4 ms·

Even disregarding that the exemption was issued by the tennis association to play in the tournament, not for entering the country… it was predicated on him bein

by cynix 5y ago

Even disregarding that the exemption was issued by the tennis association to play in the tournament, not for entering the country… it was predicated on him being able to provide a valid medical reason, _and_ not lying on his entry documents. Neither of which he managed to do.

vore 5y ago
The judge's opinion does not concur: https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2022/1/10/judge-reinstates-djokovics-visa-orders-release-from-detention https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2022/1/10/judge-reinstates-... Judge Kelly noted that Djokovic had provided officials at Melbourne’s airport with a medical exemption given him by Tennis Australia, which is organising the tournament, and two medical panels. “The point I’m somewhat agitated about is what more could this man have done?” Kelly asked Djokovic’s lawyer, Nick Wood. Wood agreed with the judge that Djokovic could not have done more. All this posturing about "rules are rules" seems to be an after-the-fact finger-pointing exercise and trying to get someone to own a decision that should not have been made in the first place.
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  Yes. Even the court says he provided the documentation required. I don't understand how anyone can defend Australia's arbritary and vengeful border practices. If the Australian authorities didn't want him in because he is an evil anti-vaxxer then they could have just denied visa from the get go.
  - cynix 5y ago
    Nope. That was a private comment made by the judge (who is obviously lacking in impartiality, since he made that comment very early on, before the two sides presented their cases). The decision to quash the original cancellation was due to agreement between Djokovic’s and the government’s legal teams, and the judge made no ruling of his own. See linked Twitter thread in the sibling comment.
- roca 5y ago
  I do not understand the "what more could this man have done?" line. Trying very hard to meet the rules for entering a country, but not actually being able to meet them, does not normally give people the right to enter that country.
  - vore 5y ago
    I think the sticking point here was that he was given approval by the Victorian government which failed to communicate with the federal government. Arguably you can frame it as his fault that he did not get an assurance from the federal government, but a reasonable person would not expect the state government to have failed to secure the required assurances from the federal government.
    - roca 5y ago
      Failure to understand the system is also not usually grounds for being allowed to enter a country.
- cynix 5y ago
  Nope. Here’s a good thread summarising the original cancellation: https://twitter.com/sangpillai/status/1481906405011783682 https://twitter.com/sangpillai/status/1481906405011783682 Note that: > No agreement, and no decision, was made on whether the ABF officer could have cancelled Djokovic’s visa under s 116 in a watertight way. All that was found was that the process he followed was deficient enough that the original cancellation couldn’t stand.

by cynix 5y ago

vore 5y ago

The judge's opinion does not concur: https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2022/1/10/judge-reinstates-djokovics-visa-orders-release-from-detention https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2022/1/10/judge-reinstates-... Judge Kelly noted that Djokovic had provided officials at Melbourne’s airport with a medical exemption given him by Tennis Australia, which is organising the tournament, and two medical panels. “The point I’m somewhat agitated about is what more could this man have done?” Kelly asked Djokovic’s lawyer, Nick Wood. Wood agreed with the judge that Djokovic could not have done more. All this posturing about "rules are rules" seems to be an after-the-fact finger-pointing exercise and trying to get someone to own a decision that should not have been made in the first place.

throwaway4good 5y ago
Yes. Even the court says he provided the documentation required. I don't understand how anyone can defend Australia's arbritary and vengeful border practices. If the Australian authorities didn't want him in because he is an evil anti-vaxxer then they could have just denied visa from the get go.
- cynix 5y ago
  Nope. That was a private comment made by the judge (who is obviously lacking in impartiality, since he made that comment very early on, before the two sides presented their cases). The decision to quash the original cancellation was due to agreement between Djokovic’s and the government’s legal teams, and the judge made no ruling of his own. See linked Twitter thread in the sibling comment.
roca 5y ago
I do not understand the "what more could this man have done?" line. Trying very hard to meet the rules for entering a country, but not actually being able to meet them, does not normally give people the right to enter that country.
- vore 5y ago
  I think the sticking point here was that he was given approval by the Victorian government which failed to communicate with the federal government. Arguably you can frame it as his fault that he did not get an assurance from the federal government, but a reasonable person would not expect the state government to have failed to secure the required assurances from the federal government.
  - roca 5y ago
    Failure to understand the system is also not usually grounds for being allowed to enter a country.
cynix 5y ago
Nope. Here’s a good thread summarising the original cancellation: https://twitter.com/sangpillai/status/1481906405011783682 https://twitter.com/sangpillai/status/1481906405011783682 Note that: > No agreement, and no decision, was made on whether the ABF officer could have cancelled Djokovic’s visa under s 116 in a watertight way. All that was found was that the process he followed was deficient enough that the original cancellation couldn’t stand.