Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36109486)

Novak had a choice though. He had more than one choice.

He could have chosen to get the vaccine and meet the eligibility rules easily for Australia and he chose not to do so.

Even then having, apparently, got COVID in December he could have chosen not to travel abroad in the 14 days prior and he could have chosen not to do an interview with L'Equipe whilst positive - a choice he didn't give the journalists - but he chose not to do so.

Then he chose to lie on his immigration form.

So now Australia have chosen to kick him out.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36109488)

I'll withdraw anti vaxe however nutjob remains

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2020/05/nov...science-babble

it's also none of your business what the Australian government choose to do.

My opinion of him is just as pertinent as your opinion of the Australian government.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36109491)

Spot on. If he's going to try and swerve the vaccine rule, he at least has to be seen to be self-isolating and fill out the forms correctly!

This is just plain incompetence.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36109492)

00
Then his judgement should come from the rule of law - not a minister.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36109494)

I know what you mean but every country is different in the way that it is run. It is acknowledged as being a democratic country.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36109495)

Not anymore given their draconian antics of late.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36109496)

If the people are unhappy with the government then they can vote them out at the next election in free and fair elections. That's the definition of a democracy, not how they enforce their border.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36109492)

I never said it was my business - Jesus Christ - we are debating in a bloody topic aren't we? :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------



Then his judgement should come from the rule of law - not a minister.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36109490)

Then again, it should be handled by a court of law or are you just happy for checks and balances to be ignored and now support communism by the back door and Australia becoming a Banana Republic ?

Additionally - Why would he want to take a vaccine that does nothing to stop transmission and could potentially have side effects that he does not want, being a healthily sporting athlete - that is his choice, he is not effecting anyone else by not getting vaccinated, any more than a vaccinated person is. Because both can equally pass on the virus.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36109499)

It is his choice but this is a foreign country and they are making choices too. The position of most country's medical authorities is that the vaccine does reduce - not eliminate but reduce - the spread.

You may disagree with that, Novak may disagree with that, but the Australian Government is listening to their medical authorities.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36109498)

It does - from section 133C(3) of the Migration Act, a Law passed by the Australian Parliament.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/leg...118/s133c.html

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36109503)

I am going to disagree with it because, I've seen more people triple vaccinated pass on the virus these last few weeks.

The virus does not reduce the chances of getting it in any way, it only stops people getting ill, that is it's function, I am sick of saying this and I work on the front line and see it with my own eyes!

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:51 ----------



And what about an order from the court being overturned by a minister, is this their law?

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36109503)

I am going to disagree with it because, I've seen more people triple vaccinated pass on the virus these last few weeks.

The virus does not reduce the chances of getting it in any way, it only stops people getting ill, that is it's function, I am sick of saying this and I work on the front line and see it with my own eyes!

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36109510)

Yes

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36109513)

Then I rest my case. Australia is a Banana Republic.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36109521)

You'll probably disagree, but what does that make the UK when the Home Secretary can impose a whole-life tariff OR overrule a full-life tariff and sanction early release. Don't both scenarios make a bit of a mockery of our court system (and by your definition make us a Banana Republic)?

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36109513)

Then I rest my case. Australia is a Banana Republic.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36109521)

You'll probably disagree, but what does that make the UK when the Home Secretary can impose a whole-life tariff OR overrule a full-life tariff and sanction early release. Don't both scenarios make a bit of a mockery of our court system (and by your definition make us a Banana Republic)?