ChatterBank0 min ago
Djokovic To Be Deported
132 Answers
Good on the Aussies for getting this specimen out of their country. Perhaps he'll now organise another superspreader tennis tournament in his native land. Good riddance.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodgoalie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think Mr Djokovic is getting a raw deal in the media and social nedia.
It appears he has an aversion to being vaccinated, and so has applied for, and as far as he and is team are concerned, been granted, an immunity which will allow him to enter Australia and play tennis.
It now appears that the regulations have not been met, and Mr Djokovic is being held temporarily, prior to possible return to his point of departure - he is not being 'deported' because he hasn't officially entered the country.
This has now been twisted into the idea that a millionaire sportsman thinks he can flout the rules, has been stopped, and is being kicked out, ha ha ha hee hee hee, good riddance etc.
But objectively, and leaving out all the righteous hot-air, he has actually not broken any laws, or done anything except attempt to facilitate the chance to ply his trade.
Now people can take issue with his approach to vaccination - but if regulations allow him to enter the country and play, why would he not do both?
And if he is prevented from doing so, then he returns and will play elsewhere.
But the notion that he is simply using his money and fame to try and slide around the laws that apply to everyone else is clearly not the case, and, most importantly, he has not actually tried to do so.
He has used what are advised regulations to travel and enter the country.
If, as appears the case, the regulations are not as he and his team were told, then he cannot enter Australia, but that does not translate as some sort of chicanery based on his worth to the country as a major sports star.
And none of the problems are down to him personally, but the subject of disputes between his management and the Australian authorities.
So I would argue the OP - he is not being 'deported', and it should not be 'good riddance'.
It appears he has an aversion to being vaccinated, and so has applied for, and as far as he and is team are concerned, been granted, an immunity which will allow him to enter Australia and play tennis.
It now appears that the regulations have not been met, and Mr Djokovic is being held temporarily, prior to possible return to his point of departure - he is not being 'deported' because he hasn't officially entered the country.
This has now been twisted into the idea that a millionaire sportsman thinks he can flout the rules, has been stopped, and is being kicked out, ha ha ha hee hee hee, good riddance etc.
But objectively, and leaving out all the righteous hot-air, he has actually not broken any laws, or done anything except attempt to facilitate the chance to ply his trade.
Now people can take issue with his approach to vaccination - but if regulations allow him to enter the country and play, why would he not do both?
And if he is prevented from doing so, then he returns and will play elsewhere.
But the notion that he is simply using his money and fame to try and slide around the laws that apply to everyone else is clearly not the case, and, most importantly, he has not actually tried to do so.
He has used what are advised regulations to travel and enter the country.
If, as appears the case, the regulations are not as he and his team were told, then he cannot enter Australia, but that does not translate as some sort of chicanery based on his worth to the country as a major sports star.
And none of the problems are down to him personally, but the subject of disputes between his management and the Australian authorities.
So I would argue the OP - he is not being 'deported', and it should not be 'good riddance'.
andy, there appear to be several possibilities. At the very least, he seems to have been told by someone that his exemption had been approved, so he turned up to play.
Perhaps that person was not authorised to give such an assurance (if may have been the tennis people telling him he was okay, while the border people did not).
Perhaps he lied in his claim to have been exempted, or in the reasons for being granted an exemption.
Perhaps the PM, with a federal election coming up in May, is panicking in response to mob rule and throwing a foreigner to them to appease them.
Without knowing all the facts it's impossible to say. But it's not necessarily Djokovic who's the villain here.
Perhaps that person was not authorised to give such an assurance (if may have been the tennis people telling him he was okay, while the border people did not).
Perhaps he lied in his claim to have been exempted, or in the reasons for being granted an exemption.
Perhaps the PM, with a federal election coming up in May, is panicking in response to mob rule and throwing a foreigner to them to appease them.
Without knowing all the facts it's impossible to say. But it's not necessarily Djokovic who's the villain here.
AH: "It appears he has an aversion to being vaccinated, and so has applied for, and as far as he and is team are concerned, been granted, an immunity which will allow him to enter Australia and play tennis. " - you cannot get an exemption just because of some "aversion" it has to be a real medical reason and that will need to have been submitted to the Australian Authorities. There is more to this that we are being told. Most of us would not even be allowed to check in for the flight without the correct docs etc.
Boycie is particularly revered because he made a documentary: https:/
Oh dear. Djokovic Snr is a bigger fruitcake than his son it seems. Novak is being "crucified like Jesus" apparently.
https:/
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.