12 ms·

David Crowe writes in The Age https://archive.ph/Ohx6d https://archive.ph/Ohx6d The political cost of letting Djokovic stay was too high for Morrison Austral

David Crowe writes in The Age https://archive.ph/Ohx6d https://archive.ph/Ohx6d The political cost of letting Djokovic stay was too high for Morrison Australians have been barred from visiting a dying parent in hospital, blocked from seeing a new grandchild and forbidden from having a wedding. Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied? Angering those Australians would have been a huge danger for Morrison when he is only a few months away from an election. But this is not game, set and match. The entire saga has put Australia’s pandemic dysfunction up in lights. It was a national embarrassment and may continue through the courts.

m1sta_ 5y ago
Responding to your rhetorical... Yes. Covid is rampant at this point. An aggressive testing path and allowing him to play would absolutely be in the public's best interest. It's clowns on both sides here but the risk of letting him in is definitely not high enough to balance the public benefit of him being allowed to play. Once he plays the special public benefit ends and so should his visa.
- avs733 5y ago
  He falsified information he submitted to immigration authorities. That’s the match (to use a pun)
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    But he did it for Love!
    - avs733 5y ago
      groan...the humor on HN is going to really start changing as more of us become parents isn't it :)
- maccard 5y ago
  The issue imo isn't the covid-ness, it's lying on the immigration forms. If I did that, I would be barred from entering the country ever again.
- ahtihn 5y ago
  What's the public benefit of letting him play? Letting everyone know that the rich and famous are above the rules?
  - tontonius 5y ago
    Many people find value in watching great tennis players compete in a live tournament.
King-Aaron 5y ago
> Angering those Australians would have been a huge danger for Morrison when he is only a few months away from an election. This has been the entire strategy for the government's handling of the pandemic - national interests be damned, as long as it favours the party being re-elected.
- ruszki 5y ago
  I don't think that national interests really mattered anytime in any country. That is just a tool to keep power. Maybe it's important for some politician, but focusing on power grab is way more beneficial at the top.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    its a sure way to sell oneself to public but yeah, types of people that manage to get and stay in top politics don't give a damn about this
    - jackosdev 5y ago
      He actually flew back to Sydney to visit his kids during the middle of a lockdown when people couldn't visit dying relatives, because it was fathers day!
  - sofixa 5y ago
    There's no need to be so pessimistic. Plenty of people go into politics with good intentions, and some even stay that way after some time there. Some want to be remembered, some genuinely want to fix things. Some just want power. Skepticism is healthy, full on pessimism "everything is just a power grab" is extremely unhealthy.
    - lr1970 5y ago
      > Plenty of people go into politics with good intentions, and some even stay that way after some time there Politics is a highly competitive game. Those who do not optimize for maximizing their power and carrier advances are operating at a disadvantage.
throwaway4good 5y ago
How does this in any way make the Australian government look better?
- tim333 5y ago
  Sensible government policy is to enforce its rules consistently rather than exempt famous people who lie and cheat.
- factorialboy 5y ago
  It doesn't. In any way.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mrath 5y ago
  Unfortunately whatever they do is not going to go well either locally or globally.
  - throwaway4good 5y ago
    Maybe they should just do less then ...
    - hilbert42 5y ago
      In this situation they cannot do that for reasons that to acquiesce or do nothing would be seen by the Australian public, many of whom have been already shabbily treated by COVID restrictions, as favoritism towards Djokovic. I'd be political suicide (see point 7 in my earlier post).
zx85wes 5y ago
Would 50000 more deaths made it look better? Australia's handling of the crisis has been stellar compared to most other countries.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  This is a loaded question. In slovenia, more people have died from smoking related illnesses than covid (even in the last two years), but somehow "corona lives matter", peoples personal choices to go out, get ill, and risk the 0.5% chance of death don't matter, governments take more and more power, because "every life matters", but on the other hand, you can still buy cigarettes everywhere. If every life matters, then ban cigarettes, tax the shit out of sugary sodas and junk food, if you're willing to sacrifice basic human rights, also force people to exercise, and more lives will be saved than from corona. If all those lives don't matter, but corona lives do, someone is doing something very very wrong.
  - tigershark 5y ago
    It’s not true. In all the world covid caused way more deaths than smoke related diseases. If in Slovenia it’s not the case then they are massively undercounting covid deaths. And the covid mortality is 1%, not 0.5%. Stop spreading dangerous misinformation.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      I have to disagree https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco > Tobacco kills more than 8 million people each year. More than 7 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 1.2 million are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Two years, 16+mio deaths. Total covid deaths, a bit over 5 mio. edit: even obesity, 2.8mio per year, 5.6mio in two years - https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/6-facts-on-obesity https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/6-fac...
      - 5y ago
factorialboy 5y ago
> The political cost of letting Djokovic stay was too high for Morrison > Australians have been barred from visiting a dying parent in hospital, blocked from seeing a new grandchild and forbidden from having a wedding. Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied? This is bizarre logic. "I got screwed, so someone else should get screwed too!" He got the exemption. It was challenged in court. He won that case. Now a minister's "personal discretion" (why is this even a thing?) timed perfectly so that even if Novak wins the court case, it would be too late for him to participate in the Australian Open.
- karmasimida 5y ago
  Didn't he lie that he wouldn't do international travel 14 days before entering Australia? I think there are plenty of evidence for the government to cancel him on this one.
- relyks 5y ago
  Djokovic has demonstrated recklessness in dealing with COVID precautions. Read his Instagram statement: https://www.instagram.com/p/CYnO7cDqbdj/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CYnO7cDqbdj/
  - Canada 5y ago
    Would you paste it or quote from it for those of us who won't login to Instagram?
    - stef25 5y ago
      He posted images, here you go https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271784084_263739739046753_2542195427513812267_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=Y6-1_eNFs0wAX_muN5X&tn=-Qez1GJz__ewtPbs&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT_1tnf2HGs8Fm9zZ16XdD9Ifl5nJEWsG7xCrJ67lkS_gA&oe=61E78E9E&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1... https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271628358_449753343268937_4285302826502693296_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=DN0Dn9FQHA0AX_w3JU_&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT_0DA7Hk-en6Mio7pd_wD0GX6erG2SUi8xeo9lXx_4DxA&oe=61E868A3&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1... https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271580018_119494650593967_7703820489756821102_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=103&_nc_ohc=Ah4n4GhnSFkAX9GZg0z&tn=-Qez1GJz__ewtPbs&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT-nrq7J9LS802zuOHHiUHISgt52fZRAsuaX9rj_E3Rlfw&oe=61E84DBF&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1... https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271556830_3058426824370281_4441150470964509124_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=109&_nc_ohc=YsGpl3N-tAsAX-YMeMB&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT_2soRD4p7l6KE929-jchRO9L2JX-9jWoZ4qNiKqT0ZMw&oe=61E7C393&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1... https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271698908_254436903489695_6568836930630370775_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=111&_nc_ohc=RRumB2EopO4AX9CkRnm&tn=-Qez1GJz__ewtPbs&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT_ltYAsbdb-SPqzYj7rzxMECnqRQBmqaLiHeO93tfvBMg&oe=61E8EB99&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1...
qwerty456127 5y ago
> Australians have been barred from visiting a dying parent in hospital, blocked from seeing a new grandchild and forbidden from having a wedding. Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied? No, they should not have accepted being barred perhaps. When you are oppressed just insisting no other one is treated justfully (the way the court decided in accordance with the law) is not a morally right solution. Also expelling a person who has already got in the country physically and attended a courts makes no sense from the epidemiological point of view - he has already brought the virus in if he had it. And by the way attending a wedding or a family meeting where people stand close, often in a small room, is quite different from just visiting a country or playing tennis (which doesn't require you to stand close to anybody, let alone in a room).
- lb0 5y ago
  > No, they should not have accepted being barred. But what if most accepted those limitations, and while personally a disaster, found it on the other hand right to follow common sense and obey rules applying to everyone for the greater cause of society? Rules applying to everyone the same is one of the basic foundations of a just society... > Also expelling a person who has already got in the country physically and attended a courts makes no sense from the epidemiological point of view - he has already brought the virus No matter what you argue beyond, the epidemiological aspect is now not really the point here anymore. He faked stuff for entry one or the other way (I think it is even more likely he wasn't positive at all, but that the second test was just created so he counts as recovered, which was the requirement to get in if not vaccinated..) - so its good to see consequences on that.
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    > obey rules applying to everyone for the greater cause of society? Sounds like communism. No cause can be considered greater than freedom. > No matter what you argue beyond, the epidemiological aspect is now not really the point here anymore. He faked stuff He should be investigated for faking then and expelled/imprisoned/fined by a court if evidence proves him guilty. > second test was just created so he counts as recovered, which was the requirement to get in if not vaccinated Just test him antibodies/T-cells + PCR and you know if a person used to be sick and recovered. No necessity for speculation here. Presence of immunity (which one only get through overcoming the sickness or a vaccine) is an objective thing. Is it not? I would also suggest introducing a law sentencing people who falsely claim they are immune or expose others to a risk of being infected any other way to serve a sentence aiding in a hospital taking care of infected people.
aaron695 5y ago
Mikeb85 5y ago
> Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied? It seems Djokovic went through all the proper channels to get an exemption and visa. Australia's institutions gave him a visa. The real exemption is that a minister is disregarding Australia's institutions and cancelling his visa because "feelings". Australia needs to take a hard look at their laws and the way they treat their citizens instead of creating a high profile scapegoat.
- tim333 5y ago
  He lied to immigration on a form saying very clearly that it was a serious offence to lie on that one.
- askvictor 5y ago
  There's also the issue of the immigration department seemingly not properly scrutinizing the application, as well as Djokovic lying on the application forms. But most likely this is all an intentionally concocted distraction from government's failings in the current outbreak.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    So how did he win his first court challenge? Why aren't those institutions being scrutinized? Where's the proof he faked his documents and why isn't that alone cause for Australia's institutions to not have issued a visa? Why did it take a last-minute act from a minister to revoke his visa?
    - rblatz 5y ago
      Because of a minor procedural misstep. Had they waited an additional hour, they would have been in the clear.
    - manicdee 5y ago
      Some of the proof that he faked his visa application is claiming he is vaccinated when he is not, and claiming he had not travelled in the week before boarding the plane when he had documented a trip to Spain while COVID-positive. The Spanish government is now investigating whether Novak Djokovic travelled to Spain illegally, so there’s more legal shenanigans waiting for him when he eventually gets home. The reason none of this resulted in his visa being refused in the first place is that the Australian tennis folks are buddy-buddy with the Prime Minister’s folks, and the unofficial ministerial guidelines are that if there’s an event associated with government cronies then all stops are pulled.
Joeri 5y ago
and may continue through the courts. Meta-thought: I have started to pay attention to just how often courts strike down executive decisions because they are unlawful, and strike down new laws because they are unconstitutional or in conflict with international agreements. People tend to blame activist judges, but most of the time the judges are just trying to interpret the laws as they are written. There seems to be an interesting dynamic at work where societies ossify through accretion of laws. As more international agreements are signed and laws are put on the books, the web of constraints that new policies must adhere to grows more complicated, and the ability by the public to get a new executive decision or a new law stricken through the court system grows greater. When a great reset happens (a revolution) you tend to see a nimble government immediately after, but also often accompanied with widespread civil rights violations, and as the laws and deals and civil rights start accreting the pace of change slows down. Looking at my own country for example (Belgium). Back in the 60's the government could just decide to build nuclear power plants, without consulting the public at all, because there was very little in the form of environmental legislation or international agreements to bind them. Nowadays we can't legally decide to keep the plants open past 2025, because the work necessary to keep them open can't start without changing the law, and changing the law cannot legally be done without an EU-wide consultation and environmental impact study process. Any attempts to do these things anyway would quickly get blocked by the courts. I find this increasing level of legal ossification endlessly fascinating in a somewhat terrifying sort of way. It makes me wonder whether democracy inevitably leads to incapable frozen government that needs a non-democratic great reset to wipe away the accreted laws and unlock the government's ability to get things done.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Non-democracies don't exactly have a great track record of legal nimbleness and enlightened decision making either. The root cause here is ideology, which can occur in both democracies and dictatorships. The two are orthogonal - democracies can both regulate and deregulate, as can dictatorships.
scarab92 5y ago
Politics aside, the entry requirements for Australia explicitly require full vaccination with a WHO approved vaccine or a valid medical exemption. Prior infection is explicitly not sufficient for an exemption. Djokovic did not meet the entry requirements, he knew he did not meet the entry rquirents, but he boarded the plane anyway. The earlier visa cancellation was overturned on procedural grounds only. This ministerial intervention is a bit heavy handed, but only produces the same outcome that would normally apply to anyone in Djokovic's situation.
- dmarcos 5y ago
  He had followed all the rules apparently. He had been granted an exception reviewed by two independent panels as required by Australian authorities. Decision backed by the Victorian Dep. of Health. The process is blind so supposedly the authorities didn’t know it was Djokovic behind the application. He boarded the plane with the papers in order: https://www.tennis365.com/australian-open/tennis-australia-novak-djokovic-medical-exemption-rigorous-review-process/ https://www.tennis365.com/australian-open/tennis-australia-n...
  - rblatz 5y ago
    The state of Victoria doesn’t set the rules for who can come into the country. They have no authority to grant entry to the country.
    - dmarcos 5y ago
      My point is that he had followed the stablished process to request an exemption and it was granted. He didn’t get special treatment because the application process is blind.
      - rblatz 5y ago
        It was an exemption to State Covid-19 rules, not an exemption to enter the country. Him and his team are purposefully muddying the waters with this exemption in an attempt to bully the country into letting him in, even though he's violated their laws and is not following their regulations.
Jansen312 5y ago
Correct thing to do at this point is really to exclude Australian Open from future glam slam. Just drop entire Australia from it. I get that they have the right to deny anyone in but they making this entire scene due PURELY as political brownie points. Sports should stay neutral. They (entiee Australia) should be punished for dragging sports into this. Better yet deny entire Australia from any world tennis events for 3 years. Now, imagine, every country using their political clout to score their brownie points. The Aussie is really angry at their leaders incompetent handling of pandemic...Djokovic is just a trigger point of their accumulated disatisfaction.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  ”Sports should stay neutral.” Right, it should but that's not the issue. Right again, Australian politicians have fucked up their response to COVID on multiple occasions but so have other many countries—name one that hasn’t! And I include Serbia in that lot, it having only 50% of its citizens vaccinated; currently, it has one of the worst vaccination records in all Europe. Leaving Australia aside for the moment, there are principles at stake here that are beyond Djokovic's case. Firstly, Djokovic brought these troubles upon himself: 1. He was fully aware of Australia’s tight COVID vaccination requirements and visa requirements long before he arrived in Australia—as his visit was a point of discussion in the world’s press weeks beforehand, yet he chose not to be vaccinated well ahead of the time of his visit. The question is why. 2. The fact that he had COVID previously is a lame excuse for thinking that he could disobey or ignore Australia’s immigration rules (no one really believes that, as he and his team would have known them to an absolute tee). It is very clear that he arrogantly and blatantly violated immigration requirements and it's widely accepted among many that he really doesn't have a valid excuse. His excuse of making a mistake simply doesn't stand up. 3. He lied about his travel status prior to traveling to Australia. To blatantly lie on any county's immigration form and one is playing with fire, especially so when the lie is easily found out (as here). Even idiots know that this is the quickest way of being refused entry to a country. Why Djokovic chose to lie and risk everything is open to question, however my opinion is that it was sheer arrogance and the fact that he is so used to getting his own way that he thought he could wing it or bullshit his way into the country. 4. Irrespective of Serbia’s position upon vaccination, Djokovic is a person of substantial means and he could have easily had himself vaccinated well ahead of time yet he deliberately chose not to. Moreover, if he is an anti-vaxxer or conscientious objector then he should have told the whole world ages ago but he chose not to. The same goes for any medical exemptions he may have had. 5. As a person on the world stage, he would have known that being unvaccinated would bring strong controversy for the very reason that he was setting a very bad example—a bad example that if followed by many—would lead to increased deaths from the pandemic. There is no doubt that among his huge followers and fan base there would be some, perhaps even many, who would follow his example and not be as lucky with COVID infection as he was. Therefore, many, many others view his stance as being selfish, self-centered and ill considerate of the lives of others. There is also the fact that Djokovic has never bothered or taken the time to explain his position. To many, this implies that he has something to hide. Moreover, it is fanciful to believe that both he and his team would have been unaware of this and the potential damage to his reputation because of his stance. Frankly, it's hard to understand why he has been so silent on the matter, perhaps he thought that the controversy would bring even more attention to himself. 6. Australia's bad treatment of Djokovic upon entry and the fact that those involved in detaining him did not afford him procedural fairness has essentially nothing to with the revocation of his visa by the Minister; they are separate issues except for the notoriety that they've brought. 7. Djokovic and his team must have been fully aware of the heightened tensions in Australia over COVID, as they've been world news for months. It is even more relevant that his destination was Melbourne, which has been the world's most locked-down city for all of the time that COVID has been active. It just isn't possible to believe that he was unaware of the political implications of this, which are that Melbournians (and many other Australians) have been hit hard by COVID and that many citizens have been trapped overseas during the pandemic and unable to return—and that the Government making an exception for him and his bad behaviour was very likely out of the question due to political fallout. Frankly, it beggars belief why he has acted the way he has. For the record I couldn't give damn if Australia/the Australian Open was excluded from future world tournaments. My interest in tennis is minimal, thus I've based these comments on what has actually happened, not how I feel about Djokovic per se. It seems to me that all the noise and brouhaha over this matter would be helped if Djokovic and other tennis fans would take a moment to be objective and not lose sight of the fact that millions of people have already died of COVID and despite the Australian Government's many fuckups, that there is real reason for why these COVID rules are in place. Must I actually say it: they're in place to save lives! Djokovic ought to have known this and complied accordingly.

m1sta_ 5y ago

Responding to your rhetorical... Yes. Covid is rampant at this point. An aggressive testing path and allowing him to play would absolutely be in the public's best interest. It's clowns on both sides here but the risk of letting him in is definitely not high enough to balance the public benefit of him being allowed to play. Once he plays the special public benefit ends and so should his visa.

avs733 5y ago
He falsified information he submitted to immigration authorities. That’s the match (to use a pun)
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  But he did it for Love!
  - avs733 5y ago
    groan...the humor on HN is going to really start changing as more of us become parents isn't it :)
maccard 5y ago
The issue imo isn't the covid-ness, it's lying on the immigration forms. If I did that, I would be barred from entering the country ever again.
ahtihn 5y ago
What's the public benefit of letting him play? Letting everyone know that the rich and famous are above the rules?
- tontonius 5y ago
  Many people find value in watching great tennis players compete in a live tournament.

King-Aaron 5y ago

> Angering those Australians would have been a huge danger for Morrison when he is only a few months away from an election. This has been the entire strategy for the government's handling of the pandemic - national interests be damned, as long as it favours the party being re-elected.

ruszki 5y ago
I don't think that national interests really mattered anytime in any country. That is just a tool to keep power. Maybe it's important for some politician, but focusing on power grab is way more beneficial at the top.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  its a sure way to sell oneself to public but yeah, types of people that manage to get and stay in top politics don't give a damn about this
  - jackosdev 5y ago
    He actually flew back to Sydney to visit his kids during the middle of a lockdown when people couldn't visit dying relatives, because it was fathers day!
- sofixa 5y ago
  There's no need to be so pessimistic. Plenty of people go into politics with good intentions, and some even stay that way after some time there. Some want to be remembered, some genuinely want to fix things. Some just want power. Skepticism is healthy, full on pessimism "everything is just a power grab" is extremely unhealthy.
  - lr1970 5y ago
    > Plenty of people go into politics with good intentions, and some even stay that way after some time there Politics is a highly competitive game. Those who do not optimize for maximizing their power and carrier advances are operating at a disadvantage.

throwaway4good 5y ago

How does this in any way make the Australian government look better?

tim333 5y ago
Sensible government policy is to enforce its rules consistently rather than exempt famous people who lie and cheat.
factorialboy 5y ago
It doesn't. In any way.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mrath 5y ago
Unfortunately whatever they do is not going to go well either locally or globally.
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  Maybe they should just do less then ...
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    In this situation they cannot do that for reasons that to acquiesce or do nothing would be seen by the Australian public, many of whom have been already shabbily treated by COVID restrictions, as favoritism towards Djokovic. I'd be political suicide (see point 7 in my earlier post).

zx85wes 5y ago

Would 50000 more deaths made it look better? Australia's handling of the crisis has been stellar compared to most other countries.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
This is a loaded question. In slovenia, more people have died from smoking related illnesses than covid (even in the last two years), but somehow "corona lives matter", peoples personal choices to go out, get ill, and risk the 0.5% chance of death don't matter, governments take more and more power, because "every life matters", but on the other hand, you can still buy cigarettes everywhere. If every life matters, then ban cigarettes, tax the shit out of sugary sodas and junk food, if you're willing to sacrifice basic human rights, also force people to exercise, and more lives will be saved than from corona. If all those lives don't matter, but corona lives do, someone is doing something very very wrong.
- tigershark 5y ago
  It’s not true. In all the world covid caused way more deaths than smoke related diseases. If in Slovenia it’s not the case then they are massively undercounting covid deaths. And the covid mortality is 1%, not 0.5%. Stop spreading dangerous misinformation.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    I have to disagree https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco > Tobacco kills more than 8 million people each year. More than 7 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 1.2 million are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Two years, 16+mio deaths. Total covid deaths, a bit over 5 mio. edit: even obesity, 2.8mio per year, 5.6mio in two years - https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/6-facts-on-obesity https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/6-fac...
    - 5y ago

factorialboy 5y ago

> The political cost of letting Djokovic stay was too high for Morrison > Australians have been barred from visiting a dying parent in hospital, blocked from seeing a new grandchild and forbidden from having a wedding. Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied? This is bizarre logic. "I got screwed, so someone else should get screwed too!" He got the exemption. It was challenged in court. He won that case. Now a minister's "personal discretion" (why is this even a thing?) timed perfectly so that even if Novak wins the court case, it would be too late for him to participate in the Australian Open.

karmasimida 5y ago
Didn't he lie that he wouldn't do international travel 14 days before entering Australia? I think there are plenty of evidence for the government to cancel him on this one.
relyks 5y ago
Djokovic has demonstrated recklessness in dealing with COVID precautions. Read his Instagram statement: https://www.instagram.com/p/CYnO7cDqbdj/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CYnO7cDqbdj/
- Canada 5y ago
  Would you paste it or quote from it for those of us who won't login to Instagram?
  - stef25 5y ago
    He posted images, here you go https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271784084_263739739046753_2542195427513812267_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=Y6-1_eNFs0wAX_muN5X&tn=-Qez1GJz__ewtPbs&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT_1tnf2HGs8Fm9zZ16XdD9Ifl5nJEWsG7xCrJ67lkS_gA&oe=61E78E9E&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1... https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271628358_449753343268937_4285302826502693296_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=DN0Dn9FQHA0AX_w3JU_&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT_0DA7Hk-en6Mio7pd_wD0GX6erG2SUi8xeo9lXx_4DxA&oe=61E868A3&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1... https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271580018_119494650593967_7703820489756821102_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=103&_nc_ohc=Ah4n4GhnSFkAX9GZg0z&tn=-Qez1GJz__ewtPbs&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT-nrq7J9LS802zuOHHiUHISgt52fZRAsuaX9rj_E3Rlfw&oe=61E84DBF&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1... https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271556830_3058426824370281_4441150470964509124_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=109&_nc_ohc=YsGpl3N-tAsAX-YMeMB&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT_2soRD4p7l6KE929-jchRO9L2JX-9jWoZ4qNiKqT0ZMw&oe=61E7C393&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1... https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e15/s1080x1080/271698908_254436903489695_6568836930630370775_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=111&_nc_ohc=RRumB2EopO4AX9CkRnm&tn=-Qez1GJz__ewtPbs&edm=AABBvjUBAAAA&ccb=7-4&oh=00_AT_ltYAsbdb-SPqzYj7rzxMECnqRQBmqaLiHeO93tfvBMg&oe=61E8EB99&_nc_sid=83d603 https://scontent-bru2-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/fr/e1...

qwerty456127 5y ago

> Australians have been barred from visiting a dying parent in hospital, blocked from seeing a new grandchild and forbidden from having a wedding. Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied? No, they should not have accepted being barred perhaps. When you are oppressed just insisting no other one is treated justfully (the way the court decided in accordance with the law) is not a morally right solution. Also expelling a person who has already got in the country physically and attended a courts makes no sense from the epidemiological point of view - he has already brought the virus in if he had it. And by the way attending a wedding or a family meeting where people stand close, often in a small room, is quite different from just visiting a country or playing tennis (which doesn't require you to stand close to anybody, let alone in a room).

lb0 5y ago
> No, they should not have accepted being barred. But what if most accepted those limitations, and while personally a disaster, found it on the other hand right to follow common sense and obey rules applying to everyone for the greater cause of society? Rules applying to everyone the same is one of the basic foundations of a just society... > Also expelling a person who has already got in the country physically and attended a courts makes no sense from the epidemiological point of view - he has already brought the virus No matter what you argue beyond, the epidemiological aspect is now not really the point here anymore. He faked stuff for entry one or the other way (I think it is even more likely he wasn't positive at all, but that the second test was just created so he counts as recovered, which was the requirement to get in if not vaccinated..) - so its good to see consequences on that.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  > obey rules applying to everyone for the greater cause of society? Sounds like communism. No cause can be considered greater than freedom. > No matter what you argue beyond, the epidemiological aspect is now not really the point here anymore. He faked stuff He should be investigated for faking then and expelled/imprisoned/fined by a court if evidence proves him guilty. > second test was just created so he counts as recovered, which was the requirement to get in if not vaccinated Just test him antibodies/T-cells + PCR and you know if a person used to be sick and recovered. No necessity for speculation here. Presence of immunity (which one only get through overcoming the sickness or a vaccine) is an objective thing. Is it not? I would also suggest introducing a law sentencing people who falsely claim they are immune or expose others to a risk of being infected any other way to serve a sentence aiding in a hospital taking care of infected people.

aaron695 5y ago

Mikeb85 5y ago

> Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied? It seems Djokovic went through all the proper channels to get an exemption and visa. Australia's institutions gave him a visa. The real exemption is that a minister is disregarding Australia's institutions and cancelling his visa because "feelings". Australia needs to take a hard look at their laws and the way they treat their citizens instead of creating a high profile scapegoat.

tim333 5y ago
He lied to immigration on a form saying very clearly that it was a serious offence to lie on that one.
askvictor 5y ago
There's also the issue of the immigration department seemingly not properly scrutinizing the application, as well as Djokovic lying on the application forms. But most likely this is all an intentionally concocted distraction from government's failings in the current outbreak.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  So how did he win his first court challenge? Why aren't those institutions being scrutinized? Where's the proof he faked his documents and why isn't that alone cause for Australia's institutions to not have issued a visa? Why did it take a last-minute act from a minister to revoke his visa?
  - rblatz 5y ago
    Because of a minor procedural misstep. Had they waited an additional hour, they would have been in the clear.
  - manicdee 5y ago
    Some of the proof that he faked his visa application is claiming he is vaccinated when he is not, and claiming he had not travelled in the week before boarding the plane when he had documented a trip to Spain while COVID-positive. The Spanish government is now investigating whether Novak Djokovic travelled to Spain illegally, so there’s more legal shenanigans waiting for him when he eventually gets home. The reason none of this resulted in his visa being refused in the first place is that the Australian tennis folks are buddy-buddy with the Prime Minister’s folks, and the unofficial ministerial guidelines are that if there’s an event associated with government cronies then all stops are pulled.

Joeri 5y ago

and may continue through the courts. Meta-thought: I have started to pay attention to just how often courts strike down executive decisions because they are unlawful, and strike down new laws because they are unconstitutional or in conflict with international agreements. People tend to blame activist judges, but most of the time the judges are just trying to interpret the laws as they are written. There seems to be an interesting dynamic at work where societies ossify through accretion of laws. As more international agreements are signed and laws are put on the books, the web of constraints that new policies must adhere to grows more complicated, and the ability by the public to get a new executive decision or a new law stricken through the court system grows greater. When a great reset happens (a revolution) you tend to see a nimble government immediately after, but also often accompanied with widespread civil rights violations, and as the laws and deals and civil rights start accreting the pace of change slows down. Looking at my own country for example (Belgium). Back in the 60's the government could just decide to build nuclear power plants, without consulting the public at all, because there was very little in the form of environmental legislation or international agreements to bind them. Nowadays we can't legally decide to keep the plants open past 2025, because the work necessary to keep them open can't start without changing the law, and changing the law cannot legally be done without an EU-wide consultation and environmental impact study process. Any attempts to do these things anyway would quickly get blocked by the courts. I find this increasing level of legal ossification endlessly fascinating in a somewhat terrifying sort of way. It makes me wonder whether democracy inevitably leads to incapable frozen government that needs a non-democratic great reset to wipe away the accreted laws and unlock the government's ability to get things done.

native_samples 5y ago
Non-democracies don't exactly have a great track record of legal nimbleness and enlightened decision making either. The root cause here is ideology, which can occur in both democracies and dictatorships. The two are orthogonal - democracies can both regulate and deregulate, as can dictatorships.

scarab92 5y ago

Politics aside, the entry requirements for Australia explicitly require full vaccination with a WHO approved vaccine or a valid medical exemption. Prior infection is explicitly not sufficient for an exemption. Djokovic did not meet the entry requirements, he knew he did not meet the entry rquirents, but he boarded the plane anyway. The earlier visa cancellation was overturned on procedural grounds only. This ministerial intervention is a bit heavy handed, but only produces the same outcome that would normally apply to anyone in Djokovic's situation.

dmarcos 5y ago
He had followed all the rules apparently. He had been granted an exception reviewed by two independent panels as required by Australian authorities. Decision backed by the Victorian Dep. of Health. The process is blind so supposedly the authorities didn’t know it was Djokovic behind the application. He boarded the plane with the papers in order: https://www.tennis365.com/australian-open/tennis-australia-novak-djokovic-medical-exemption-rigorous-review-process/ https://www.tennis365.com/australian-open/tennis-australia-n...
- rblatz 5y ago
  The state of Victoria doesn’t set the rules for who can come into the country. They have no authority to grant entry to the country.
  - dmarcos 5y ago
    My point is that he had followed the stablished process to request an exemption and it was granted. He didn’t get special treatment because the application process is blind.
    - rblatz 5y ago
      It was an exemption to State Covid-19 rules, not an exemption to enter the country. Him and his team are purposefully muddying the waters with this exemption in an attempt to bully the country into letting him in, even though he's violated their laws and is not following their regulations.

Jansen312 5y ago

Correct thing to do at this point is really to exclude Australian Open from future glam slam. Just drop entire Australia from it. I get that they have the right to deny anyone in but they making this entire scene due PURELY as political brownie points. Sports should stay neutral. They (entiee Australia) should be punished for dragging sports into this. Better yet deny entire Australia from any world tennis events for 3 years. Now, imagine, every country using their political clout to score their brownie points. The Aussie is really angry at their leaders incompetent handling of pandemic...Djokovic is just a trigger point of their accumulated disatisfaction.

hilbert42 5y ago
”Sports should stay neutral.” Right, it should but that's not the issue. Right again, Australian politicians have fucked up their response to COVID on multiple occasions but so have other many countries—name one that hasn’t! And I include Serbia in that lot, it having only 50% of its citizens vaccinated; currently, it has one of the worst vaccination records in all Europe. Leaving Australia aside for the moment, there are principles at stake here that are beyond Djokovic's case. Firstly, Djokovic brought these troubles upon himself: 1. He was fully aware of Australia’s tight COVID vaccination requirements and visa requirements long before he arrived in Australia—as his visit was a point of discussion in the world’s press weeks beforehand, yet he chose not to be vaccinated well ahead of the time of his visit. The question is why. 2. The fact that he had COVID previously is a lame excuse for thinking that he could disobey or ignore Australia’s immigration rules (no one really believes that, as he and his team would have known them to an absolute tee). It is very clear that he arrogantly and blatantly violated immigration requirements and it's widely accepted among many that he really doesn't have a valid excuse. His excuse of making a mistake simply doesn't stand up. 3. He lied about his travel status prior to traveling to Australia. To blatantly lie on any county's immigration form and one is playing with fire, especially so when the lie is easily found out (as here). Even idiots know that this is the quickest way of being refused entry to a country. Why Djokovic chose to lie and risk everything is open to question, however my opinion is that it was sheer arrogance and the fact that he is so used to getting his own way that he thought he could wing it or bullshit his way into the country. 4. Irrespective of Serbia’s position upon vaccination, Djokovic is a person of substantial means and he could have easily had himself vaccinated well ahead of time yet he deliberately chose not to. Moreover, if he is an anti-vaxxer or conscientious objector then he should have told the whole world ages ago but he chose not to. The same goes for any medical exemptions he may have had. 5. As a person on the world stage, he would have known that being unvaccinated would bring strong controversy for the very reason that he was setting a very bad example—a bad example that if followed by many—would lead to increased deaths from the pandemic. There is no doubt that among his huge followers and fan base there would be some, perhaps even many, who would follow his example and not be as lucky with COVID infection as he was. Therefore, many, many others view his stance as being selfish, self-centered and ill considerate of the lives of others. There is also the fact that Djokovic has never bothered or taken the time to explain his position. To many, this implies that he has something to hide. Moreover, it is fanciful to believe that both he and his team would have been unaware of this and the potential damage to his reputation because of his stance. Frankly, it's hard to understand why he has been so silent on the matter, perhaps he thought that the controversy would bring even more attention to himself. 6. Australia's bad treatment of Djokovic upon entry and the fact that those involved in detaining him did not afford him procedural fairness has essentially nothing to with the revocation of his visa by the Minister; they are separate issues except for the notoriety that they've brought. 7. Djokovic and his team must have been fully aware of the heightened tensions in Australia over COVID, as they've been world news for months. It is even more relevant that his destination was Melbourne, which has been the world's most locked-down city for all of the time that COVID has been active. It just isn't possible to believe that he was unaware of the political implications of this, which are that Melbournians (and many other Australians) have been hit hard by COVID and that many citizens have been trapped overseas during the pandemic and unable to return—and that the Government making an exception for him and his bad behaviour was very likely out of the question due to political fallout. Frankly, it beggars belief why he has acted the way he has. For the record I couldn't give damn if Australia/the Australian Open was excluded from future world tournaments. My interest in tennis is minimal, thus I've based these comments on what has actually happened, not how I feel about Djokovic per se. It seems to me that all the noise and brouhaha over this matter would be helped if Djokovic and other tennis fans would take a moment to be objective and not lose sight of the fact that millions of people have already died of COVID and despite the Australian Government's many fuckups, that there is real reason for why these COVID rules are in place. Must I actually say it: they're in place to save lives! Djokovic ought to have known this and complied accordingly.