Novak Djokovic's Vaccine Stance & Visa Troubles

[BratSrbin]

You’re wrong there, actually. I understand that Djokovic lied and tried to cheat his way into Australia under false pretences. That much is fact.

What’s also fact is that Djoker fans as a group seem to lack either intelligence or integrity to accept this. The worst cases of this show Djoker fans lacking both.

We discussed all this for ages. Go back in time and read the thread. Stop being that person who can’t think objectively when it comes to their crush…

How can you keep talking nonsense?

Read the explanation of the decision if you don't like the decision itself. Do you want me to set it up for you if you are not able to find it yourself?

 

[Kieran]

Here is the full official document of the judgement. @BratSrbin you really are irritating, at this stage. Dishonest and incapable of understanding your own posts.

Djokovic is the one applying for “for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power…”

When it says “application dismissed”, it’s Djokovic’s application which is dismissed…

 

[Moxie]

Read the court decisions, if you know how to interpret them, before you continue to ramble.

Let me help you out here, with the reading comprehension:

The applicant is Novak.

MIGRATION – application for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power under s 133C(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where Minister satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under s 116 of the Migration Act existed – where Minister satisfied that the presence of the applicant in Australia may be a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community under s 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act – where Minister satisfied under s 133C(3)(b) of the Migration Act that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa – application dismissed"

Bolded is mine: It says that the Minister satisfied his grounds for cancelling the visa, that he further satisfied, to the courts needs, that the applicant (Djokovic) may be a risk to the health, safety and good order in the Australian community. It further says that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa. So the application, made by Novak, was dismissed, and on that day, 16 Jan 2020, he was deported.

See this timeline:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-visa-timeline-australia-b1989306.html#:~:text=16%20January%202022%20%2D%20Djokovic%20is%20deported&text=Back%20in%20Australia%2C%20Scott%20Morrison,under%20the%20“right%20circumstances”.

It is YOU who misinterprets the ruling.

 

[Kieran]

Let me help you out here, with the reading comprehension:

The applicant is Novak.

MIGRATION – application for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power under s 133C(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where Minister satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under s 116 of the Migration Act existed – where Minister satisfied that the presence of the applicant in Australia may be a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community under s 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act – where Minister satisfied under s 133C(3)(b) of the Migration Act that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa – application dismissed"

Bolded is mine: It says that the Minister satisfied his grounds for cancelling the visa, that he further satisfied, to the courts needs, that the applicant (Djokovic) may be a risk to the health, safety and good order in the Australian community. It further says that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa. So the application, made my Novak, was dismissed, and on that day, 16 Jan 2020, he was deported.

See this timeline:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-visa-timeline-australia-b1989306.html#:~:text=16%20January%202022%20%2D%20Djokovic%20is%20deported&text=Back%20in%20Australia%2C%20Scott%20Morrison,under%20the%20“right%20circumstances”.

It is YOU who misinterprets the ruling.

I don’t think they understand what the application was, even though it was the substance of the court case. The fact that it was dismissed caused Novak to be booted out.

Bizarrely, this kind of blindness is still common among Djokovic fans. Not even once have I ever seen one come back and acknowledge that they’re wrong - and they’re wrong about virtually every point of this..

 

[Moxie]

How can you keep talking nonsense?

Read the explanation of the decision if you don't like the decision itself. Do you want me to set it up for you if you are not able to find it yourself?

Why don't we also ask this practical and simple question, one that even you can understand: IF the court had found in Novak's favor, how could the Minister of Immigration have deported him that same day? Do you believe that Australia is not a land of laws? Do you believe that Novak's lawyers were so lame that they'd have allowed that?

Now let me also apologized to the Admins who are probably going to have to do the clean-up on this and move it to the thread where it belongs. Pardon the interruption, as they say.

 

[Moxie]

I don’t think they understand what the application was, even though it was the substance of the court case. The fact that it was dismissed caused Novak to be booted out.

Bizarrely, this kind of blindness is still common among Djokovic fans. Not even once have I ever seen one come back and acknowledge that they’re wrong - and they’re wrong about virtually every point of this..

It's maddening. And there are those who claim that entire governments are against Novak. That seriously starts to become delusions of importance.

 

[BratSrbin]

You’re wrong there, actually. I understand that Djokovic lied and tried to cheat his way into Australia under false pretences. That much is fact.

What’s also fact is that Djoker fans as a group seem to lack either intelligence or integrity to accept this. The worst cases of this show Djoker fans lacking both.

We discussed all this for ages. Go back in time and read the thread. Stop being that person who can’t think objectively when it comes to their crush…

"20 Thus it is not the fact of Mr Djokovic being a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community; rather it is whether the Minister was satisfied that his presence is or may be or would or might be such a risk for the purposes of s 116(1)(e)(i), through s 133C(3).
26 Justice Starke in Boucaut Bay said, amongst other things, that the decision-maker “must not act dishonestly, capriciously or arbitrarily … So long, however, as the Minister acts upon circumstances … giving him a rational ground for the belief entertained, then … the Courts of law cannot and ought not interfere”.
28 Related to the above body of principle is a ground of review, invoked in this proceeding in relation to two of the three grounds of review mounted, that a finding of fact, here connected to the formation of a state of satisfaction, was made in the absence of any evidence or supporting material. The High Court (Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ) recently put the matter as follows in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41; 395 ALR 403 at [17]:"

Some details from the explanation.
Read to learn something, not to blurt out your own story here.

 

[Kieran]

It's maddening. And there are those who claim that entire governments are against Novak. That seriously starts to become delusions of importance.

It’s strange because it’s obvious that Novak was making an application “for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power”, an application which was dismissed - and the Brat thinks the minister was making that application (against himself, presumably) and the minister lost, yet the result was still that Djoker lost and was sent home?

 

[BratSrbin]

It's maddening. And there are those who claim that entire governments are against Novak. That seriously starts to become delusions of importance.

That about the Australian government and its inclusion in the no1ehaters, let Mick continue. I can only conclude that there was nothing they could do judicially and they resorted to the only weapon they had at their disposal.

 

[Fiero425]

It’s strange because it’s obvious that Novak was making an application “for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power”, an application which was dismissed - and the Brat thinks the minister was making that application (against himself, presumably) and the minister lost, yet the result was still that Djoker lost and was sent home?

As I said, there were 3 governing bodies in Australia at the time! Someone told him to "come on over!" It was a fiasco & an Int'l incident on them!

 

[Kieran]

"20 Thus it is not the fact of Mr Djokovic being a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community; rather it is whether the Minister was satisfied that his presence is or may be or would or might be such a risk for the purposes of s 116(1)(e)(i), through s 133C(3).
26 Justice Starke in Boucaut Bay said, amongst other things, that the decision-maker “must not act dishonestly, capriciously or arbitrarily … So long, however, as the Minister acts upon circumstances … giving him a rational ground for the belief entertained, then … the Courts of law cannot and ought not interfere”.
28 Related to the above body of principle is a ground of review, invoked in this proceeding in relation to two of the three grounds of review mounted, that a finding of fact, here connected to the formation of a state of satisfaction, was made in the absence of any evidence or supporting material. The High Court (Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ) recently put the matter as follows in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41; 395 ALR 403 at [17]:"

Some details from the explanation.
Read to learn something, not to blurt out your own story here.

Listen. I’m not wading through documents that you post and don’t understand. Your first [incomplete] document didn’t say what you thought it said when you highlighted the words application dismissed.

It was Djokers application that was dismissed.

Stop this. I’m not entertaining you anymore because you’re not being honest. Go out and play with the traffic..

 

[Moxie]

It’s strange because it’s obvious that Novak was making an application “for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power”, an application which was dismissed - and the Brat thinks the minister was making that application (against himself, presumably) and the minister lost, yet the result was still that Djoker lost and was sent home?

Brat the Serbian brat and others seem to think that if they keep repeating the same falsehoods, they'll muddy the waters. As you say, the whole premise of Novak's application for a visa into Australia was false, and a man with a team of lawyers would have known that, going in. He presumed specially treatment, possibly encouraged by his apologist and medical spokesperson, Craig Tiley. But it was a fool's errand, aided by a ship of fools, and he got caught.

 

[Kieran]

As I said, there were 3 governing bodies in Australia at the time! Someone told him to "come on over!" It was a fiasco & an Int'l incident on them!

Brother, took me six seconds to find on Australias immigration website that he didn’t have a valid vaccine exemption. He knew this too and he lied, cheated and tried to buy his way in. How anyone can’t see this is beyond me. Now we’re being trolled again. That seems to be a national pastime in Serbia..

 

[BratSrbin]

It’s strange because it’s obvious that Novak was making an application “for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power”, an application which was dismissed - and the Brat thinks the minister was making that application (against himself, presumably) and the minister lost, yet the result was still that Djoker lost and was sent home?

That's how it is when little John wants to play smart.
Ask someone to explain who the respondent was. No1e did not complain about anything in the verdict.

 

[BratSrbin]

Brat the Serbian brat and others seem to think that if they keep repeating the same falsehoods, they'll muddy the waters. As you say, the whole premise of Novak's application for a visa into Australia was false, and a man with a team of lawyers would have known that, going in. He presumed specially treatment, possibly encouraged by his apologist and medical spokesperson, Craig Tiley. But it was a fool's errand, aided by a ship of fools, and he got caught.

I have nothing to muddy the waters, the court clarified everything. No1ehaters are talking against the court's decision and muddying the waters.

 

[Moxie]

"20 Thus it is not the fact of Mr Djokovic being a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community; rather it is whether the Minister was satisfied that his presence is or may be or would or might be such a risk for the purposes of s 116(1)(e)(i), through s 133C(3).
26 Justice Starke in Boucaut Bay said, amongst other things, that the decision-maker “must not act dishonestly, capriciously or arbitrarily … So long, however, as the Minister acts upon circumstances … giving him a rational ground for the belief entertained, then … the Courts of law cannot and ought not interfere”.
28 Related to the above body of principle is a ground of review, invoked in this proceeding in relation to two of the three grounds of review mounted, that a finding of fact, here connected to the formation of a state of satisfaction, was made in the absence of any evidence or supporting material. The High Court (Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ) recently put the matter as follows in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41; 395 ALR 403 at [17]:"

Some details from the explanation.
Read to learn something, not to blurt out your own story here.

You are cherry-picking, while excluding this:

104 Parliament has made clear in s 116 that the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that presence of its holder in Australia may be a risk to the health or good order of the Australian community. The Minister reached that state of satisfaction on grounds that cannot be said to be irrational or illogical or not based on relevant material. Whether or not others would have formed that state of satisfaction and the state of satisfaction as to the public interest is a consideration not to the point. The relevant states of satisfaction were of matters which involved questions of fact, projections of the future and evaluations in the nature of opinion. As Gummow J said in Eshetu 197 CLR at 654 [137]: “where the criterion of which the authority is required to be satisfied turns upon factual matters upon which reasonable minds could reasonably differ, it will be very difficult to show that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at the decision in question”.

This is relevant to your #20 above: It says that it's not so important the "fact" of Mr. Djokovic being a risk, etc., rather that the Minister was satisfied that he could be deemed one, and that was enough for the court. Also noting #104 above, to that point.

I don't know if you're a lawyer, (though I have to doubt that, given your weak skills at argument,) but I do know you're Serbian, and so no expert in Australian law. There is a lot of precedent cited that we laymen won't understand. But the judgment is not unclear, if you choose to read carefully, and without your Nolegoggles on.

 

[BratSrbin]

Let me help you out here, with the reading comprehension:

The applicant is Novak.

MIGRATION – application for review of decision of the Minister to cancel visa under personal power under s 133C(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where Minister satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under s 116 of the Migration Act existed – where Minister satisfied that the presence of the applicant in Australia may be a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community under s 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act – where Minister satisfied under s 133C(3)(b) of the Migration Act that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa – application dismissed"

Bolded is mine: It says that the Minister satisfied his grounds for cancelling the visa, that he further satisfied, to the courts needs, that the applicant (Djokovic) may be a risk to the health, safety and good order in the Australian community. It further says that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa. So the application, made by Novak, was dismissed, and on that day, 16 Jan 2020, he was deported.

See this timeline:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-visa-timeline-australia-b1989306.html#:~:text=16%20January%202022%20%2D%20Djokovic%20is%20deported&text=Back%20in%20Australia%2C%20Scott%20Morrison,under%20the%20“right%20circumstances”.

It is YOU who misinterprets the ruling.

An example of confusion (muddy the waters).

Read REASONS FOR JUDGMENT, maybe it will be clearer. At list for vater.

 

[BratSrbin]

104 Parliament has made clear in s 116 that the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that presence of its holder in Australia may be a risk to the health or good order of the Australian community. The Minister reached that state of satisfaction on grounds that cannot be said to be irrational or illogical or not based on relevant material. Whether or not others would have formed that state of satisfaction and the state of satisfaction as to the public interest is a consideration not to the point. The relevant states of satisfaction were of matters which involved questions of fact, projections of the future and evaluations in the nature of opinion. As Gummow J said in Eshetu 197 CLR at 654 [137]: “where the criterion of which the authority is required to be satisfied turns upon factual matters upon which reasonable minds could reasonably differ, it will be very difficult to show that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at the decision in question”.

That is not disputed at all. That's what Mick tells you. The Minister and the Government of Australia made a decision contrary to the court's. They had a legal right to do that, but not a moral one.

 

[BratSrbin]

I don't know if you're a lawyer, (though I have to doubt that, given your weak skills at argument,) but I do know you're Serbian, and so no expert in Australian law. There is a lot of precedent cited that we laymen won't understand. But the judgment is not unclear, if you choose to read carefully, and without your Nolegoggles on.

The court decision is so clear to a normal person. There is no need at all to wander through the history of this or any court in the World, not only in Australia.

 

[Moxie]

As I said, there were 3 governing bodies in Australia at the time! Someone told him to "come on over!" It was a fiasco & an Int'l incident on them!

What 3 governing bodies? State of Victoria and the Feds. Border Patrol is the feds. As I said above, I think it was Tiley who tried to get him in, knowing the feds had already let a few (2) in under the same pretense, (recent Covid exposure, which was explicitly NOT on the list of exemptions.) A wing and a prayer, and Novak knew that going in. Unless he and his lawyers are idiots.

Brother, took me six seconds to find on Australias immigration website that he didn’t have a valid vaccine exemption. He knew this too and he lied, cheated and tried to buy his way in. How anyone can’t see this is beyond me. Now we’re being trolled again. That seems to be a national pastime in Serbia..

This endless re-litigating of the facts is tiresome. If certain posters spent more time over here, however, they would realize we are more than up for arguing the same points, forever. They'll never beat us in a war of attrition.