.
joelbondurant1 5y ago

jokethrowaway 5y ago

jpgvm 5y ago
This isn't a random government. It's the government of the host country of an international event. Just because it's an international event it doesn't invalidate the sovereignty of the host nation. In this case Australia is rightfully enforcing it's border rules. You might disagree with Australia's policies but they are created by lawfully elected representatives of the Australian people. Attempting to ignore or bypass these policies is actually impinging on the freedom of ordinary Australians to have their voices heard and their safety protected by their elected government.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  Then they should not host rhe event/the event should not choose them.
  - peapicker 5y ago
    The event in question is The Australian Open… making your comment sound very strange.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago

andrewstuart 5y ago

This is a victory for ordinary Australians. There's a sad history of rich and famous getting special treatment to get into Australia. If you're coming here you should follow the same rules as everyone else - even rich and famous tennis players.

Jansen312 5y ago
Everywhere rich and famous getting special treatment. So, it is NOT just affecting ordinary Aussies. There is a reason for Squid Games being so popular.
foogazi 5y ago
How is this a victory for ordinary Australians ? What do they win ? Djokovic doesn’t have covid, he is in good shape and wont overburden their medical facilities This just saves face for the government that is imposing travel restrictions on ordinary Australians
- mbg721 5y ago
  It's a victory for misery's love of company, and little else. He's not suddenly going to find Jesus and promote vaccines for those sweet Australian dollars; he's just going to get annoyed that he was jerked around.

benmmurphy 5y ago

The whole thing is insane. What is the marginal cost of Novak entering the country unvaccinated?

plantain 5y ago
Reputational damage for the government?
- jpgvm 5y ago
  Somewhat. If he had kept his exemption status private and had the appropriate documentation to support it there is a good chance he could have entered the country without fanfare. I think the problem stems from the fact that a) that documentation wasn't up to the level expected at entry and b) he and his associates made a big deal about his vaccination status, thus making it impossible for the government to make a special exemption - atleast without the support of the Victorian state government which had already made it abundantly clear the price of such endorsement was being fully vaccinated.
jpgvm 5y ago
Low but that isn't the point. Given the restrictions ordinary Australians have lived under and the vaccination rate (90%+ of those eligible) it's simply politically untenable to allow someone to bypass the entry rules. It's not like Australia hasn't been utterly clear on its stance for months, he had plenty of time to remediate his vaccination status.
detaro 5y ago
As another commenter points out: it would send the message that the rich and famous get to ignore the rules everyone else follows.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
sidibe 5y ago
Likewise what is the cost of Novak getting vaccinated?

acqbu 5y ago

bigodbiel 5y ago

From other sources; His medical exception was approved, so he hopped on a plane, and mid flight Morrison’s government had a change of mind now blaming Victorian Government and Tennis Australia for giving Djokovic a pass. https://news.yahoo.com/dennis-young-novak-djokovic-denied-221800636.html https://news.yahoo.com/dennis-young-novak-djokovic-denied-22...

detaro 5y ago
Curious what the actual structure of the "permit" looks like. E.g. that article says > On Tuesday, the Australian Open announced that it had given the player a medical exemption, which to me reads like the tournament approved it. Which I guess it has to do if it enforces the rule otherwise for participants, but why does that matter for the visa (except that he needs to play the tournament to get a visa for the tournament of course)? Was there some explicit agreement along the lines of "we approve your decision process, and then will allow everybody you accept in", was it just an expectation that immigration would accept the same standard, ...? EDIT: a slightly older article about the decision also frames it as purely the tournaments decision: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-to-novak-djokovic-decision/100738780 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-t... EDIT2: https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-djokovic-s-entry-into-australia-20220105-p59m75.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-... also reads similar. So unless there's something missing in that reporting (quite possible), it doesn't really sound like "he got permission and then they changed their mind" quite fits what's going on? But rather "it was approved tournament-side and assumed whatever he provided there would also be enough for the visa, turns out it isn't/he asked for the wrong visa/..."? Especially for comparison with other people with exemptions it sounds like details that aren't public matter, i.e. the specific documentation provided.

thisrod 5y ago

The details of this are obscure, due to medical privacy, and I don't know more than anyone else. On the other hand, this isn't the first time that someone has arrived in Australia with a visa, been taken aside at the airport, questioned by immigration officials, and told to leave the country. The usual reason it happens is when the immigration officials suspect that the person told some some fibs on their visa application. To my ears, "failed to provide adequate documentation" sounds very much like a euphemism for "told us a pack of porkies." This would explain the confusion over what the Immigration Department and the Victorian Government discussed after he arrived, and the Victorian Government's rush to distance themselves from him after that discussion.

thisrod 5y ago
This retired immigration official makes a good point: if Djokovic was suspected of doing anything dodgy, there were lots of opportunities to question him before he boarded a plane. To that extent, it's an Australian stuff up. And the immigration authorities are notorious for stuff ups. https://www.theage.com.au/national/djokovic-farce-at-airport-the-product-of-a-chain-of-australian-failures-20220106-p59mab.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/djokovic-farce-at-airport... More cynically, this is a great opportunity for the most dishonest prime minister, and most corrupt government, in recent Australian history to put on some theatre about their respect for the rule of law.

acqbu 5y ago

I fully support him. He has the right to do whatever he wants when it comes to his own body. Go Novaks!

YPPH 5y ago
Support him how? Support him as a tennis player, or support him being allowed into Australia? He can uphold his bodily integrity by leaving the country without being vaccinated. Nobody is compelling him to have the jab. It's a reasonable condition particularly because most Australians are by virtue of employment restrictions are required to be vaccinated. It would be unfair to have one rule for celebrities and another for ordinary people.
- acqbu 5y ago
  Support him as a tennis player. I don't think anyone should legitimise a country that bans its owns citizens from entering it, detains refugees on islands and is generally backwards, racist and repressive.
  - YPPH 5y ago
    >bans its owns citizens from entering it How so?
    - acqbu 5y ago
      https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-australias-india-travel-ban-legal-moral-just/13335360 https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-australias-india-travel-b...
      - YPPH 5y ago
        I somehow missed this. That is disappointing. There may be reasons to doubt the constitutional legitimacy of that law were it not constrained to emergency situations.
ZetaZero 5y ago