And so now he's gone....bye bye Novax

[imastawka]

Novak Djokovic has lost a bid to stay in Australia after the Federal Court upheld the government's decision to cancel the tennis star's visa.

The Federal Court hearing, expedited to take place the day before the Australian Open begins, is the culmination of a weeks-long saga over the Serb's visa.

The men's world number one arrived in Australia just before midnight on January 5, had his visa cancelled by Border Force officials shortly after, then had it reinstated by a Federal Circuit Court judge in a hearing last Monday.

Late on Friday, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke cancelled Djokovic's visa for a second time, citing "health and good order grounds".

Djokovic's lawyer's disputed that decision, taking it to court for judicial review.

The full bench of the federal court this evening ruled against Djokovic.

In the Federal Court today, Djokovic's lawyers accused the minister of producing no evidence to back his claim that Djokovic's presence in Australia would incite anti-vaccination sentiment. They also argued it was irrational, illogical or unreasonable for the minister not to consider that deporting Djokovic could whip up the same sentiment.

Djokovic's lawyer Nick Wood said Mr Hawke had misinterpreted media reports about Djokovic's views on vaccination, and the level of support he receives from anti-vaccination groups.

He was particularly critical of the minister's reliance on a BBC article as evidence Djokovic opposed vaccines. He argued the article was written before vaccines were available, and it actually showed Djokovic had an open mind and did not believe himself to be an expert. He criticised the minister's failure to ask Djokovic himself about his views.

But the minister's legal team argued there was ample evidence of Djokovic's "well-known stance" on vaccination — including the fact he had refused to get vaccinated himself – and that the minister had no obligation to ask Djokovic about his views.

They said Djokovic could not prove the minister had not considered the possibility that deporting him could also stir up anti-vaccination sentiment, and even if he did not consider that outcome, that would not amount to an error on his part.

Federal Court rules on Novak Djokovic's legal fight against visa cancellation (msn.com)

Will they keep him out for the three years?

Personally, I applaud the decision.

[countessalmirena]

---

@4channel wrote:

You know very well countessalmirena that when I said "Medical apartheid"  I wasn't referring to the commonsense  below ...

If you're infected with an infectious disease that could kill others, in you go to quarantine. If you saw a plague victim lurching towards you, try convincing me that you would hug that plague victim, kiss their buboes, invite them to stay with you, praise their refusal to be quarantined, let them play with your children, let them bleed onto and stand next to your wife.

---

That is not a sustainable conclusion. You cannot assert that I "know very well" to what you were referring; that calls for the operation of the mind.

---

@4channel wrote:

I was talking about people being denied employment, travel, entry to venues if they do not have proof of vaccination.

---

I have no objection whatsoever to health care workers, who by definition treat the vulnerable and immunocompromised, being unable to work in those roles. (What I find offensive is a health care worker refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19, or other pathogen-caused illnesses, and then mounting a high horse over "They won't let me work".)

Travel for pleasure forbidden for unvaccinated people without a medical exemption while bans are in place to limit or prevent the spread of COVID-19...? You don't think perhaps that corporations providing travel are trying not only to help prevent the spread (and limit deaths), but also practise risk mitigation? I have no objection whatsoever to unnecessary travel being risk-managed as long as necessary travel is permitted with safeguards. Preventing unvaccinated people from travelling at all for any purpose would be another matter.

Entry to venues for unvaccinated people without a medical exemption? I have no objection. The risk to others is enlarged by the presence of such people, particularly as they are also the ones who object to mask-wearing, social distancing, staying home when feeling unwell, hand-sanitising. It is not as though the necessities of life can't be purchased by these people; entry into essential shops is fine, and online purchasing can be done, for instance. Why should vaccinated staff members be subjected to the resulting risks engaged in by the deliberately unvaccinated? Why should other shoppers be, ditto?

I don't want to sit in a theatre with self-centred anti-vaccination risk-takers; I don't want to be in a pub with them; I don't want to share a coffee with them; I don't want them in my house or my office or near any immunocompromised family member. No need to say that the vaccinated can also pass on this virus; that's not the point. If I engage in activity that increases the risk to life and health of the people I love who are particularly vulnerable, what is my defence? None. None. Never. Not for the rest of my life. It's bad enough that part of my work involves some degree of risk. I lower that risk as much as I can, even to the point of my career choices. Hands down, career vs family...? My family means more to me. The people I love mean more to me.

It's not exactly a comparable scenario... but let's say I force you onto a pedistrian crossing, tying you down with ties and tape. Would you then be saying, "The untied down and untaped down can also be killed at a pedestrian crossing", or would you be pointing out that by forcing you into that situation, I have drastically increased your risk of being killed at a pedestrian crossing?

I'd best use a new post for additional response.  My scroller tendency is threatening to get away from me.

[countessalmirena]

---

@4channel wrote:

Did you know that forced vaccination either by decree or proxy has resulted in despair,  suicides, mental break down, self-harm, alcohol and drug abuse? Do you know of the two cases in Vic where a man and a woman torched themselves? Do you know about the building contractor who jumped off of a building? I believe he was of Italian or Sicilian descent.

---

You will need to support your contentions with evidence. I'm more inclined to draw a parallel between trauma/depression and the lockdowns (either mandated or self-chosen because of fear of contracting the virus and passing it on to family), than between despair/suicides/mental breakdown/self-harm, alcohol, drug abuse and mandated vaccination. Indeed, what an irony it would be for someone to scream "No jab!" and then jab themselves with illegal drugs.

You speak about a man and a woman torching themselves in Victoria; I think you must be referring to the violently anti-vaxx man who set himself on fire in Richmond... It was on New Year's Day this year, if I'm correct? A female onlooker who rushed to help save him was injured herself in the attempt. That poor man. He was clearly mentally unwell. To the best of my knowledge, although he was critically injured, he survived the attempt and is still being treated in the long road to recovery. How does that awful situation validate anti-vaccination stances? I'm loath to draw too strong a parallel between the man's unstable state of mind and his anti-vaccination views. I'll say only that some people carry out these horrifying acts (or attempts) of self-immolation for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn't mean that the grievance is a just one or that the stance is justified. Even worse is when someone with a grievance then sets other people alight; we can see even more clearly the flaw in attempting to justify the motivation behind the violent act on the basis of the violent act.

I don't recall an incident with a building contractor jumping off a building in protest against vaccinations, but the same argument would apply.

[countessalmirena]

---

@4channel wrote:

The truth be known, vaccinated people may be part of the cause down the track for a super bug. well respected doctors, professor etc. have said that vaccination during a pandemic is a bad route to travel!

---

No. You do not understand the difference between antibiotic resistance and viral escape mutation. You also do not understand the difference between treating drug therapy where the pathogen is in the process of overwhelming the body, and a vaccine where the pathogen is primarily stopped in its tracks well before it has overwhelmed the body.

You are right to be worried about antibiotic resistance - an increasing and very troubling situation globally - and how that might be exacerbated by attempts to treat ill patients (in a pandemic or otherwise). Certainly in a pandemic there will be more patients requiring treatment than if there were no pandemic, and it's not that there is NO risk of resistance in oral monoclonal antibody medication administered to at-risk patients with COVID-19.  Sotrovimab is a case in point.

But sotrovimab is not a vaccination. It's not fully vaccinated people that are likely to be "cause down the track for a super bug"; it's the unvaccinated. Vaccination during a pandemic is not a "bad route to travel", and I condemn that assertion entirely.

[countessalmirena]

---

@4channel wrote:

And again, medical apartheid doesn't refer to social distancing, isolation, even lock-down. It refers to deemed status defined by someone's medical history.  This has been likened to what Hitler did all those years ago.

---

Our medical history is no more immune from defining us in part than any other aspect of ourselves. We circle back to my earlier example of the lurching plague victim. That plague victim's medical history - being infected, let's say - is relevant to what risk that person poses to others, and on the basis of that, other people will have a right to protect themselves, and government will have a responsibility to protect the people. This term "medical apartheid" is a flimsy attempt to compare genuine health risk to an arbitrary and artificial segregation of people with some defined as being less worthy, intrinsically. There is no comparison. It's just political tongue-flapping, attempts to redefine a public health response into an offensive framework. It's prejudice-rebranding by proxy, a burning strawman in white sheets and a pointy hat.

"This has been likened to what Hitler did" - you know not of what you speak. But of course Hitler and Nazism is evoked in this anti-authority, anti-science, anti-health, anti-government argument. It's the same thing as I've mentioned above... prejudice-rebranding by proxy. I would rather retain the labels of "Hitler-like" or "Nazism" where such labels are justified by the evidence, rather than pull them out as a bogeyman any time I want to object to something.

---

@4channel wrote:

Could it be that Mr. Djokovic has made a stance against what many view to be tyranny?

---

Of course it could be. Novak Djokovic might think that he is making a stance against what he views to be tyranny. He's already demonstrated (in my view) that he is happy to risk the health of other people in making whatever stance he is making, and to lie about it in making whatever stance he is making. Could it be that the people who object to his attempts to circumvent the restrictions are making a stance against what they view to be arrogant selfishness? The simple truth is that self-justification doesn't entitle him to treat our public health orders and border controls with contempt... and that's what he did.

[4channel]

---

@not_for_sale2025 wrote:

I have followed Mr Djokovic's tennis career virtually since he appeared on the circuit. His tennis skills are incredible. But his conduct on the court has set a poor example for kids. I know very little about him off court other than he appears to be a liar who attempted to enter tennis tournaments with falsified medical exemptions.  I don't know what his stance is on vaccinations and I don't care. I do not respect him as a person. I may pay attention to his views in the future if he displays more honesty and less selfishness. 

---

                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------

My question to you was - "What are you thoughts on Mr. Djokovic and a non-vax cert status? Is there validity when jabbed folk can be spreaders?"  This has a huge bearing on the issue. So is there validity in exclusion when jabbed folk are spreading the virus?

I'm reading more up to date info from respected mainstream professors, scientists, doctors etc. that have made the "No jab, no play",  "No jab, no entry" , "No jab, no job" look like something that a child does when throwing a tantrum but with powerful parents allowing it.

The main thing about Mr. Djokovic's entry refusal has been the "non vaxcination" status.  The rest of the stuff, incl what you mentioned here has been dredged up to support the actions of this incompetent government. Look, if Djokovic has flouted any rules etc. then that's not good if it relates to social distancing etc.. I have no problem with that. But that's not what it is about.

Looking at the bigger picture, the lock-downs and restrictions have caused irreparable damage to small business communities. I understand that actions had to be taken to stop the spread. No problem there. But our state and federal gov'ts have not been transparent. The chaos and havoc caused by their willingness to cater to an agenda for Big Pharma and the gross incompetence has put Australia in a bad position.  Now there are going to be issues relating to what is taking place in the former Soviet Union as well as issues with China.   At least with Kevin Rudd, the China issue would not be such a dangerous threat as we would be on a better respected stance.  He was without a doubt the best we ever had. Mind you Whitlam and Fraser were decent.  Now we have the choice of Scomo or that Albanese guy. Both will continue the gross  mismanagement of Australia  with handling of the Covid situation as well as what looms ahead of us with China and Russia.

Forget about what Novak Djokovic is supposed to have done and just look at the entry issue.  Jabbed or unjabbed should make no difference. If someone is not infected then they should be welcomed in.

How are you going to feel if you can't travel or enter into an establishment because your papers are not up to date because you missed your seventh jab?

[springyzone]

How are you going to feel if you can't travel or enter into an establishment because your papers are not up to date because you missed your seventh jab?

------------------

We are not at that stage yet but perhaps down the track it will be necessary to have a yearly jab, rather like the flu.

Whether it will be compulsory before we can enter different venues, I don't know. I suspect it will depend on how much havoc covid is causing in the medical system at the time.

But just forgetting all the medical experts and so on for a moment-a lot of your problems seem to be with some of measures that have been taken to slow the spread of covid. Things such as border closures, jab mandates in certain jobs etc

Regardless of our individual views, we live in a society. And regardless of the political system in any society, the prevailing attitudes usually hold sway. For example, I doubt that any political party in USA could mandate weapon control as we know it in Australia. They just coudn't do it. Perhaps over time, little bit by little bit, changes could be made but the American psyche isn't ready for wholesale change yet.

I believe the measures taken to control covid here have had the majority backing of the population. You've only to listen to people in Tas to hear their objections to the easing of border restrictions. They were, on the whole, livid.

We don't have 'inalienable rights'. That's an illusion (even in US). I think though that some people feel they have the right to do whatever they please and society should accept it.

But if, for instance, a person wanted to go on a cruise or a flight and couldn't because they were unvaxxed, is that unfair? I don't believe it is.

That cruise line has the right to decide on certain conditions in the interests of other passengers and staff. For example, many airlines won't allow a woman to fly if she is past 34 weeks in a pregnancy. Nor will cruises.

The fact is that at present, unvaxxed are more likely to get sicker with covid than the vaxxed. They are something like 20 times more likely to end up in hospital. So they are more of a risk.

So are the old, by the way. Some cruise lines have even been thinking of in future restricting passengers over a certain age.

I am not saying I support each and every restriction in place and I can see some discrepancies and inconsistencies in the rules, but basically, at present people are not being forcibly jabbed, they are free to stay unvaccinated. And most of the restrictions are based around how they may affect other people and entry into places owned by others.

[4channel]

---

How are you going to feel if you can't travel or enter into an establishment because your papers are not up to date because you missed your seventh jab?

------------------

@springyzone wrote:

We are not at that stage yet but perhaps down the track it will be necessary to have a yearly jab, rather like the flu.

Whether it will be compulsory before we can enter different venues, I don't know. I suspect it will depend on how much havoc covid is causing in the medical system at the time.

                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, some folks are on their 4th jab.  And making the covid jab compulsory will not stop the spread. Medical experts have stated that vaccinating during a pandemic is not good. It could result in a super bug.  Western governments just like Russian and China and other places don't have a great amount of respect for liberties.

                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

@springyzone 

But just forgetting all the medical experts and so on for a moment-a lot of your problems seem to be with some of measures that have been taken to slow the spread of covid. Things such as border closures, jab mandates in certain jobs etc

---

                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I was actually in support of the borders being closed. I was also in support of social distancing to lessen the spread. In saying that, I believe that Daniel Andrews handled this issue just as a tyrant would. He's certainly proven himself to be a man where his compassion is selective.

The issue that In have is with "un-vaxxed" being barred from crossing borders. Due to the fact that "vaxxed" can spread the virus, there's no justification in this. It also puts us in a dangerous position.

                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

@springyzone wrote:

Regardless of our individual views, we live in a society. And regardless of the political system in any society, the prevailing attitudes usually hold sway. For example, I doubt that any political party in USA could mandate weapon control as we know it in Australia. They just coudn't do it. Perhaps over time, little bit by little bit, changes could be made but the American psyche isn't ready for wholesale change yet.

---

                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                 

You have a point there.

                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    

---

@springyzone wrote:

I believe the measures taken to control covid here have had the majority backing of the population. You've only to listen to people in Tas to hear their objections to the easing of border restrictions. They were, on the whole, livid.

---

                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       

     I know quite a few people. Some jabbed, many not. Even the jabbed aren't in a agreement with this government's handling of the situation.

Hmm, Tasmanians. OK, I can understand their concerns. Due to the fact that life-saving proven-in-the-field oral drugs with a long historical safe use have been tied up with red tape, their concerns seem to be valid. Again it's the discrimination thing with "Vaccinated" having privilege and those who choose bodily sovereignty being denied that. However, I see and understand where you're coming from with this.

                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

---

@springyzone wrote:

We don't have 'inalienable rights'. That's an illusion (even in US). I think though that some people feel they have the right to do whatever they please and society should accept it.

But if, for instance, a person wanted to go on a cruise or a flight and couldn't because they were unvaxxed, is that unfair? I don't believe it is.

That cruise line has the right to decide on certain conditions in the interests of other passengers and staff. For example, many airlines won't allow a woman to fly if she is past 34 weeks in a pregnancy. Nor will cruises.

The fact is that at present, unvaxxed are more likely to get sicker with covid than the vaxxed. They are something like 20 times more likely to end up in hospital. So they are more of a risk.

So are the old, by the way. Some cruise lines have even been thinking of in future restricting passengers over a certain age.

---

                                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

Sorry springyzone but I am in total disagreement with the first part. We do have inalienable rights! If we don't then we are just cattle with our fate and the worth of our existence,   quality of life to be decided by someone with the power to do so.  Historically things haven't always been good.

And I have to disagree too with the right to travel on a ship or plane due to "vaccination status". A "vaxxed" person will infect someone else. So where's the justification. It can also as it has already done, provide a false sense of security and entourage cavalier behavior.  Also mutated virus is more likely to come from someone jabbed than unjabbed.

What you have described in  the last part, well there are reports contradicting the official accounts. Many more "vaccinated" people are ending up in hospital than the media or official reports will ever allow us to know.

If the government really cared about the people, they would stop dumping industrial waste purchased from China (phosphate waste)  in our drinking water which reduces our immunity. They would take the unnecessary red tape off of life-saving oral drugs ((to hell with Big Pharma share holders$$$$$$$$))  and they would encourage better health and nutrition for the people they are elected to but seldom ever serve!

                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

---

@springyzone wrote:

I am not saying I support each and every restriction in place and I can see some discrepancies and inconsistencies in the rules, but basically, at present people are not being forcibly jabbed, they are free to stay unvaccinated. And most of the restrictions are based around how they may affect other people and entry into places owned by others.

---

                            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well coercion by threat of employment loss is as close to mandatory as one can get. Blocking people from venues is as well. It's just a cowardly way the gov't is doing this by proxy.

I know we'll never see eye to eye on this (much to my frustration lol) springyzone. I always respect  where you're coming from though.

[not_for_sale2025]

"Novak Djokovic is the ‘king of idiots’ for selfish vaccine stance, according to Marcelo Rios."

https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-is-the-king-of-idiots-for-selfish-vaccine... 

[4channel]

I read that. Just a guy slinging off at Novak. Not much to say really.

[imastawka]

Sooo, a 3 year ban is only a one year ban apparently!

Novak Djokovic to be granted a visa for 2023 Australian Open (msn.com)

And he's still not vaccinated!

I truly despair of those in charge of this fiasco.