Melbourne: The day before the Australian Open will begin, Novak Djokovic, maybe the biggest tennis player of all time, runs against a group of opponents determined that there is no amount of talent, training, money or willingness that can be overcome.
He lost his last offer to live in Australia on Sunday when the three judges uphold the government’s decision to cancel his visa.
Read Alsosport was the second: Amritraj about Djokovic Saga Vijay Amritraj was categorically in his assessment of Saga Novak Djokovic who played in Melbourne on the night of the Australian Open.
“If you choose not to take vaccines then play in countries that allow it,” Amritraj said.
More broadly, he loses in government determined to make it symbol of celebrity rights that are not vaccinated; for immigration law which gives authority such as gods for border enforcement; And for public anger, in a state of regulatory followers, for what is widely seen as Djokovic ignores others, after he said he had tested Covid’s positive last month and still met with two journalists.
On Sunday morning in Australia, more than 84,000 people witnessed Livestream from the hearing in the Federal Court.
What they witnessed was the last strange saga court scene: six panel video conferences in rooms far from wooden blondes, about whether the Minister of Immigration has acted rationally in carrying out his strength to hold and remove.
Chief Justice, James Allsop, announced a decision before 6pm, after explaining that the court did not rule about the excess attitude of Djokovic or whether the government was right on the grounds that he could influence others to fight vaccination or opposing public health.
Instead, the court only found that the Minister of Immigration was in his rights to cancel the visa of a tennis star for the second time based on the possibility.
In the second half, his lawyer argues that the government has used the wrong logic to demand the presence of their clients will energize the anti-vaccination group, making it a threat to public health.
In fact, they argue, anti-vaccine sentiment will be exacerbated by the disposal, quoting protests that follow the cancellation of his first visa.
“The minister holds a straw,” Nicholas Wood said, one of Djokovic’s lawyers.
Wood also denied the government’s claim that Djokovic, 34, was a famous vaccine opposition promoter.
The only comment quoted in the government court, he said, came from April 2020, when the vaccine had not been developed.
However, in the end igniting the Minister of Immigration, Alex Hawke, and his personal view.
All of them show in court that the Australian Immigration Act provides a broad mandate: evidence can only include “perceptions and common sense” from decision makers.
Stephen Lloyd, arguing for the government, told the court it was very reasonable for the Minister of Immigration to worry about the influence of “individual high-profile not vaccinated” which could be vaccinated now but had not yet done so.