Novak Djokovic's entry to Australia rejected, tennis star to be flown out later today

Forums › Sports › Novak Djokovic's entry to Australia rejected, tennis star to be flown out later today

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 23

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2851580 16-Jan-2022 18:29

tdgeek:

Im just in so haven't read the rest of this tread or the news. My take is he will be deported but not banned for 3 years. The basis is he isnt an undesirable, a recidivist or a risk in the future.

That is not possible. A cancellation of a visa is an "adverse decision" which carries an automatic ban for three years. That cannot be waived, except on an individual basis each time a new visa is applied for.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2851584 16-Jan-2022 18:39

Kyanar:

tdgeek:

Im just in so haven't read the rest of this tread or the news. My take is he will be deported but not banned for 3 years. The basis is he isnt an undesirable, a recidivist or a risk in the future.

That is not possible. A cancellation of a visa is an "adverse decision" which carries an automatic ban for three years. That cannot be waived, except on an individual basis each time a new visa is applied for.

Ok, I read that it "may" be three years. Say I was a crim of some sort, or an undesirable. ND isnt a crim or an undesirable. For health and safety and Covid he may be sent packing, but it would be unreasonable to ban him for three years. Is he a risk to Australia for years? No. My opinion.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2851585 16-Jan-2022 18:40

tdgeek:

He is of good character, his life is an open book. Covid-wise, not so much

You and I (and the Minister of Immigration) have a very different definition of "good character". Making a false statement on a legal declaration (whether he had travelled in the last 14 days to a third country) or allowing a false declaration to be made for him (knowing that answering truthfully would result in a refusal of his permission to travel), knowingly exposing unsuspecting third parties to infection with a disease of pandemic proportions by attending a school and a journalist interview after being informed he had tested positive, and then wasting the resources of a host country by having a valid decision of immigration authorities thrown out on a technicality.

These are not the actions of a person of good character, they are selfish. However, his character is not what the Minister must consider. The Minister must only consider whether, in his opinion, the presence of the person would result in a threat to health, safety, and good order, and the removal of that person is in the public interest. That Djokovic has shown he is willing to ignore public health orders in his native Serbia to isolate when positive with COVID indicates a clear threat to health and safety, especially when his standing means that it may empower others to believe that it is acceptable to do the same (the good order bit).

He made his own bed, he should lay in it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2851588 16-Jan-2022 18:44

Kyanar:

You and I (and the Minister of Immigration) have a very different definition of "good character". Making a false statement on a legal declaration (whether he had travelled in the last 14 days to a third country) or allowing a false declaration to be made for him (knowing that answering truthfully would result in a refusal of his permission to travel), knowingly exposing unsuspecting third parties to infection with a disease of pandemic proportions by attending a school and a journalist interview after being informed he had tested positive, and then wasting the resources of a host country by having a valid decision of immigration authorities thrown out on a technicality.

These are not the actions of a person of good character, they are selfish. However, his character is not what the Minister must consider. The Minister must only consider whether, in his opinion, the presence of the person would result in a threat to health, safety, and good order, and the removal of that person is in the public interest. That Djokovic has shown he is willing to ignore public health orders in his native Serbia to isolate when positive with COVID indicates a clear threat to health and safety, especially when his standing means that it may empower others to believe that it is acceptable to do the same (the good order bit).

He made his own bed, he should lay in it.

Perhaps. Say I had many assault records, beat women up, was an overstayer, etc, etc. Or I was an honest person like ND who pushed the limits. Send him home. Is he a risk To Australia and the Australian people in the future? No. If Covid is still a thing in Jan 2023, the issue is clear, be vaccinated.

Ge0rge

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2060

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2851589 16-Jan-2022 18:46

Since when was lying on an official form "pushing the limits"?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41091

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2851590 16-Jan-2022 18:48

tdgeek:

Or I was an honest person like ND who pushed the limits.

You and I have very different definitions of "honest person" then. And to me this is not one of those.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2851592 16-Jan-2022 18:54

freitasm: Cheesus, @handle9 and what is the point of your posts then?

That consistently posting ignorant and incorrect information isn’t ok.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2851593 16-Jan-2022 18:55

tdgeek:

Ok, I read that it "may" be three years. Say I was a crim of some sort, or an undesirable. ND isnt a crim or an undesirable. For health and safety and Covid he may be sent packing, but it would be unreasonable to ban him for three years. Is he a risk to Australia for years? No. My opinion.

Opinion doesn't come into it in this case, not even the Minister's. It's one of those things that every visa application asks - "have you, in the last (x) years, had a visa cancelled or refused, or an adverse decision recorded?" which if Yes is responded, results in a very slow, manual process, which requires you prove there is a compelling and/or compassionate reason for the automatic refusal to be overridden.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2851594 16-Jan-2022 18:57

Kyanar:
tdgeek:

He is of good character, his life is an open book. Covid-wise, not so much

You and I (and the Minister of Immigration) have a very different definition of "good character". Making a false statement on a legal declaration (whether he had travelled in the last 14 days to a third country) or allowing a false declaration to be made for him (knowing that answering truthfully would result in a refusal of his permission to travel), knowingly exposing unsuspecting third parties to infection with a disease of pandemic proportions by attending a school and a journalist interview after being informed he had tested positive, and then wasting the resources of a host country by having a valid decision of immigration authorities thrown out on a technicality.

These are not the actions of a person of good character, they are selfish. However, his character is not what the Minister must consider. The Minister must only consider whether, in his opinion, the presence of the person would result in a threat to health, safety, and good order, and the removal of that person is in the public interest. That Djokovic has shown he is willing to ignore public health orders in his native Serbia to isolate when positive with COVID indicates a clear threat to health and safety, especially when his standing means that it may empower others to believe that it is acceptable to do the same (the good order bit).

He made his own bed, he should lay in it.

He’s not being deported on character grounds, he’s being deported on grounds of public health and good order.

According to submissions the minister found him to be of good character.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2851595 16-Jan-2022 19:03

Ge0rge: Since when was lying on an official form "pushing the limits"?

Without going back around on the difference between lying and filling in a form incorrectly, that has nothing to do with him being deported.

From what I’ve read the government’s position is that he’s likely to incite anti vaccination sentiment and that his presence is detrimental to public health.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2851596 16-Jan-2022 19:05

freitasm:

tdgeek:

Or I was an honest person like ND who pushed the limits.

You and I have very different definitions of "honest person" then. And to me this is not one of those.

Its unknown if he wanted to play in the AUS Open and decided that he can lie and lie and be not a problem. He can stay home or he can come here with his situation that is ok as he gets a quarantine free pass. So he was told. Im a Grand Slam fan, I want to see him play, but based on everything that has occurred since his incorrect detainment, I want him sent home. But that doest means he's banned for 3 years as he is a risk to Australia as many others are. He is no risk. Not compared to the many others that are banned for 3 years.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2851597 16-Jan-2022 19:07

Kyanar:

tdgeek:

Ok, I read that it "may" be three years. Say I was a crim of some sort, or an undesirable. ND isnt a crim or an undesirable. For health and safety and Covid he may be sent packing, but it would be unreasonable to ban him for three years. Is he a risk to Australia for years? No. My opinion.

Opinion doesn't come into it in this case, not even the Minister's. It's one of those things that every visa application asks - "have you, in the last (x) years, had a visa cancelled or refused, or an adverse decision recorded?" which if Yes is responded, results in a very slow, manual process, which requires you prove there is a compelling and/or compassionate reason for the automatic refusal to be overridden.

The opinion was mine. In that case the journo who stated that he "may" get 3 years needs to get another job.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41091

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2851598 16-Jan-2022 19:07

Handle9:
freitasm: Cheesus, @handle9 and what is the point of your posts then?

That consistently posting ignorant and incorrect information isn’t ok.

So say it with words. Short sentences trying to be smart is not the way. It's a dick move.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2851601 16-Jan-2022 19:15

Handle9:

Without going back around on the difference between lying and filling in a form incorrectly, that has nothing to do with him being deported.

From what I’ve read the government’s position is that he’s likely to incite anti vaccination sentiment and that his presence is detrimental to public health.

"Have you travelled to a third country in the last 14 days: [ ] Yes [ ] No"

"Hmm, I went to Spain. I should pick No, because if I say Yes I will have to quarantine"

That's not "filling in a form incorrectly", it's filing false information. You cannot just say "oh it was human error" when you're filling in a legal declaration on an objective fact you cannot have a reasonable basis not to know.

The Minister has already alluded to the fact that if this case is thrown out, he retains the right to re-cancel the visa on S133A grounds (that the Minister is satisfied that false information was supplied to the Department).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2851602 16-Jan-2022 19:19

Handle9: He’s not being deported on character grounds, he’s being deported on grounds of public health and good order.

According to submissions the minister found him to be of good character.

It's like you stopped reading at the end of the first paragraph. Perhaps you should read the post in it's entirety.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 23