Spreadnecks: COVIDIOTS, Anti-Maskers, Anti-Vaxxers, Etc.

[LM K]

Here's some questions.

Will Djokovic go to the plane voluntarily or will he have to be formally deported.

Will Djokovic be deported?
Sunday's decision means Novak Djokovic will return to immigration detention at the Park Hotel in the city center, where around 30 refugees are being held.

It's not clear yet if and when he'll be deported.

"Deportation means that you refuse to leave voluntarily and the Commonwealth then has to step in," lawyer Maria Jockel, an immigration expert from BDO Australia, told CNN Friday, before the decision.
In the case of deportation, "Australian Border Force officials have to walk you to the plane and get on the plane and ensure that you actually depart," she said.

CNN has requested a response from Djokovic and his legal team to Sunday's ruling.

Will Djokovic appeal again? I doubt it, but he could. He'd be held in the detention facility, which is not where he has any desire to be.

[LM K]

[scirreeve]

Anti-vaccine, sovereign citizen conspiracists enter a vaccination centre claiming they are "constables from the common law court" and telling members of the armed forces that they are "under arrest" for "high treason".

He posted a follow up and - yep - it is stupid (the content, not him). Look at the 2nd video (I don't know why the 1st one reposted).

[LM K]

Djokovic isn't going to appeal again.

[Dave from down under]

Novak Djokovic has lost his second visa battle in a week after the Federal Court dismissed his application against Immigration Minister Alex Hawke's decision.

The Serbian will now be deported.

[LM K]

PM Responds to Djokovic Case
The Full Federal Court of Australia unanimously decided to dismiss Mr Novak Djokovic’s application for judicial review which sought to challenge the Minister for Immigration’s decision to cancel his visa.

This cancellation decision was made on health, safety and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.

I welcome the decision to keep our borders strong and keep Australians safe.

As I said on Friday, Australians have made many sacrifices during this pandemic, and they rightly expect the result of those sacrifices to be protected.

Over the pandemic, together we have achieved one of the lowest death rates, strongest economies and highest vaccination rates, in the world.

Strong borders are fundamental to the Australian way of life as is the rule of law.

Our Government has always understood this and has been prepared to take the decisions and actions necessary to protect the integrity of our borders.

I thank the Court for their prompt attention to these issues and the patience of all involved as we have worked to resolve this issue.

It’s now time to get on with the Australian Open and get back to enjoying tennis over the summer.

[neonzx]

Novak Djokovic has lost his second visa battle in a week after the Federal Court dismissed his application against Immigration Minister Alex Hawke's decision.

The Serbian will now be deported.

[Volkonski]

So what airline will want to fly the unvaccinated Djokovic back to Serbia?

[RTH10260]

So what airline will want to fly the unvaccinated Djokovic back to Serbia?

The burden may be on the company that brought him into DownUnder as with anyone whose visa was cancelled straight away on entry and not even permitted into the country. waiting for next free seating ...

[Dave from down under]

He can swim for all I care..

[RTH10260]

ByeBye and don't let the door hit you...

Novak Djokovic leaves Australia after court upholds visa cancellation
Serbian tennis player seen boarding plane to Dubai hours after decision left him ‘extremely disappointed’

Paul Karp
Sun 16 Jan 2022 11.46 GMT

Novak Djokovic has been deported from Australia ahead of the Australian Open after the full federal court dismissed the world No 1’s bid to restore his visa.

The Serbian tennis player was seen boarding an Emirates flight from Melbourne to Dubai hours after the court rejected his challenge to the decision of Australian immigration minister, Alex Hawke, to cancel the visa. The flight left shortly after 10.30pm local time (11.30am GMT).



https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ncellation

[jcolvin2]

Djokovic isn't going to appeal again.

Having requested and received a three judge panel (rather than a single judge), my understanding was that Djokovic did not have the option of appealing further.

[filly]

Djokovic isn't going to appeal again.

Having requested and received a three judge panel (rather than a single judge), my understanding was that Djokovic did not have the option of appealing further.

That’s not exactly what the Australian legal folks were saying in CNN but it was not a viable option for a number of reasons, including timing.

[LM K]

Djokovic isn't going to appeal again.

Having requested and received a three judge panel (rather than a single judge), my understanding was that Djokovic did not have the option of appealing further.

That's how I initially interpreted it. The three judge panel stated that at the beginning of yesterday's hearing that a future appeal wouldn't be possible if a panel of 3 judges were ruling together. I think the panel was saying that a 3 judge panel would take longer to reach a ruling, which would make it impossible for Djokovic to realistically file an appeal in time to play today.

[LM K]

It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that Djokovic didn't ask for public harmony in his statement.

[keith]

Djokovic isn't going to appeal again.

Having requested and received a three judge panel (rather than a single judge), my understanding was that Djokovic did not have the option of appealing further.

That's how I initially interpreted it. The three judge panel stated that at the beginning of yesterday's hearing that a future appeal wouldn't be possible if a panel of 3 judges were ruling together. I think the panel was saying that a 3 judge panel would take longer to reach a ruling, which would make it impossible for Djokovic to realistically file an appeal in time to play today.

Timing aside, if the hearing is before one judge then he could appeal to the full court tribunal. Since he skipped that step, there are no higher courts to appeal to.

and again, this was not discussing the merits - not about whether he lied on his immigration for example - it was about whether the government did it properly

[LM K]

Timing aside, if the hearing is before one judge then he could appeal to the full court tribunal. Since he skipped that step, there are no higher courts to appeal to.

and again, this was not discussing the merits - not about whether he lied on his immigration for example - it was about whether the government did it properly

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for clarifying this, Keith!

[somerset]

Having requested and received a three judge panel (rather than a single judge), my understanding was that Djokovic did not have the option of appealing further.

That's how I initially interpreted it. The three judge panel stated that at the beginning of yesterday's hearing that a future appeal wouldn't be possible if a panel of 3 judges were ruling together. I think the panel was saying that a 3 judge panel would take longer to reach a ruling, which would make it impossible for Djokovic to realistically file an appeal in time to play today.

Timing aside, if the hearing is before one judge then he could appeal to the full court tribunal. Since he skipped that step, there are no higher courts to appeal to.

and again, this was not discussing the merits - not about whether he lied on his immigration for example - it was about whether the government did it properly

This from just before the hearing:
https://www.economist.com/asia/novak-dj ... t/21807118

The case against him has been spectacularly bungled. The state government of Victoria, where the tournament is held, approved his medical exemption from vaccination, thus allowing him to enter the country, on the grounds that he had recently recovered from covid-19. The country’s conservative prime minister, Scott Morrison, endorsed this decision. Then, after a public outcry, he changed his mind. When Mr Djokovic landed in Melbourne on January 5th he was detained for eight hours before officials cancelled his visa on the grounds that he is unvaccinated, and sent him to the Park Hotel to await deportation.

How did the government tie itself up in such knots? “One explanation for the stuff-up is political,” says Abul Rizvi, a former deputy secretary of the country’s department of immigration. Australians are proudly egalitarian. Their mantra is that everyone should get a “fair go”. Yet during the pandemic, governments have bent the rules for the rich and famous. After they slammed state and international borders shut, swarms of celebrities arrived from Hollywood, isolating in mansions instead of quarantine hotels. That infuriated locals who were separated from their families for months or years on end.

When Mr Djokovic announced that he had been granted permission to fly to Australia, many were incandescent. Why should an anti-vaxxing superstar get special treatment, they demanded. Some still want to send him packing. Mr Djokovic’s appeal revealed to rule-abiding Australians that he had flouted pandemic restrictions. He was caught out for conducting a face-to-face interview two days after he was diagnosed with covid on December 16th, and for making a false declaration in a legally binding Australian travel form. The second mistake, he says, was a “human error” by the agent who submitted the document.



Yet detaining the world number one twice would send an odd signal to the world. The saga has already set off a diplomatic incident with Serbia. And it might suggest Australia’s government is overruling the courts. The ministerial powers bestowed on Mr Hawke were designed to turf out terrorists and criminals, says Mr Rizvi, who helped design them. Using them against a sportsman would be “entirely inappropriate”, he says. Mr Morrison’s government has left itself with no good options. Whatever it does, Australians are likely to find fault—and double-fault.

And a follow-on article:
https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/01/ ... visa-again

To many Aussies, it seems like he has fiddled the system. One angry news anchor summed up the national mood in a leaked video, asserting that “whatever way you look at it, Novak Djokovic is a lying, sneaky asshole”. Australians by and large like rules, expect people to stick to them and trust governments to solve their problems. The country is, among Western democracies, almost uniquely utilitarian, points out Ian McAllister of the Australian National University. It puts the greater good above rugged individualism. By that reasoning, Mr Djokovic has a right to be unvaccinated, but the government can protect other people by kicking him out.

Yet this looks a lot like an executive trying to overrule its judiciary. The power Mr Hawke has drawn on was designed to remove people who pose an extreme threat to the Australian community, not to deport objectionable celebrities. It is “an affront to the rule of law, because it is designed to sideline the courts”, argues Greg Barns, an Australian barrister. Federal judges “loathe this provision” and often overturn it, he says. Mr Djokovic can still hope to go from the law court to the tennis court—and not the airport.

[pipistrelle]

Does anyone here play with Dr. Jordan Peterson (Canadian)?

[keith]

was about whether the government did it properly

This from just before the hearing:
https://www.economist.com/asia/novak-dj ... t/21807118

The case against him has been spectacularly bungled. The state government of Victoria, where the tournament is held, approved his medical exemption from vaccination, thus allowing him to enter the country, on the grounds that he had recently recovered from covid-19.

That is not quite what happened. Tennis Australia and the Australian Open set up an 'independent panel of experts' to evaluate players claims of medical exemptions. Unsurprisingly, that panel rubber stamped the ones that were not obviously faked. The State Government then said, OK those folks won't be required to to quarantine for the 14 days we would normally require. That is the limit of the State Government's involvement. The State Government had NOTHING to do with approving his medical exemption and neither the State Government nor the 'independent panel' had anything to do with immigration requirements.

The country’s conservative prime minister, Scott Morrison, endorsed this decision. Then, after a public outcry, he changed his mind.

I don't recall that happening, but Scotty 'From Marketing' Morrison has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth and saying stuff - and I assume he was wearing his marketing hat and was attempting to promote the tennis match.

When Mr Djokovic landed in Melbourne on January 5th he was detained for eight hours before officials cancelled his visa on the grounds that he is unvaccinated, and sent him to the Park Hotel to await deportation.

Actually, the Visa was withdrawn because Djokovic was not vaccinated and could not produce a VALID medical exemption according to Australian Immigration law. The rules are well described on Government websites. Djokovic and his team have been coming to Australia (and all over the world) for almost 20 years and know how to ensure they are following the rules.

This event was what the first court hearing was about - not the merits of Djokovic' case, but whether the Border Force treated him properly according to Australian Law. Djokovic won at that hearing and was released.

However, Australian law gives the Minister of Immigration a final say. After deliberations and the public revelation that Djokovic had in fact lied on his immigration entry form, his behaviour violating Covid-19 isolation protocols after a positive test result, and real doubts about whether he actually did conveniently, at just the right time, contract Covid-19 at all - the Minister decided to withdraw the visa again. I cannot say how much those revelations affected the Ministers decision because he did not cite them in his decision (as far as I know anyway). I suspect he didn't want to out and out officially brand him as a liar, but they certainly fed the anger of the man in the street. He rejected the visa on 'character' grounds, but I would think that his well known anti-vax attitude and his behaviour after a positive test (either he was lying or he was purposely trying to infect school children) must have weighed on the 'character' decision.

Djokovic appealed the Minister's decision - arguing that he had not taken everything into account - and lost.

So, I repeat, neither the first case nor the second case had specifically anything to do with the 'merits' of Djokovic' case with respect to lying on his immigration card, or his whether his medical exemption was valid or not or anything of that ilk. Both cases were all about the Government's handling of the visa. In the first case, the Border Force was seen to have bungled the process, and the second case the Government was found to have acted properly.

The ministerial powers bestowed on Mr Hawke were designed to turf out terrorists and criminals, says Mr Rizvi, who helped design them. Using them against a sportsman would be “entirely inappropriate”, he says. Mr Morrison’s government has left itself with no good options. Whatever it does, Australians are likely to find fault—and double-fault.

Well that is just not true, and it wasn't true when Rizvi 'helped design them'. I remember when this law was being debated the last time it was 'updated'. It was a vigorous debate at the time, and lots of people, including me, had lots of problems with it. That debate fixed a lot of problems with it, and for sure it isn't perfect, but one problem it does not have is an exemption for athletes no matter how much they are paid to advertise their sponsors.

Here is a list of some of the folks who have been rejected using the law:

The Age: Rappers, deplorables and anti-vaxxers: The people Australia has banned

• Katie Hopkins (Covid restriction violator and public nudist - she's British)
• Milo Yiannopoulos (banned on character grounds, then let in after political pressure, then banned again after confirming his bad character)
• Chelsea Manning (character grounds - criminal background)
• David Icke (shape-shifting alien hunter and holocaust denier)
• Gavin McInnes ('Proud Boys' founder, terrorist)
• Kent Heckenlively (self described "worlds #1 anti-vaxxer" - banned in 2017 - so before Covid)
• Bassem Tamimi (Palestinian Activist)
• Johnny Depp and Amber Heard (importing bioweapons - i.e. smuggling their dogs Pistol and Boo)
• Snoop Dogg (character - drugs and firearms violations)
• Joe Cocker (marijuana possession - 1974 - different law back then, but similar effect)

So in that list (I'm sure there are many more) there is exactly one person who is categorically defined as a 'terrorist' (McInnes' Proud Boys is branded a terrorist organization by Canada), and one 'Activist' (who some might consider a terrorist).

And a follow-on article:
https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/01/ ... visa-again

To many Aussies, it seems like he has fiddled the system. One angry news anchor summed up the national mood in a leaked video, asserting that “whatever way you look at it, Novak Djokovic is a lying, sneaky asshole”.

Yes, that is most definately the mood 'on the street' - an Age poll shows that 71% say exactly that and IIRC around 16% couldn't care less, leaving about 13% who wanted him to stay.

Yet this looks a lot like an executive trying to overrule its judiciary. The power Mr Hawke has drawn on was designed to remove people who pose an extreme threat to the Australian community, not to deport objectionable celebrities. It is “an affront to the rule of law, because it is designed to side line the courts”, argues Greg Barns, an Australian barrister. Federal judges “loathe this provision” and often overturn it, he says. Mr Djokovic can still hope to go from the law court to the tennis court—and not the airport.

That last is total bullshit from start to finish. Notice that that Economist article was BEFORE the second court appearance. You will notice that Barns was predicting that the court would throw it out because they "loathe the provision". If it "side lines the courts" how do the issues end up in court at all?

Individual immigration decisions CANNOT be dumped onto the courts. It is the Governments job to do that. If someone has a problem with the Government decision, they can take it to court - which is exactly what Djokovic did. Rather than being an "affront to the law" it is the "rule of law".

[Lani]

Screenshot 2022-01-13.png (177.74 KiB) Viewed 1048 times

[RTH10260]

[Uninformed]

I understand that the two independent review bodies that “passed” Djokovic as eligible for an exemption did so not knowing whose case they were dealing with in order to prevent any bias or preferential treatment. If so, who if anybody was responsible for verifying the proof/evidence submitted?

Too, also, thanks Keith - the standard of reporting of this farce has been (more than normally?) appalling.

[RTH10260]

[Volkonski]

John Dale Blue heartFlag of European UnionFlag of United Kingdom
@RiffmanDale
Czech singer Hanka Horká from Asonance - a vocal anti-vaxxer who deliberately got herself infected with Covid 19 to avoid having to take the vaccine - died of covid yesterday.

Czech Antivaxxers had been placing classified ads for covid-positive people to infect them.