Jump to content
IGNORED

Novak vs Australija


cedo

Da li Novak treba da dobije dozvolu da udje u Australiju  

89 members have voted

  1. 1. Da li Novak treba da dobije dozvolu da udje u Australiju

    • Da
      35
    • Ne
      29
    • Ne zanima me
      25
  2. 2. Tko je kriv za celu situaciju

    • Novak
      52
    • Australija
      47
    • Viktorija
      21
    • Teniska Asocijacija
      28
    • Kreg Tili
      17
    • Jbg
      22


Recommended Posts

neka stoji i ovde ponizavanje svog naroda koje se vakcinisalo 90+ % pa ce ga djokovic preobratiti

 

Australia declares Djokovic a risk to civil order and public health

The Australian government says the presence of Novak Djokovic throughout the two weeks of the Australian Open may put lives and civil order at risk by increasing anti-vax sentiment and disregard for COVID-19 rules.

In a radical reframing of the case against the Serbian tennis star, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke concedes the unvaccinated Djokovic entered Australia with a valid medical exemption and poses a low risk of contracting the virus while in Australia and passing it on to others due to his recent infection.

The furious debate that had engulfed Djokovic for the past 10 days – whether a recent bout of COVID-19 provided him with a genuine exemption to travel to Australia without being vaccinated – has been abandoned by the government without Mr Hawke even reading Djokovic’s extension submissions on the question.

Instead, the case is now headed for a Federal Court showdown as early as Sunday on dramatically new grounds.

Mr Hawke’s detailed reasons for his decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa for a second time since his arrival in Australia late on January 5, revealed by this masthead, portray the nine-time Australian Open winner as a menace to both public health and public order.

The minister describes Djokovic as a “high profile un-vaccinated individual” who has publicly indicated his opposition to getting the jab and demonstrated an “apparent disregard” for basic COVID rules such as isolating after a positive test.

“Given Mr Djokovic’s high-profile status and position as a role model in the sporting and broader community, his ongoing presence in Australia may foster similar disregard for the precautionary requirements following receipt of a positive COVID-19 test in Australia,” Mr Hawke wrote.

“In particular, his behaviour may encourage or influence others to emulate his prior conduct and fail to comply with appropriate health measures following a positive COVID-19 test, which itself could lead to the transmission of the disease and serious risk to their health and others.″

Explaining how a 34-year-old visiting tennis player could be a risk to public order, Mr Hawke argues that when case numbers are rising in Australia due to the spread of the Omicron variant, influential persons and role models who show a disregard for public health measures have the potential to undermine the pandemic response of federal, state and territory governments.

Referring to Djokovic’s admission this week that he attended a media interview and photoshoot in Serbia on December 18, a day after he received confirmation of his positive COVID status, Mr Hawke said: “Mr Djokovic is such a person of influence and status. Having regard to the matters set out above regarding Mr Djokovic’s conduct after receiving a positive COVID-19 result, his publicly stated views, as well as his un-vaccinated status, I consider that his ongoing presence in Australia may encourage other people to disregard or act inconsistently with public health advice and polices in Australia.

“In addition, I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission.”

The minister concluded: “These matters go to the very preservation of life and health of many members of the general community and further are crucial to the maintaining the health system in Australia, which is facing increasing strain in the current circumstances of the pandemic.”

To successfully defend his decision under the Migration Act, the minister doesn’t need to prove that any of this has or will occur, only that it may unless Djokovic is deported back to Serbia.

The broad charge is that Djokovic, so long as he remains in Melbourne, could become the pin-up boy for a hard-core anti-vax movement that has already staged mass rallies in capital cities and infiltrated the union movement and political parties on the fringe of national affairs. This in turn could lead to a breakdown in observance of public health rules and more illness from COVID, hospital admissions and ultimately, deaths.

Yet, in the same document, the minister acknowledged that Djokovic has not attempted to break any Australian laws and was a “person of good standing” known for his philanthropy.

Counsel for Djokovic, Nicholas Wood SC, during a preliminary hearing before Federal Circuit Court Judge Anthony Kelly late on Friday night, described the minister’s reasons as “starkly different” from those cited by border officials at Melbourne Airport when they initially cancelled Djokovic’s visa and placed him into immigration detention.

“What the minister does is in substance to assume in Mr Djokovic’s favour every single fact that might have been an issue previously,” Mr Wood sai

Link to comment

molim @vememah da ovakve stvari pejstujes ovde

 

Intervju s trenerom koji je dobio isto izuzeće kao Novak

 

„Predao sam pasoš, a potom je gospođa iz granične službe došla do mene i pitala me da li sam vakcinisan. Rekao sam da nisam i da imam izuzeće. Stavila me sa strane i tražila da skupim dokumente. Rekla mi je da postoji mogućnost da idem u karantin 14 dana, a odgovorio sam da ne bih ni dolazio da sam znao da ću biti u karantinu“, kaže nam Filip i objašnjava da se sve brzo raščistilo:

„Zatim je pozvala svog šefa, on je pregledao papire, fotografisao ih i rekao mi da mogu da uđem u državu slobodno“.

Edited by cedo
Link to comment

Djokovic hearing adjourned; court battle goes down to the wire

By Rachael Dexter

The Federal Court has just adjourned a short hearing in which parties for both Novak Djokovic and Immigration Minister Alex Hawke discussed procedural matters about how the challenge to the visa cancellation will go ahead this weekend.

All parties agreed to the hearing going ahead tomorrow at 9.30am (Australian Eastern Daylight Time).

The hearing was fairly administrative, with the only dispute between the parties being whether Mr Novak’s case is heard by a single judge of the court tomorrow, or the full court of three judges.

If the case is heard by the full court, the Minister Mr Hawke will have no avenue to appeal any decision made.

Justice David O’Callaghan has advised he will make a decision on that matter today.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, cedo said:

neka stoji i ovde ponizavanje svog naroda koje se vakcinisalo 90+ % pa ce ga djokovic preobratiti

 

Australia declares Djokovic a risk to civil order and public health

The Australian government says the presence of Novak Djokovic throughout the two weeks of the Australian Open may put lives and civil order at risk by increasing anti-vax sentiment and disregard for COVID-19 rules.

In a radical reframing of the case against the Serbian tennis star, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke concedes the unvaccinated Djokovic entered Australia with a valid medical exemption and poses a low risk of contracting the virus while in Australia and passing it on to others due to his recent infection.

The furious debate that had engulfed Djokovic for the past 10 days – whether a recent bout of COVID-19 provided him with a genuine exemption to travel to Australia without being vaccinated – has been abandoned by the government without Mr Hawke even reading Djokovic’s extension submissions on the question.

Instead, the case is now headed for a Federal Court showdown as early as Sunday on dramatically new grounds.

Mr Hawke’s detailed reasons for his decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa for a second time since his arrival in Australia late on January 5, revealed by this masthead, portray the nine-time Australian Open winner as a menace to both public health and public order.

The minister describes Djokovic as a “high profile un-vaccinated individual” who has publicly indicated his opposition to getting the jab and demonstrated an “apparent disregard” for basic COVID rules such as isolating after a positive test.

“Given Mr Djokovic’s high-profile status and position as a role model in the sporting and broader community, his ongoing presence in Australia may foster similar disregard for the precautionary requirements following receipt of a positive COVID-19 test in Australia,” Mr Hawke wrote.

“In particular, his behaviour may encourage or influence others to emulate his prior conduct and fail to comply with appropriate health measures following a positive COVID-19 test, which itself could lead to the transmission of the disease and serious risk to their health and others.″

Explaining how a 34-year-old visiting tennis player could be a risk to public order, Mr Hawke argues that when case numbers are rising in Australia due to the spread of the Omicron variant, influential persons and role models who show a disregard for public health measures have the potential to undermine the pandemic response of federal, state and territory governments.

Referring to Djokovic’s admission this week that he attended a media interview and photoshoot in Serbia on December 18, a day after he received confirmation of his positive COVID status, Mr Hawke said: “Mr Djokovic is such a person of influence and status. Having regard to the matters set out above regarding Mr Djokovic’s conduct after receiving a positive COVID-19 result, his publicly stated views, as well as his un-vaccinated status, I consider that his ongoing presence in Australia may encourage other people to disregard or act inconsistently with public health advice and polices in Australia.

“In addition, I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission.”

The minister concluded: “These matters go to the very preservation of life and health of many members of the general community and further are crucial to the maintaining the health system in Australia, which is facing increasing strain in the current circumstances of the pandemic.”

To successfully defend his decision under the Migration Act, the minister doesn’t need to prove that any of this has or will occur, only that it may unless Djokovic is deported back to Serbia.

The broad charge is that Djokovic, so long as he remains in Melbourne, could become the pin-up boy for a hard-core anti-vax movement that has already staged mass rallies in capital cities and infiltrated the union movement and political parties on the fringe of national affairs. This in turn could lead to a breakdown in observance of public health rules and more illness from COVID, hospital admissions and ultimately, deaths.

Yet, in the same document, the minister acknowledged that Djokovic has not attempted to break any Australian laws and was a “person of good standing” known for his philanthropy.

Counsel for Djokovic, Nicholas Wood SC, during a preliminary hearing before Federal Circuit Court Judge Anthony Kelly late on Friday night, described the minister’s reasons as “starkly different” from those cited by border officials at Melbourne Airport when they initially cancelled Djokovic’s visa and placed him into immigration detention.

“What the minister does is in substance to assume in Mr Djokovic’s favour every single fact that might have been an issue previously,” Mr Wood sai

Ako je ovo tačno - ministar kaže da su papiri ok ali ga proteruje da ne iskrvari moral svilenog australijskog društva :isuse:

Edited by Zverilla
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Filozof manijak said:

Taj ministar napravio nehotice Sokrata od Novaka.

Kakvi amateri. :isuse:

 

Na tviter s ovim, prejaka je fora. 

  • +1 1
Link to comment

Lično mislim da ovo za šta su se izborili advokati, taj večerašnji tročlani sudijski panel koji će odlučiti i nije baš dobro za Novakov ostanak. Kako to funkcioniše, glavni sudija nije u tih 3? Šta je onda njegova uloga, da predstavi, usmeri, ubedi...? Jedan od tri može da mu popusti ali teško će obatri™. Rezultati su anonimni kao kod porote ili?

Inviato dal mio Mi 9 Lite utilizzando Tapatalk

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Filozof manijak said:

Taj ministar napravio nehotice Sokrata od Novaka.

Kakvi amateri. :isuse:


Vec su jednom ispali amateri kad su izgubili prvo sudjenje na tehnikaliju, zasto ne bi opet.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, goofs said:


Vec su jednom ispali amateri kad su izgubili prvo sudjenje na tehnikaliju, zasto ne bi opet.

 

a sad su dokazali da je samo politika u pitanju sto njihov slucaj ne cini jacim

doduse, oni drze stap

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, cedo said:

 

a sad su dokazali da je samo politika u pitanju sto njihov slucaj ne cini jacim

doduse, oni drze stap

 

Ovde vise uopste nije bitno sta ce Novak da uradi na sudu, on je vec dovoljno izmrcvaren i od turnira nema nista. Megjutoa, za Australiju je izuzetno bitno da on pobedi jer ne vidim kako je za bilo koju drzavu dobro da redovni sud prizna da sud javnosti nosi ne samo vecu vec i izvrshnu pravnu tezinu.

  • +1 2
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, harper said:

 

Ovde vise uopste nije bitno sta ce Novak da uradi na sudu, on je vec dovoljno izmrcvaren i od turnira nema nista. Megjutoa, za Australiju je izuzetno bitno da on pobedi jer ne vidim kako je za bilo koju drzavu dobro da redovni sud prizna da sud javnosti nosi ne samo vecu vec i izvrshnu pravnu tezinu.

 

osim referendumom, sto je u konkretnom slucaju bespredmetno

Link to comment
Just now, cedo said:

 

osim referendumom, sto je u konkretnom slucaju bespredmetno

 

Referendum je pravni institut, to je nesto drugo. Tako da, u pravu si, u ovom slucaju je bespredmetno.

  • +1 1
Link to comment

just for the record ... u pravu sam i za referendum kao sud javnosti, naravno ako je sproveden u fer uslovima

 

to vise pisem zbog rio tinta :D 

Edited by cedo
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...