Breakpoint: Novak Djokovic leaves Australia after losing appeal in last-ditch court | Tennis News

Melbourne: The day before Australian Open Was set to start, Novak Djokovic, Probably the greatest Tennis The all-time player ran against a group of determined opponents who could not overcome any amount of talent, training, money or willpower.
He lost his final bid to stay Australia On Sunday, a three-judge panel upheld the government’s decision to revoke his visa.

More broadly, he lost to a government that decided to make him a symbol of the right to be a non-vaccinated celebrity; Immigration laws that give God equal rights to border enforcement; And for public outrage, in a nation of followers of the regime, widely seen as a disregard for Djokovic among others, he said he tested positive for Kovid last month and met with two journalists anyway.

In Australia on Sunday morning, more than 84,000 people watched a live stream of a federal court hearing. What they witnessed was the bizarre final court scene of the saga: a six-panel video conference in a blond wooden remote room, about whether the immigration minister acted rationally in using his power to detain and deport.


Chief Justice James Olsop announced the decision just before 6 p.m., after explaining that the court was not ruling on the merits of Djokovic’s stance or whether the government was correct in arguing that it could influence others to resist vaccination or ignore public health. Contrary to the order, the court only found that the immigration minister had the right to revoke the tennis star’s visa a second time based on that possibility.


In the second round, his lawyers argued that the government used flawed reasoning to persuade anti-vaccination groups to attend his client’s presence, making them a threat to public health. In fact, they argued that removing them, citing protests after their first visa was revoked, would exacerbate anti-vaccination sentiment.
Nicholas Wood, one of Djokovic’s lawyers, said the minister was holding on to straw.


Wood also disputed the government’s claim that Djokovic, 34, was a well-known promoter of vaccine protests. He said the only comments cited in the government’s court filing came from April 2020, when vaccines had not yet been developed.
The case, however, eventually turned to Immigration Minister Alex Hawke and his personal views.


Olsop pointed out in court that Australian immigration law provides a broader mandate: Evidence may include the decision-maker’s “vision and common sense.” Stephen Lloyd, arguing on behalf of the government, told the court that it was perfectly reasonable for the immigration minister to be concerned about the impact of a “high-profile non-vaccinated person” who could have been vaccinated so far but did not.


Source link

Leave a Comment