Opinions from real people/common folk about the Djokovic scandal

[amberale]

I see no point in continuing this thread.
It has long ago descended into Newscorp style trash that does no one here any good.

[topshot]

Even worse (I didn't knew this when I wrote the piece) he was awaken from his sleep and pushed to accept the visa cancellation in order to be moved to the hotel. That's closely dangerous to sleep deprivation "enhanced interrogation"....

You should know all about interrogation and torture, cast you mind back a few years, maybe 25 to 30 years!

[Andy]

... Even worse (I didn't knew this when I wrote the piece) he was awaken from his sleep and pushed to accept the visa cancellation in order to be moved to the hotel. That's closely dangerous to sleep deprivation "enhanced interrogation"...

Adrian had already flagged our torture techniques in page two of this thread. Apparently waking a sleeping princess is enhanced interrogation these days. Boy, my parents will have a long list of offences if that's now true.

[WhatEverBeansNecessary]

A politician extending the truth. This is the first time in history this has ever happened!

[LeroyC]

Adrian, I can say that I for one (and many people I know) were happy with both court decisions, not due to the result. I was shocked to hear the ABF gave Djokovic 20 minutes at 04.00 to produce paperwork. Even extending that to 08.30, which they didn't do, wasn't adequate under the circumstances especially when he believed he had an exemption. They could have easily cancelled his visa at midday. Of course case two was always going to agree the minister had the right to control our borders. The real news, which isn't being covered in depth here, is that the Serbian President has claimed that Djokovic was subject to mental and physical torture. As a journalist in your part of the world do you have any more information? Clearly the Serbian President would not lie, so was it waterboarding, stress positions or maybe pulling his fingernails out? Or something else? Either way I think this is great news, our law enforcement has been under more and more regulation, if we can now torture an international tennis player with visa paperwork issues - imagine what we will be able to do to large scale drug importers or paedophiles? Do you have any more information on the President's comments?

A president of an Eastern European country is most likely an expert in this field so he’s probably on the money. (He’s probably also Adrian’s boss).

[338]

Adrian, I can say that I for one (and many people I know) were happy with both court decisions, not due to the result. I was shocked to hear the ABF gave Djokovic 20 minutes at 04.00 to produce paperwork. Even extending that to 08.30, which they didn't do, wasn't adequate under the circumstances especially when he believed he had an exemption. They could have easily cancelled his visa at midday. Of course case two was always going to agree the minister had the right to control our borders.

The real news, which isn't being covered in depth here, is that the Serbian President has claimed that Djokovic was subject to mental and physical torture. As a journalist in your part of the world do you have any more information? Clearly the Serbian President would not lie, so was it waterboarding, stress positions or maybe pulling his fingernails out? Or something else? Either way I think this is great news, our law enforcement has been under more and more regulation, if we can now torture an international tennis player with visa paperwork issues - imagine what we will be able to do to large scale drug importers or paedophiles? Do you have any more information on the President's comments?

[AdrianN]

Good thing Galileo wasn't a "spiritual teacher"...

[AdrianN]

Sorry you still don't get it. The minister's lawyer conceded that the second cancellation of the visa was NOT related to rules violation. You simply don't know or misrepresent what was put on trial. Hence my previous reply.

[topshot]

You actually have no idea what my opinion is and it is considered rude to assume someones opinion.
Unlike you, I actually know the laws and rules of traveling to Australia, which were in fact broken.
End of argument!

[chokkidog]

To quote: "Spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle goes as far as to describe the need to be right as a form of violence. At its mildest, it is inflexibility. At its height, it manifests as dominance. The compulsion to inflict our opinions of the world on another originates in fear. Its opposites are humility and compassion. Even the golden rule tells us to treat others in a way we would like to be treated. If you just keep banging away at someone until they flinch and accept your point of view, you're probably not very happy with the state of your current relationships—or secretly need that validation to feel good about yourself." Roger Landry, Mind Body Green

[AdrianN]

They did from start to finish. Today's ruling was perfectly normal, as the court deliberated on the legality of using the minister's power, not about the merits of the decision. Since the Australian law still grants such (essentially royal) power to a minister it was game over for Djokovic unless his lawyers could somehow prove the power was used illegally. However you fail to understand that the stellar performance of the courts trough the entire week consisted on 1. offering reasonable terms so the matter could be judged before the start of the tournament and therefore not allowing the government to simply win by lack of time 2. making the debates and the relevant documents public to end speculation.
You appear to be inclined to assess the performance of a court of law based on the sentence being similar to your opinions. I won't bother to explain you how wrong is that.

[topshot]

As you said, "Australian judges and courts performed exceptionally" which they did today.

[AdrianN]

General conclusion even before sentence is passed: Australia's judges and courts performed exceptionally, giving Djokovic a chance to have his case sorted out in a legal and respectable manner. Documents were made public, hearings were broadcasted and most important the terms were set so justice can be done before the start of the tournament. I don't see what can be asked more from the courts in any country.
However the government appears to be ran by vindictive morons with utter disrespect for the rule of law and due process. Everything the federal government did in this case reeks of banana country mentality and screams "abuse". At the end of the day, cancelling the visa a second time (on a Friday evening, after waiting 4 days to make the call and with the tournament due to start on Monday!!!) on totally unsubstantiated claims that Djokovic’s presence in Australia may “foster anti-vaccination sentiment' only opened the way for the decision to be overturned a second time in court.

We will see what happens, but to me the quality difference between the courts and the federal government was absolutely flabbergasting. I'd say you should try to get a government matching the quality of your courts or at least make sure it doesn't go the other way around...

P.S. Anyone who disagrees on the bit about current the federal government should read carefully what happened to Voracova (the Czech player who entered the country on an exemption). She hadn't messed up her declaration, hadn't meet people after testing positive, yet she was made to undress during questioning, before being kicked out of the country despite having followed all the rules https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...stralia-tennis

[Otago]

The full context of the Minister’s statement about not having read the voluminous medical material provided by Djokovic. “13. I have not sought or read the actual medical material that Mr DJOKOVIC provided to me which underpinned his contentions, because I am not medically trained. Nor am I sure if the Health Advice from the Commonwealth Department of Health and the Chief Medical Officer was given aware of the various medical material relied on by Mr DJOKOVIC. If there is a difference between the Health Advice in referring to a 'low' risk and a 'very low' risk and Mr DJOKOVIC's contention that he poses a 'negligible' risk, I will therefore proceed on the assumption in his favour that he poses a 'negligible' risk. 14. I have also not sought or read the extensive factual materials which Mr DJOKOVIC has provided on whether recent infection with COVID-19 is a medical contraindication against vaccination because l am willing to assume, in the time available, that Mr DJOKOVIC has a medical reason for not being vaccinated.

[chokkidog]

You bet, it's dry and tasteless anyway. I've moved on to champagne.