World No.1 tennis player has his visa rejected and asked to leave Australia
theage.com.au
theage.com.au
https://news.yahoo.com/dennis-young-novak-djokovic-denied-22...
> On Tuesday, the Australian Open announced that it had given the player a medical exemption,
which to me reads like the tournament approved it. Which I guess it has to do if it enforces the rule otherwise for participants, but why does that matter for the visa (except that he needs to play the tournament to get a visa for the tournament of course)? Was there some explicit agreement along the lines of "we approve your decision process, and then will allow everybody you accept in", was it just an expectation that immigration would accept the same standard, ...?
EDIT: a slightly older article about the decision also frames it as purely the tournaments decision: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-t...
EDIT2: https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-... also reads similar. So unless there's something missing in that reporting (quite possible), it doesn't really sound like "he got permission and then they changed their mind" quite fits what's going on? But rather "it was approved tournament-side and assumed whatever he provided there would also be enough for the visa, turns out it isn't/he asked for the wrong visa/..."? Especially for comparison with other people with exemptions it sounds like details that aren't public matter, i.e. the specific documentation provided.
There's a sad history of rich and famous getting special treatment to get into Australia.
If you're coming here you should follow the same rules as everyone else - even rich and famous tennis players.
Djokovic doesn’t have covid, he is in good shape and wont overburden their medical facilities
This just saves face for the government that is imposing travel restrictions on ordinary Australians
On the other hand, this isn't the first time that someone has arrived in Australia with a visa, been taken aside at the airport, questioned by immigration officials, and told to leave the country. The usual reason it happens is when the immigration officials suspect that the person told some some fibs on their visa application. To my ears, "failed to provide adequate documentation" sounds very much like a euphemism for "told us a pack of porkies." This would explain the confusion over what the Immigration Department and the Victorian Government discussed after he arrived, and the Victorian Government's rush to distance themselves from him after that discussion.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/djokovic-farce-at-airport...
More cynically, this is a great opportunity for the most dishonest prime minister, and most corrupt government, in recent Australian history to put on some theatre about their respect for the rule of law.
It's not like Australia hasn't been utterly clear on its stance for months, he had plenty of time to remediate his vaccination status.
Also Aussies hate sports personalities who they perceive as breaking the rules ask an Australia a cricket fan about the bodyline tour and Bradman.
https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Interviews...
There is definitely a risk there. Just unsure of the exact frequency, but this has been happening to athletes all around the world.
Where there's risk there should be choice and one should be able to weigh pros and cons.
His medical exemption is based on a positive PCR test from Dec 16. The deadline for such an exemption was Dec 10, so legally too late. But now the best. On the very same Dec 16 he had a public appearance in Serbia, and then Dec 17 another. Where he should have been in quarantine already.
Btw. I’m vaccinated and always promote it to people who didn’t catch it yet. But if you already had it? It’s not as clear, and we have number of studies to show it.
Although Djokovic is my countrymen I’m not pissed about him mission Australian Open (not a tennis fan). I’m pissed at all the governments around the world who make illogical rules just for the optics that they’re doing something. Lke closing borders when both countries have similar infection levels, or not recognizing vaccines if they are from other country you have political issues with. Or demanding vaccination even if there was prior infection and antibodies still present.
Or, like Australia, using imigration rules designed for zero-covid scenario in situation when they have internal 65k new cases in a day.
He can uphold his bodily integrity by leaving the country without being vaccinated. Nobody is compelling him to have the jab.
It's a reasonable condition particularly because most Australians are by virtue of employment restrictions are required to be vaccinated. It would be unfair to have one rule for celebrities and another for ordinary people.
I don't think anyone should legitimise a country that bans its owns citizens from entering it, detains refugees on islands and is generally backwards, racist and repressive.
How so?
There may be reasons to doubt the constitutional legitimacy of that law were it not constrained to emergency situations.
You can't just go on pretending you still run a fair championship. Unless it's a tournament of "COVID-ball"
You are free to disagree with the rules (and not come to Australia) but you can't just ignore them.
That doesn't mean he gets to ignore all the rules, if anything because he has been offered such a privilege he should go above and beyond to follow the rules.
It's like being invited to someones home that has a shoes off policy and refusing to take your shoes off because it "violates your freedoms". Then them offering an exemption if you show a medical reason for needing to keep your shoes on followed by you telling them to go shove it when you actually arrive. Is it surprising when they decline to let you into their home?
Maybe we should not be doing sports tournaments at all given the epidemics.
This doesn't appear to be a big loss or problem as the ITF has fully supported the Australian Open.
If players wish to remain unvaccinated they are self-excluding themselves from international events - that is their choice. No one is forcing them to attend just as no one is forcing them to be vaccinated.
You are advocating self-medication.
Australia only allows unvaccinated travelers that -can't- be vaccinated for medical reasons. Not wanting to be vaccinated or not "needing" to be vaccinated are not the same thing as -can't-.
No proof that vaccine will be harmful to your health == vaccine required for entry. Very simple.
Australia does not want to take many people in, and many people do not desire to enter Australia. But that ruins the idea of tournament. Which is based on assumption of admission on liberal terms.