Djokovic

Again, rather than engage in the merits people would rather engage in ad hominem attacks.

That is not a statement of fact. That is your own, selective, subjective reading of things, which also happens to be pure unadulterated bullshit. He was refused entry because of his actions, not because of his beliefs.

You keep spouting this "the courts have agreed he's no danger to the public" rubbish like its some smoking gun. This is also not true. Just because they didn't come out and explicitly state that he WAS a danger to others, doesn't mean he ISN'T.

The level of projection and cognitive dissonance is off the charts. Why are all the posters who were in his corner until very recently not around anymore? How come it's just you Bertie and Glasso fighting his battles at this stage? Because they've realised they were in the wrong and, rather than admit it, they've slunk off into the darkness until the next kneejerk situation arises.

Bottom line is he tried to blag his way into the country, and he was caught out. So, no dice, Mr Djokovic, sling your hook. The ironic thing about the whole saga is, if he HAD been allowed in, the anti-vax mouth-breathers and knuckle-draggers would be touting it as some sort of supreme victory........"the hardest country in the world to get into has let the unvaxxed sports stars in, this is obviously a scamdemic, wake up sheeple" .

Instead the usual suspects who were praising their government and judiciary 7 days ago now think the same government are the thought police. Change the fookin record, lads.

Anything I've said I'm willing to back up. I don't think you even know what your opinion is anymore since every point you've made has turned out to be factually incorrect so you've resorted to personal insults. Happy to engage with you on the facts but since none are forthcoming I can just point them out to you which are that two separate medical boards reviewed his application and concluded that he was eligible for the exemption under the law despite being unvaccinated. A judge ruled in Djokovic's favour in that the border patrol had been unreasonable, un-rational and unfair in the procedures they used to ban him entering the country. The immigration minister stated that the reason for his decision, which he was legally required to provide, was that he was being deported because of political opinions he made in April 2020 on a FB live feed (before a covid vaccine was even available) which may excite anti-vaccine sentiment i Australia. The judicial panel which reviewed the immigration ministers decision were at pains to say that their hands were tied due to the absolute power of the ministers decision.

More projection. Accuse others of that which you yourself are guilty of.

You started your last post with "in other words.....". That is literally the dictionary definition of putting your own spin on things, you're using your own interpretation to come up with what you want it to say.

the facts of the matter are that he entered the country legally based on a medical exemption reviewed by two medical boards

Yep. And that exemption was subsequently found to not exist, so his visa was cancelled.

that a judge ruled in favour when he appealed the cancellation of his visa which was deemed to be unfair,

The judge didn't rule in favour of either side, one way or the other. The judge ruled that he had not been given ample time to fight the cancellation of the visa, so he was given ample time. A technicality, not a ruling on the merits of the case.

that he was acknowledged not to be a threat to public health because of a negative test he had taken and was willing to participate in whatever testing regime the Australians wanted.

Okay, I'll bite....where and when did they say he was no danger to public health and who, with any sort of authority on the matter, said it? Cos I've not seen anything of the sort.

Ah yes, growleaves. Of course.

I'm trying to be polite here, but if I had you in my corner claiming that I was in the right, I'd know for a fact that I was in the wrong.

You never replied to my early post about the debunking of the "1000s of athletes with heart troubles from the vaccines" article.

Here's a recap:

Poster posts article claiming hundreds / thousands of "athletes" (including an 86 year old caddy and a 13 year old who wasn't eligible for the vaccine when they died) died as a direct result of the vaccine.

I post article debunking your one and another poster shows the stats, which show 2018 (pre-vaccine) had much more "athletes" dropping dead than either of the years since, so couldn't be vaccine related.

You:...............

Theres a reason I forgot you were still around.

First off, fair play for sticking around. Secondly, fair play for admitting you reconsidered your stance, we could do with more of that (on every side).

Thirdly, you were holding debunking article to a higher standard than the original article making the claim. It was a case of you looking for proof for the debunking part, while not seeking similar on the "X number of deaths part". This carries all the hallmarks of the usual rabble on here who are, as you put, an anti-vaccination activist. If I'm mistaken, I apologise.

I was merely looking for an acknowledgement of the disconnect between the two articles, and saw none forthcoming. If I missed it, I apologise for that also

Thanks for that. Though I'm not quite sure it means what the other poster claims it means.

The previous poster has been running around shouting from the rooftops that it was acknowledged he posed no danger to the public. Those documents do not support that assertion. In fact, they outright contradict it. The CMO advised that he was a low risk (not 'no risk', but a 'low risk'). ND claimed the risk was negligible. The minister proceeds on the assumption that he was negligible. Again, this is not an acknowledgment of him posing no risk (which is the claim being made). There is a significant difference between "This guy poses a negligible risk" and "I'm going to assume this guy poses no risk".

Note also the beginning of that sentence "If there is a difference between.....". The advice given was that he was a low risk (but still a risk), and ND's claim is that it was so low it was negligible. My understanding of that sentence is that, for the purposes of his determination, the author doesn't see the difference between low and negligible, so will just assume that it's negligible for the sake of brevity or whatever. This, again, is not a tacit admission that he posed no danger to the public.

HOWEVER.........point 17 then blows that out of the water, where he does accept it, so I stand corrected.

Thanks again, I wasn't aware the court docs were available so quickly.

I should have been clearer with my words. I never meant to suggest that it NEVER existed, I meant that it NO LONGER existed once it was cleared up what the exemption was (or should have been) all about. Point 16 states that ND himself considered that his exemption was valid, and that's why he traveled, which is fair enough. When he landed, it turns out that it wasn't valid, so his Visa was revoked. It is my understanding that he was told he was exempt, by the VIC authorities, but then found out he wasn't, according to Federal ones.

I mean, I have a helicopter's pilot's licence. It's written in crayon on the back of a corn flakes box, but I consider it valid. I can't show up at Baldonnel aerodrome and demand to be allowed fly one though, without it being checked for veracity/validity etc, at which point it turns out that it was never really valid in the first instance. This is similar circumstances here, AFAIK. He was told it was valid by authority A, but the validity was questioned by Authority B and rejected. Once B outranks A, he's SOL.