image source,Getty Images
On January 16, Djokovic left the Park Hotel in Melbourne.
Tennis superstar Novak Djokovic (Novak Djokovic, Zugaowei, Djokovic) lost his appeal in court, and Australia finally decided to deport him.
Three judges unanimously ruled that the appeal failed after a judge in Melbourne on Sunday rejected his appeal after a trial. The Australian government cancelled his entry visa for the second time, citing public health concerns. The court said it would announce the basis for its decision later.
The government believes that Djokovic has not been vaccinated against the new crown, which is a threat to public health.
The verdict also means Djokovic will almost certainly miss out on defending the Australian Open men’s singles title.
Djokovic later issued a statement saying he was “extremely disappointed” but respected the ruling. At the same time, he said that he would cooperate with the authorities on matters related to departure and other matters.
What does the verdict mean?
image source,PA Media
After 10 days of roller coaster legal battles, three judges gave the final ruling, which almost decided that Djokovic would not appear in this Australian Open.
Immigration Minister Alex Hawke’s decision to cancel Djokovic’s entry visa will be enforced.
In addition, Djokovic could face an entry ban from Australia for up to three years.
Djokovic’s chances of challenging the verdict are slim, and he was scheduled to play in his first Australian Open match on Monday night. This year’s Australian Open is from January 17th to January 30th.
“Idol of the anti-vaccine group”
BBC Australia correspondent Shaimaa Khalil (Shaimaa Khalil) pointed out that the trial that day was different from the last trial. The last trial rejected the government’s decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa and focused on some laws. Program on. The second trial focused on Djokovic’s stance on vaccines and whether it poses a threat to public health.
Lloyd, who backed the government’s decision, said in court on Sunday that Djokovic had become an icon for the anti-vaccine community.
He said the anti-vaccine community has benefited from Djokovic’s status and popularity.
“Rightly or wrongly, he (Djokovic) has stood for anti-vaccine views. His presence here seems to lead to more people turning to pro-anti-vaccine views.”
different voices
image source,Getty Images
Supporters of Djokovic have protested outside the courtroom.
There have been mixed voices in Australia over the government’s decision to cancel Djokovic’s entry visa. Australian political scientist Peter van Onselen said the notion that Djokovic’s presence in Australia would fuel anti-vaccine sentiment was hypothetical. Australian government officials have expressed anti-vaccine views in the past, but have never been accused by Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
During that day’s hearing, Djokovic’s lawyers called the government’s decision “indefensible and illogical.” They have always said that if the government sees Djokovic as an anti-vaccine factor and a threat, then expelling him would also affect the stability and peace of the community and spark outrage.