Novak - četnik sa reketom

Daï Djakman Faré wrote:sto kaze contrapoints that must be hard for him as a fat transwoman of color

Daï Djakman Faré wrote:sto kaze contrapoints that must be hard for him as a fat transwoman of color

Sangeetha Pillai @sangpillai
UPDATE: Alright! The case is underway. The Minister’s submissions have also just gone online. You can find them here: https://fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/djokovic/filed-documents/sealed-Respondent-Submissions-15-01-2022.pdf. Unsurprisingly, they say that all three of Djokovic’s arguments are incorrect.
Djokovic’s 1st argument was that Hawke fell into ‘jurisdictional error’ when he cancelled the visa, bc it was ‘illogical, irrational or unreasonable’ for Hawke to conclude Djokovic’s presence would stoke anti-vax sentiment w/o considering whether cancellation would also do so
The Minister’s lawyers say Hawke *did* consider this (and that Djokovic can’t prove otherwise). They also say that even if he didn’t consider the counterargument this is not ‘illogical, irrational or unreasonable’. And even if they’re wrong on that too, it wasn’t material.
If Djokovic wants to argue that the Minister didn’t consider whether cancellation might stoke anti-vax sentiment, the ball is in his court to prove it.
This isn’t easy. And Hawke’s lawyers say that here it’s very hard because Hawke had no duty to provide Djokovic with reasons for cancellation at all. They say the court should be slow to infer that something wasn’t considered just because the reasons didn’t discuss it at length.
Hawke’s lawyers say that because Djokovic isn’t arguing that Hawke misunderstood the power under s 133C(3) his job is even harder. In other words, everyone agrees Hawke knew what he was meant to do, so it’s likely that he did it.
Hawke’s lawyers go on to say that the evidence suggests that he did, in fact, consider whether cancellation would itself stoke anti-vax sentiment. While he didn’t spell it out, they say it’s clear from the reasons that he considered the possible consequences of cancellation.
The Minister’s submission goes on to say that even if Hawke did not consider whether cancellation would stoke anti-vax sentiment, this would not be illogical, irrational or unreasonable.
The Minister submissions point out that that the bar for showing something is illogical, irrational or unreasonable is extremely high, and that even if it’s been met here, failure to consider whether cancellation would stoke anti-vax sentiment is not ‘material’.
‘It’s not material’ basically means something like: ‘even if Hawke didn’t consider these things, and he should have, it doesn’t really matter because it was never going to lead to a different outcome’.
Djokovic’s second argument was that it was not open to Hawke to find that Djokovic’s presence may foster anti-vax sentiment. Essentially this boils down to whether Hawke had evidence to reach this conclusion, and whether he reached the conclusion reasonably.
The Minister’s submissions point out that again the bar is high for Djokovic. There doesn’t need to be a ton of evidence, just some. The Minister’s submissions say it’s clear from Hawke’s reasons that there was some evidence…
…and that it’s not unreasonable to draw on that evidence to conclude that Djokovic’s presence ‘might’ stoke anti-vax sentiment. Again, Hawke has a pretty low threshold to get over to be on solid legal ground, which makes Djokovic’s job hard.
Djokovic’s final argument was that it wasn’t open to Hawke to make a finding that Djokovic had a ‘well-known stance on vaccination’ without asking his current views on vaccination. The Ministers subs once again say that this is a hard point for Djokovic to make.
The Minister’s subs point out that failing to make inquiries will only be jurisdictional error in ‘rare or exceptional cases’. Here, they say, Hawke made it clear that it wouldn’t have made a difference to his decision.
Hawke expressly said in his reasons that he was more concerned with the public perception of Djokovic’s views on vaccination than with what Djokovic’s current views actually are.
Moreover, the subs say it was reasonable to conclude that Djokovic is opposed to vaccination based on his previous public statements & the fact that he’s known to be unvaccinated. Hawke’s lawyers say it was thus open for him to infer that Djokovic had known anti-vaccination views
That’s all from the subs. If you would like to watch the hearing you can do so here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRxyGJGi6OE. And @karenlsweeney is live-tweeting again

lalinea wrote:"Djokovic’s final argument was that it wasn’t open to Hawke to make a finding that Djokovic had a ‘well-known stance on vaccination’ without asking his current views on vaccination."

ziva nisam sta bi rekao da su ga pitali. Bilo bi super da sudije kazu "ajde da ga pitamo".

btw, ovo je odlicno - sva apsurdnost tih ministrovih god-like powers na uvid celom svetu.

Janko Suvar wrote:Jel se vakcinisao na nekom od tih mesta

Sotir wrote:Толико је банално ово са вакцинацијом, да изгледа вероватно да су одлучили да им је стао на жуљ због еколошких протеста, па се онда сетили да ово искористе и надувају до небеса.

Sotir wrote:Толико је банално ово са вакцинацијом, да изгледа вероватно да су одлучили да им је стао на жуљ због еколошких протеста, па се онда сетили да ово искористе и надувају до небеса.

Mór Thököly wrote:

Janko Suvar wrote:Jel se vakcinisao na nekom od tih mesta

Nebitno, tako se ne ponasa "talisman" antivakserstva.