here’s an article
Open Thread – Mon 10 Jan 2022
4,225 responses to “Open Thread – Mon 10 Jan 2022”
If he has a chef and other assorted hangers on then his entourage is a covid multiplier, carting around his own super-spreader event.
Wow, too much of this happening:
How can the media be impartial if it is reliant on the people they are meant to keep honest.
Also if true from Craig’s Twitter feed, Judge Kelly convened at 8:45pm. A wild guess he may be a tad hot under the collar to agree to come in late Friday night to hear this.
mh is covering the unfolding events on dash Cat…
The Joker is no different to any other celebrity, sportsperson or other ‘special people’ who have been enabled to come in or out without restriction while the rest of us have been barred.
He is very different indeed, since the others have been waved through without question, flitting back and forth whenever they please.
O/T – a local entrepreneur has taken on a business that closed down two years ago – fairly unskilled work, but he’s prepared to train the right people.
Twenty four applicants, of which six were ready, willing and able to start. The rest advised that they weren’t really interested, they’d only applied to stay on the dole…
January 14, 2022 at 9:12 pm
My understanding is a diplomatic passport would allow him to stay in the country.
Nah, ‘fraid not. A diplomatic passport provides the holder with certain immunities and holders can cross international borders bypassing many of the travel regulations that regular passport holders have to follow.
However, whilst the diplomatic passport holder can technically snub their nose at local laws and requirements, the Government of the nation (in this case Australia) can declare the visiting diplomatic passport holder ‘persona non grata’ and expel them. That is quite different to the expulsion process initiated by Hawke.
As far as I’m aware, and only because Australia is a member of the Commonwealth, only the Queen could say “up yours Scotty” and stay, move around, spit in the street and move into the Lodge at will (and the Queen doesn’t actually have a passport of any description).
So Djokovic is a problem because he would have killed x number of people apparently.
Novak ?okovi? has been given leave to appeal the decision by the federal Minister of Immigration (which was specifically made for only one matter of alleged public policy: the sportman’s remaining in Australia might give comfort to those who oppose mandatory “vaccinations”).
Vaccination is not mandatory. Maybe this needs to be made clear. There is nothing that is being opposed, then, by an unvaccinated person. Nothing to upset the apple cart.
This was under Craig Kelly’s Djokovic tweet.
This is what is being done to the people of this country. She calls it a dictatorship and a communist country and she’s not wrong.
It’s in the public interest to acknowledge that there are different opinions about vaccinations.
This is soooo screwed up.
As Djokovic holds a diplomatic passport he should be able to bypass many of the regulations that plague you and I in entering any country. Cats may recall that when our borders were closed to all (cough, cough) one of the listed exemptions were diplomatic passport holders. They didn’t even have to go into quarantine back when the Alpha and Delta variants were most active.
There are routine protocols for diplomatic passport holders and the Australian Government are squaring up for a fight against those practices/protocols.
The point about playing cute with the courts is a good one.
Migration cases generally take a very dim view of attempts to circumvent them.
TradCaths supporting The Othos! Thank you Australia! Happy clapping your way towards ‘good intentions’
Here’s the secret behind Novak Djokovic’s resistance to COVID tyranny
Djoker, over Dan’s dead body. I certainly hope it comes to that.
And Scumbag the happy clapper
Vaccination is not mandatory. […] There is nothing that is being opposed, then, by an unvaccinated person.
Nothing to be opposed?
To enter Tasmania a person must be “vaccinated”. It is true that few people these days are forced to enter Tasmania, and a potential tourist or returning resident can choose not to enter Tasmania and therefore can opt not to have the, so far, two not-mandatory-but-necessary injections.
This year all students at the University of Tasmania must prove that they have been doubly injected before they may study at a campus. It is true that few are forced to be enrolled at the University of Tasmania and a potential student or returning student can choose not to enrol and therefore can opt not to have the, so far, two not-mandatory-but-compulsory injections.
Currently, all Tasmanian SES volunteers must supply proof that they have had, so far, two injections of alleged vaccines; otherwise, they are ineligible to attend call-outs. It is true that few are forced to be SES volunteers and a potential volunteer therefore can opt not to have the, so far, two not-mandatory-but-pretty-damned-obligatory injections and choose to be, effectively, stood down.
Nonetheless, even if governments were not forcing children—who are at negligible risk from COVID-19 but demonstrably at risk from the effects of the various, supposed vaccines—to be injected with those substances and, even if mandates were purely hypothetical, I for one should still oppose dangerous, alleged vaccines, the wicked propaganda (such as insinuations that young, unvaccinated children are selfish and must want to murder their friends and relatives) which promote their use, and, above all, mandates.
After all, a danger need not be present already for me to oppose it; in fact, it is surely better to oppose, say, authoritarian measures before they come into existence than wait until they are enforced. I oppose, for example, the statist overthrow of all worthwhile traditions without perforce insisting that the statist overthrow of all worthwhile traditions has begun. (No, not at all!) I can oppose replacing the current national anthem with some ditty by acclaimed hip-hop artists, the Hilltop Hoods, without, I hope, being accused of thereby believing that such an exchange be underway. It is wiser to oppose a Bill before its second reading, I contend, than to attempt to remove an Act after its royal assent.
Note: ‘there is nothing to BEING opposed’ whereas you have read it as ‘nothing to be opposed.’.
That is , Djokovic at present is being denied a visa because his BEiNG unvaccinated causes scandal. Yet his state of BEING unvaccinated is not unlawful.
In fact, his BEING unvaccinated is perfectly lawful insofar as he has immunity which in law is judged to be equivalent to at least 6 months duration of being vaccinated, doubly, maybe triply vaccinated.
What the visa denial effects is that Djokovic is a menace to the good people of Australia because his BEING unvaccinated is the same thing as if Djokovic were to scandalously claim that he should not BE vaccinated, a situation which would disturb the good people of Australia.
Now, Djokovic may well wish to say that people should not be vaccinated, but he has not said that.
So the intention to deport him is on the basis that his BEING unvaccinated is a threat. But that intention is itself what is unlawful rather than that of being unvaccinated.
And if Djokovic were deported for BEING something, that is for BEING unvaccinated, it then becomes encumbent upon governments do SOMETHING about those who like Djokovic are unvaccinated for such persons too are BEING a menace in their BEING what they are. And recall that unvaccinated does not mean two jabs.
But being in an unvaccinated state is not unlawful.
being in an unvaccinated state is not unlawful.
I thank you, Franx, for your ontological* distinctions.
We are, I hope, in complete agreement that Mr. Djokovic, has done nought wrong merely by his being unvaccinated (by the current definition—he has, I imagine, been vaccinated many times over the years); but, according to our benevolent Minister for Immigration, his mere presence whilst officially and outrageously unjabbed in Australia might encourage others—against the maintenance of public order!—to be even more fervent in their opposition to the new vaccines (whether or not being coerced into being jabbed equals a mandate). That, of course, cannot be tolerated.
I do maintain, however, that there’s a great amount that is being opposed by unvaccinated people.
* a wee drollery on ??, ????? (“being”); never mind.
??, ????? was meant to be ôn, ontos in ancient Greek.
Deadman, yes, thanks.
Ontological drollery indeed.
And I have no real idea about the Greek.
But the ‘yet’ you note is one reason why I worry about the Djokovic situation.
Because – at present – BEING unvaccinated is not unlawful, although ‘privileges’ are denied.
Meaning that if, as with Djokovic, a state of BEING becomes tantamount to intention to corrupt the the innocents (called Karens, I believe), then the intention works to make it that we are all and equally stuffed.
Except that that I do not think we are, despite indications to the contrary, these indications being mere presuppositions. For they will try.
Deadman I think our topic and we ourselves have been disposed unto the realms of some nether region to do with, well, …. God knows what.