Novak Djokovic tries to go to Oz

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

Good to see Australia enforcing the rules whilst our own Prime Minister makes us look like a banana republic with his disdain for them.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

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 1andrew1

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.

Not anymore given their draconian antics of late.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Not anymore given their draconian antics of late.

If the Australian people are unhappy with the government then they can vote them out in free and fair elections.

That's the definition of a democracy, not how they enforce their border.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

Gee wizz, I would never have known this, if you had never graced passed me with such knowledge.

Originally Posted by Mick

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

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



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

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

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.

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 Damien

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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

Originally Posted by Mick

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?

Yes

Originally Posted by Mick

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!

Yeah and we don't have to go over that debate again.

But for the purposes of this discussion, Australia is going with what is currently the mainstream consensus and they're the ones who set the rules for that country. If Novak wants to go to Australia his best bet was to get the vaccine.

He doesn't have to get it but now he cannot get into Australia. That is the consequence of the choice he made.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes

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

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

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)?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

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)?

We’ve still got the Queen and don’t have sufficient trade in bananas for that.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

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)?

The UK could be named as a Boomerang Republic . . . .



. . . they throw rules about that return to hit them