Live data from Hacker News

Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

twitter.com

261–270 of 348 posts

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#261

David Crowe writes in The Age https://archive.ph/Ohx6d The political cost of letting Djokovic stay was too high for Morrison Australians have been barred from visiting a dying parent in hospital, blocked from seeing a new grandchild and forbidden from having a wedding. Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied? Angering those Australians would have been a huge danger for Morrison when he…

Correct thing to do at this point is really to exclude Australian Open from future glam slam. Just drop entire Australia from it. I get that they have the right to deny anyone in but they making this entire scene due PURELY as political brownie points. Sports should stay neutral. They (entiee Australia) should be punished for dragging sports into this. Better yet deny entire Australia from any world tennis events for…

”Sports should stay neutral.”

Right, it should but that's not the issue.

Right again, Australian politicians have fucked up their response to COVID on multiple occasions but so have other many countries—name one that hasn’t! And I include Serbia in that lot, it having only 50% of its citizens vaccinated; currently, it has one of the worst vaccination records in all Europe.

Leaving Australia aside for the moment, there are principles at stake here that are beyond Djokovic's case. Firstly, Djokovic brought these troubles upon himself:

1. He was fully aware of Australia’s tight COVID vaccination requirements and visa requirements long before he arrived in Australia—as his visit was a point of discussion in the world’s press weeks beforehand, yet he chose not to be vaccinated well ahead of the time of his visit. The question is why.

2. The fact that he had COVID previously is a lame excuse for thinking that he could disobey or ignore Australia’s immigration rules (no one really believes that, as he and his team would have known them to an absolute tee). It is very clear that he arrogantly and blatantly violated immigration requirements and it's widely accepted among many that he really doesn't have a valid excuse. His excuse of making a mistake simply doesn't stand up.

3. He lied about his travel status prior to traveling to Australia. To blatantly lie on any county's immigration form and one is playing with fire, especially so when the lie is easily found out (as here). Even idiots know that this is the quickest way of being refused entry to a country. Why Djokovic chose to lie and risk everything is open to question, however my opinion is that it was sheer arrogance and the fact that he is so used to getting his own way that he thought he could wing it or bullshit his way into the country.

4. Irrespective of Serbia’s position upon vaccination, Djokovic is a person of substantial means and he could have easily had himself vaccinated well ahead of time yet he deliberately chose not to. Moreover, if he is an anti-vaxxer or conscientious objector then he should have told the whole world ages ago but he chose not to. The same goes for any medical exemptions he may have had.

5. As a person on the world stage, he would have known that being unvaccinated would bring strong controversy for the very reason that he was setting a very bad example—a bad example that if followed by many—would lead to increased deaths from the pandemic. There is no doubt that among his huge followers and fan base there would be some, perhaps even many, who would follow his example and not be as lucky with COVID infection as he was. Therefore, many, many others view his stance as being selfish, self-centered and ill considerate of the lives of others. There is also the fact that Djokovic has never bothered or taken the time to explain his position. To many, this implies that he has something to hide. Moreover, it is fanciful to believe that both he and his team would have been unaware of this and the potential damage to his reputation because of his stance. Frankly, it's hard to understand why he has been so silent on the matter, perhaps he thought that the controversy would bring even more attention to himself.

6. Australia's bad treatment of Djokovic upon entry and the fact that those involved in detaining him did not afford him procedural fairness has essentially nothing to with the revocation of his visa by the Minister; they are separate issues except for the notoriety that they've brought.

7. Djokovic and his team must have been fully aware of the heightened tensions in Australia over COVID, as they've been world news for months. It is even more relevant that his destination was Melbourne, which has been the world's most locked-down city for all of the time that COVID has been active. It just isn't possible to believe that he was unaware of the political implications of this, which are that Melbournians (and many other Australians) have been hit hard by COVID and that many citizens have been trapped overseas during the pandemic and unable to return—and that the Government making an exception for him and his bad behaviour was very likely out of the question due to political fallout. Frankly, it beggars belief why he has acted the way he has.

For the record I couldn't give damn if Australia/the Australian Open was excluded from future world tournaments. My interest in tennis is minimal, thus I've based these comments on what has actually happened, not how I feel about Djokovic per se.

It seems to me that all the noise and brouhaha over this matter would be helped if Djokovic and other tennis fans would take a moment to be objective and not lose sight of the fact that millions of people have already died of COVID and despite the Australian Government's many fuckups, that there is real reason for why these COVID rules are in place. Must I actually say it: they're in place to save lives!

Djokovic ought to have known this and complied accordingly.

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#262
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had followed all the rules apparently. He had been granted an exception reviewed by two independent panels as required by Australian authorities. Decision backed by the Victorian Dep. of Health. The process is blind so supposedly the authorities didn’t know it was Djokovic behind the application. He boarded the plane with the papers in order: https://www.tennis365.com/australian-open/tennis-australia-n...

The state of Victoria doesn’t set the rules for who can come into the country. They have no authority to grant entry to the country.

My point is that he had followed the stablished process to request an exemption and it was granted. He didn’t get special treatment because the application process is blind.

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#263
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you cannot see your family again without vaccination, that is a clear mandate to me. That makes it a bit of a gray area. "Mandated" as in "you have to take it" is one thing (which few states would hopefully ever try) or "Mandated to do X" is a different thing. Then how much overreach is involved really depends on what X is. Working in hospital? Very reasonable. Attending university? Well, that was always a thing…

> One can argue that almost all restrictions during the pandemic had to be based on very shaky science because there simply isn't time to first await the science and then make the decision. And there are surely a lot of restrictions that are much worse to have, than vaccine mandate for immigration. Shutting down schools or banning gatherings, for example. That's my point. People are basing a witch-hunt on unscientifi…

That's oversimplifying it. It's not that decisions are "unscientific" because the science isn't rock solid. Politicians and authorities have the unenviable job of having to make decisions that some times have to precede science. Acting out of caution is a thing.

Besides, it's not as if you ask scientists their response would always be "well our science won't say very much until a year from now, so of course we recommend the status quo until we know more!"

Scientific consensus and consensus among scientists can be two different things (i.e., scientists may well agree or even recommend politicians and authorities to do X, well in advance of science being clear).

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#264
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He falsified information he submitted to immigration authorities. That’s the match (to use a pun)

But he did it for Love!

groan...the humor on HN is going to really start changing as more of us become parents isn't it :)

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#265
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unhealthy diets affect only the people who follow them, not their peers. Smoking is different because passive smoking does affect others - that's why there have been government interventions (higher taxation, public campaigns) to reduce smoking in many countries in the last decades. Your argument is besides the point anyway: just because there are other factors in life that can make you sick, that does not mean that…

But if lives (number of lives) matter, and we're unwilling to ban the sale of cigarettes to save lives (which is, lets be honest, not a very impactful thing on normal life of normal people, especially if you do it the new zeland way, by a cutoff year), we basically let all those people die, and we don't care. Considering we have vaccines available for some time now, and considering we've dealth with contageus disease…

> But if lives (number of lives) matter, and we're unwilling to ban the sale of cigarettes to save lives (which is, lets be honest, not a very impactful thing on normal life of normal people, especially if you do it the new zeland way, by a cutoff year), we basically let all those people die, and we don't care.

I don't know if you can compare smoking to covid, smoking related diseases take years and more likely decades to be deadly.

But in saying that, one way to look at this is via economics. When you are born, you have a potential life expectancy and a potential to earn society money (taxes). Smokers quite often die younger overall and not reaching their value to society, however this is general with many other diseases. Obviously reducing preventable forms of deaths such as those from smoking are to the benefit of society. Whenever you hear that smoking costs the "country" $X billions a year, that is not only the direct costs but also the indirect costs.

I believe in Australia the direct healthcare costs of treating smoking related illness was pegged at some number around 110 million a year, which is substantially different to the promoted cost of billions.

The difference with Covid is that it is an anomaly, perfectly healthy individuals have an increase chance of dying, as well as those who do have other health factors. This number maybe small but it has a large impact on the economy on society in general. Not only is a persons economic value reduced by the direct costs to society are increased.

An example of this, might be, you build a hospital knowing that X amount of smokers will die a year as well as other illnesses. You can calculate this, and work out what type of hospital you need to build. But what you cannot do very easily is calculate an additional 5 million people a year dying over an immediate time. It also takes considerable time to build hospitals, and years to train doctors, as such it is difficult to ramp up quickly to deal with anomalies. Then you must also consider the amount of productivity which is lost when a person is sick, this is also a factor which is calculated in regards to society, and then the publics spending, fear etc.

You can also look at the cost increases in the supply chain, which will affect the economy for years to come. Smokers for example are unlikely to influence the price of wood, but covid has.

So while we should take a pro-active stance against smoking (and when I was smoking I used to say the same), the pandemic is a real-time disaster which cannot be dealt with over 20 years like smoking. People will continue to die from smoking for decades even if you banned it today, but people will die today and potentially from related issues for decades from covid. The effects of covid are immediate, substantial and impactful to society not only right now but likely for some time.

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#266
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that we violated many basic human rights because of a disease that killed 5 mio people, citing those deaths as reasons to violate all the basic righs, while we're unwilling to violate a relatively minor right (to smoke), to save even more lives. If you're saying we need a cufrew, because covid killed X people, but are not willing to ban the sale of cigarettes, even though they kill 3.2*X people, you're doi…

Covid kills X people because of the restrictions, otherwise it would kill N*X people, where N would be a lot higher number than 3.2 because of the secondary problems like hospitals overflowing.

An often ignored fact is that many of these restrictions and the fear many governments have stoked (e.g. fear of going to the doctor, fear of going out, interruptions in work) have caused many deaths. We won't know what the net cost is until many years from now.

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#267
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately whatever they do is not going to go well either locally or globally.

Maybe they should just do less then ...

In this situation they cannot do that for reasons that to acquiesce or do nothing would be seen by the Australian public, many of whom have been already shabbily treated by COVID restrictions, as favoritism towards Djokovic. I'd be political suicide (see point 7 in my earlier post).

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how did he win his first court challenge? Why aren't those institutions being scrutinized? Where's the proof he faked his documents and why isn't that alone cause for Australia's institutions to not have issued a visa? Why did it take a last-minute act from a minister to revoke his visa?

Some of the proof that he faked his visa application is claiming he is vaccinated when he is not, and claiming he had not travelled in the week before boarding the plane when he had documented a trip to Spain while COVID-positive. The Spanish government is now investigating whether Novak Djokovic travelled to Spain illegally, so there’s more legal shenanigans waiting for him when he eventually gets home. The reason n…

"event associated with government cronies then all stops are pulled."

No doubt very true for the first round. On the second when things go belly-up, as here, they'll scatter like wildebeest being chased by a lion. The second time usually brings unwelcome exposure and much else.

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#269
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, but it's hard not to see a pandemic as a legitimate emergency and "higher causes"-invoking situation. It's not just a leader inventing a paper foreign subversive enemy out to get us, it's actually a thing which isn't hard to see and comprehend for oneself. I don't think any country's experience under communism is in any way applicable to the current situation.

There can be legitimate higher causes and situations when such are painfully obvious like overcoming pandemics. Nevertheless politicians (let alone masses incompetent in relevant subjects) can never be trusted as actually pursuing such as their primary aim. Appealing to such to justify anything always is a huge red flag (pun intended). Politicians apparently are driven by the game theory and will do/say anything they…

Yeahyeah, freedom over all, and everything natural is also good, right ? :D Please also reflect on the rhetorics you bring up here :D This is black and white painting, there are a lot of levels between..

Re: Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would be trivial for him to actually just get vaccinated That's not even required. He could have quarantine for 14 days too, but I imagine that would have been way too inconvenient for him. There didn't seem to be any reason why he couldn't of come earlier.

Quarantine was the option last year, I don’t think it was avaialable for this Australian Open.

There was an option of a medical exemption (subject to independent review), were exempt players not quarantined?
Post reply on HN