Vaccines required for RG this year

Status
Not open for further replies.

reaper

Legend
You're writing something absolutely incoherent. I just went through your writing proposition by proposition and tore it to shreds and I'll do it again.

"Regarding border entry the Australian government had multiple conflicting positions. "

You're telling me now that TA didn't have a role in border entry according to you? Fine, then it's even more clear; the agency which does govern and which no one disputed governs should be contacted and one should comply with its requirements.

Djokovic's team did not do that. There is no 'reneging' on a position. In the event of doubt, you contact the governing agency. Rules and regulations must be published and supported in writing. This is a basic principle. So basic in fact that if you're denying this, you're basically telling me you've never even opened a textbook on administrative law much less examined actual cases.

All Djokovic would have needed would be a simple letter from the federal agency governing the border stating what it is that his team suggests that they understood as an exemption.

Ask yourself why they did not do this. Even a legal intern would have known to do this.

The federal government had already stated their position. They would be leaving the adjudication to the Victorians for arrivals in Victoria as they had for the last two years. Djokovic believed them when time revealed he should not have. The Australian national government weren't rejecting unvaccinated arrivals before Djokovic. Multiple people gained entry for the Australian Open on the Victorian exemption. The Australian government subsequently moved against those people to keep the fig leaf of consistency.
 

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
The federal government had already stated their position. They would be leaving the adjudication to the Victorians for arrivals in Victoria as they had for the last two years. Djokovic believed them when time revealed he should not have.

Just factually incorrect once again. Border issues were and are always the ultimate province of the federal agency which was given that authority by law. Their rules govern and in the event of any doubt, they are to be contacted in writing for clarification.

At no point did the federal government rescind that authority. Stop inventing positions.
 

D-Lite

Hall of Fame
You really need to look at a map - Monaco is a tiny speck on the French coastline (<4km long / 1km at its widest point) and there is no border check as they are both part of the Shengen area. You literally have some streets split between the two countries.

Now, I don't know what the vaccine requirements are in Monaco, and whether they make their health pass to align with the French one. What I do know, is that once the French legislation passes the Conseil Constitutionnel's review in a few days' time, it will be mandatory for anyone to be double jabbed for virtually any public activity (restaurant, sports clubs, gyms, entertainment etc.). So if Djokovic wants to do anything at all in France in his daily life (which I assume he currently does routinely, seeing how tiny Monaco is), he'll have to get jabbed. Or relocate to a country with much laxer rules.
I've been to Monaco, and the S of France many, many times. It's simply the Covid regulations between these two places and generally between European countries as I've not left the UK the whole of the pandemic and things are changing so frequently, and will continue to, it seems.

To the second part of your response - thanks, that's very useful information. Now I see why this is going to be a very sticky situation for him. Yikes.
 

reaper

Legend
Just factually incorrect once again. Border issues were and are always the ultimate province of the federal agency given that authority by law. Their writings govern and in the event of any doubt, they are to be contacted in writing for clarification.

At no point did the federal government rescind that authority. Stop inventing positions.

They were letting people in on the Victorian exemption. How did Renata Voracova gain entry to Australia? It was because of 27 people (from memory) who applied several were granted exemptions. They ALL got in on that state based exemption, until the federal government reneged on its policy of honouring the Victorian process because they wanted to play politics with Djokovic.
 

Kawasaki Kanagawa

Professional
They were letting people in on the Victorian exemption. How did Renata Voracova gain entry to Australia? It was because of 27 people (from memory) who applied several were granted exemptions. They ALL got in on that state based exemption, until the federal government reneged on its policy of honouring the Victorian process because they wanted to play politics with Djokovic.

26 applied, 4-5 got approved by TA/Victoria, all of those got deported.

It's like a full-time job fact-checking you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: esm

Old Gregg

Rookie
It doesn't really matter what the French position is, so long as its transparent, timely and consistent. Australia set up a process to determine eligibility that ultimately only could adjudicate on Australian players despite 90%+ of players being from overseas. If they tell Djokovic a few months out what the requirements are, it's up to Djokovic to comply. If, on the other hand they tell him he can get in, issue a visa (if he requires one) then subsequently treat him like a criminal it's an unsatisfactory process and unfair to Djokovic.

That's not how visas work. They are only an opportunity to get to the border, from there, if you cannot produce evidence showing you comply with the entry requirements of said country, you'll be in strife.

This is exactly what happened to him at the border in Mel.
 

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
There’s a thread about the subject. Big surprise for me what is being said.

Yea I haven't had a chance to look for it (with the clowns arguing still about legal issues even a first year law student would grasp in about 10 seconds) but I've been following Del Po's story in Ole' which I imagine you probably read or have read as well...
 

reaper

Legend
Once more, you fail to understand what the law is. If you are speeding but are not pulled over, you still broke the law and if I stop you the next time, it's still illegal.

Similarly, if you are admitted to Australia without due diligence from a border agent, you can still be deported. The fact that the due diligence was not performed in no way limits the agency from rectifying itself at any later date if the latter is brought to its attention.

The exemption was always only ever what the border agency said it was. Period. And if you want to remove all doubt, you contact it, as established by law and as is the case with virtually every administrative agency more generally.

All you are telling me, point after point here is that you have never studied law and are unfamiliar with even the most basic concepts.

I'm entirely familiar with what you're saying. You're talking law, I'm talking politics. What you have when law is driven by politics is the injustice of its selective application. A federal government suddenly rediscovered its legal power when they wanted a domestic political win.
 

Old Gregg

Rookie
What happened was that Djokovic claimed to have recorded a positive Covid test, a claim not disputed by the Australian authorities. He then applied through the official channels to play the Australian Open and was granted permission to play. He also received a visa to enter Australia from the national government of Australia. As the 9 time champion aiming to participate in the largest single event held in Australia each year, Djokovic would reasonably have expected he had the right to enter the country. As the judge at the initial hearing exclaimed: "What more could this man have done." Subsequently Djokovic lost a court case not on the merits of any argument related to him, but on whether or not the Minister had acted within his powers in ordering his expulsion. The above summary is what happened.

Firstly, we don't have a "national government of Australia", and secondly, visas do not mean automatic entry. He failed to produce the necessary evidence at the border, so immigration stopped him.

The judge who sat on the first case was deciding whether proper procedure was followed during his time at the airport, nothing more. He did not rule on the validity of Djokovic's visa requirements.

Interestingy that judge was refused entry to the US once for failing to provide the correct info to immigration.

Perhaps he was still annoyed.
 

reaper

Legend
That's not how visas work. They are only an opportunity to get to the border, from there, if you cannot produce evidence showing you comply with the entry requirements of said country, you'll be in strife.

This is exactly what happened to him at the border in Mel.

There are all sorts of ways that can happen. You can have an annotation pertaining to a visa so it's transparent as to what's required. So an unvaccinated applicant to Australia can be marked "pending vaccination" (or similar) on their visa.
 

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
I'm entirely familiar with what you're saying. You're talking law, I'm talking politics. What you have when law is driven by politics is the injustice of its selective application. A federal government suddenly rediscovered its legal power when they wanted a domestic political win.


I mean, look at what you're writing. This is just more incoherent rambling. How much more simple can it be than this:

1- there is an administrative federal agency in charge of the border.
2- that agency and it alone publishes and clarifies the requirements for legal entry
3- in the event of doubt, it falls upon the person(s) seeking entry to obtain clarification in writing as to the exemption sought, from that agency and from it alone


Even a legal intern or 1st year law student knows this. Saying 'it's just politics' is avoiding the entire issue.

You've been unbelievably sloppy and incoherent and I walked you through it with more patience than it deserved frankly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: esm

reaper

Legend
Firstly, we don't have a "national government of Australia", and secondly, visas do not mean automatic entry. He failed to produce the necessary evidence at the border, so immigration stopped him.

The judge who sat on the first case was deciding whether proper procedure was followed during his time at the airport, nothing more. He did not rule on the validity of Djokovic's visa requirements.

Interestingy that judge was refused entry to the US once for failing to provide the correct info to immigration.

Perhaps he was still annoyed.

We have a national government. Perhaps it's of Iraq?
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
I've been to Monaco, and the S of France many, many times. It's simply the Covid regulations between these two places and generally between European countries as I've not left the UK the whole of the pandemic and things are changing so frequently, and will continue to, it seems.

To the second part of your response - thanks, that's very useful information. Now I see why this is going to be a very sticky situation for him. Yikes.

Ah, sorry for questioning your geography. I understand your plight with not flying out of the UK. I had not left HK for 2 years before coming back to France for the holidays, and I am stuck in Europe as HK has banned all entries from France, UK, US, Oz, etc. until God knows when. And whenever I make my way back there, I'll have the privilege of spending 3 weeks in a quarantine hotel at my own cost (despite being triple jabbed and having to produce a negative PCR test 48 hours before boarding). And that's the optimistic scenario where I do not test positive during my quarantine period, at which stage I'd be sent to the infamous Penny's Bay quarantine center (a glorified stalag, really) until I test negative, and then spend 14 days more in quarantine after that. Which is the reason why I feel very, very little sympathy for Djokovic's antics about vaccination, exemptions etc.
 

Old Gregg

Rookie
There are all sorts of ways that can happen. You can have an annotation pertaining to a visa so it's transparent as to what's required. So an unvaccinated applicant to Australia can be marked "pending vaccination" (or similar) on their visa.

Djokovic had nothing of substance as evidence, so our border control stopped him. That's literally their job!
 

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
Imagine been so full of hate that you would be hoping for the worlds greatest tennis player to be banned from events because of a ****ing vaccination status to a cold

Imagine being so dense that you can't even grasp what the actual issues are but rather must transform them into a caricature suitable for an infant.

I don't have to imagine it because I just read your post.
 

reaper

Legend
Sure. Now tell me what you don't grasp here:


1- there is an adminstrative agency in charge of the border.
2- that agency and it alone publishes and clarifies the requirements for legal entry
3- in the event of doubt, it falls upon the person(s) seeking entry to obtain clarification in writing as to the exemption sought, from that agency and from it alone

What makes you think I haven't known that for decades. I worked in Customs (Border Force) a 1/4 of a century ago now and am reasonably but not perfectly familiar with the requirements.
 

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
What makes you think I haven't known that for decades. I worked in Customs (Border Force) a 1/4 of a century ago now and am reasonably but not perfectly familiar with the requirements.


Because if you actually understood this, then you know that talking to me about Tennis Australia is 110% irrelevant to any potential issue at the border.

If there is a potential issue and you are applying for entry, you have the duty to seek clarification if necessary from the relevant federal agency itself. Not from Tennis Australia or anyone else.

Now I'll tell you what is most likely and why those of us who have actual legal expertise find this whole Djokovic story risible. The idea that Djokovic's legal team wouldn't know all this too is a fantasy. Anyone with even a tiny bit of experience in law knows all this.

They certainly would know that if they wanted to be sure of being in compliance, they wouldn't ask anyone but the very officials who publish and actually apply the relevant law.

So what does it suggest that they did not do this or make any mention of having tried to do this?

It suggests that they were hoping for enough confusion from citing other non-governing institutions on this matter such that they might obtain entry for Djokovic in spite of not having met the official criteria for entry...which they could not in fact meet and they knew this.
 

Old Gregg

Rookie
Because if you actually understood this, then you know that talking to me about Tennis Australia is 110% irrelevant to any potential issue at the border.

If there is a potential issue and you are applying for entry, you have the duty to seek clarification if necessary from the relevant federal agency itself. Not from Tennis Australia or anyone else.

Now I'll tell you what is most likely and why those of us who have actual legal expertise find this whole Djokovic story risible. The idea that Djokovic's legal team wouldn't know all this too is a fantasy. Anyone with even a tiny bit of experience in law knows all this.

They certainly would know that if they wanted to be sure of being in compliance, they wouldn't ask anyone but the very officials who publish and actually apply the relevant law.

So what does it suggest that they did not do this or make any mention of having tried to do this?

It suggests that they were hoping for enough confusion from citing other non-governing institutions on this matter such that they might obtain entry for Djokovic in spite of not having met the official criteria for entry...which they could not in fact meet and they knew this.

Couldn't agree more.
 
V

Vamos Rafa Nadal

Guest
I want the French Open officials to be extremely clear and transparent about which circumstances they would give players a medical exemption. Not wanting to get vaccinated is NOT a reason for a medical exemption. I want transparency with whatever rules they decide on for participation in the tournament to be clear and understood by everybody, that includes us fans too.
 

reaper

Legend
It's necessary to go point by point with someone who is simply an incoherent mess. You can't even construct an argument and complain when it's done point by point for you. You switch propositions and subjects in mid-sentence.


1- there is a federal administrative agency in charge of the border.
2- that agency and it alone publishes and clarifies the requirements for legal entry
3- in the event of doubt, it falls upon the person(s) seeking entry to obtain clarification in writing as to the exemption sought, from that agency and from it alone

That's as simple as it gets. But you don't grasp it and so it must be explained further. That's on you.

I understand all that. It's false to claim that if I didn't understand it it would be "On me." People no more choose their intellect than the shape of their nose. You're both condescending and needlessly abrasive.
 

reaper

Legend
I want the French Open officials to be extremely clear and transparent about which circumstances they would give players a medical exemption. Not wanting to get vaccinated is NOT a reason for a medical exemption. I want transparency with whatever rules they decide on for participation in the tournament to be clear and understood by everybody, that includes us fans too.

It would have been so much better had it been the case in Australia.
 

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
I understand all that. It's false to claim that if I didn't understand it it would be "On me." People no more choose their intellect than the shape of their nose. You're both condescending and needlessly abrasive.

I explained this succinctly to you and you didn't get it nor even seem particularly interested in getting it. I then expanded on it and you complained it was too lengthy.

Frankly, your statements have been incoherent and shift from topic to topic in the middle of the same sentence. Yes, if you don't grasp what is being said, it's on you at this point and well before now for that matter.

Anyone seeking entry has an affirmative duty to comply with the rules which are published and applied by the federal agency at the border.

Talking about Tennis Australia is virtually irrelevant. Talking about 'politics' IS irrelevant.

It was simple and easily determined and yet somehow, Djokovic with a team of 1st class legal practitioners and staff, didn't know how to undertake this?

It strains all credulity. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter; they did not comply with the law. Period.
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
I want the French Open officials to be extremely clear and transparent about which circumstances they would give players a medical exemption. Not wanting to get vaccinated is NOT a reason for a medical exemption. I want transparency with whatever rules they decide on for participation in the tournament to be clear and understood by everybody, that includes us fans too.

As in Australia, public health policy is not within the remit of organisers of tennis competitions. For clarity, you need to consult the government.
 
V

Vamos Rafa Nadal

Guest
As in Australia, public health policy is not within the remit of organisers of tennis competitions. For clarity, you need to consult the government.
So what I say still stands: they need to communicate clearly and get guidance from those officials.
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
So what I say still stands: they need to communicate clearly and get guidance from those officials.

No. The players need to do their own research and consult the Government's entry requirements and public health policies just like everyone else does when they travel.

I went to Malta last year. It was my responsibility to check that I met the entry requirements and understood the COVID rules in operation. If I had failed to do so, the only person to blame would be me.

Tennis players are no different.
 

Ledigs

Legend
Djokovic’s going to have a problem with New York City and possibly New York State for the US Open even if he somehow can fly in. NYC is one of the strictest locations for vaccines in the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top