Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Gronk]

The immigration minister is not the only one with personal powers, nor are we the only country that provides individuals with like powers. They can 100% be challenged and the reasons are the only thing that can be debated. Novak’s failing was you can’t argue a difference of opinion (I.e. whether deporting or not deporting him would cause the greater unrest) against a ministerial power. He needed to provide factual evidence that the reasons were incorrect. And 99.99% of the time, the minister is going to word the cancellation so that there’s not really any facts to argue against.
To my second point, do you believe ministerial powers should not have a greater level of discretion/leniency in their use?

Yeah I don't think that the defendant has much scope to win a case within the framework

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501A Refusal or cancellation of visa--setting aside and substitution of non-adverse decision under subsection 501(1) or (2)

classic.austlii.edu.au

Action by Minister--natural justice does not apply

(3) The Minister may set aside the original decision and:

(a) refuse to grant a visa to the person; or

(b) cancel a visa that has been granted to the person;

if:

(c) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test (as defined by section 501); and

(d) the Minister is satisfied that the refusal or cancellation is in the national interest.

(4) The rules of natural justice, and the code of procedure set out in Subdivision AB of Division 3 of Part 2, do not apply to a decision under subsection (3).

(4A) Under subsection (2) or (3), the Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person even if the original decision under subsection (1) was a decision not to exercise the power conferred by subsection 501(1) to refuse to grant a visa to the person.

Minister's exercise of power

(5) The power under subsection (2) or (3) may only be exercised by the Minister personally.

(6) The Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise the power under subsection (2) or (3) in respect of the original decision, whether or not the Minister is requested to do so, or in any other circumstances.

Decision not reviewable under Part 5 or 7

(7) A decision under subsection (2) or (3) is not reviewable under Part 5 or 7.

 

[hineyrulz]

I’m trying to convince you that Novak is not a semen holder. He is an incredible person and I’m trying to demonstrate that the western media have influenced your opinion on him

And I’m one of your favourites because I’m not a sheep like unfortunately most in this dormant forum.

And I’m particularly shitty because @Poupou Escobar was the only person that liked my post yesterday about Serbian Inat. I thought that would have resonated with you skips with the ANZACS and all.

I can’t cop Novak and never have, I’ve never liked Fed. It was the poofy pony tail and the the cry baby antics. Rafa I also dislike, actually the last mens tennis player I actually liked was Agassi. I barely watch a match a year these days.

 

[84 Baby]

And let me tell you about racism. It’s what I perceive that matters.

That is cancel culture, boy who cried wolf bullshit.
You are well within your right to say that you feel that something said or done is racist.
But once it is retorted as not coming from a racially discriminatory view, either knowingly or accidentally, then to continually claim racism is detrimental to those actually being discriminated.

 

[84 Baby]

Yeah I don't think that the defendant has much scope to win a case within the framework

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501A Refusal or cancellation of visa--setting aside and substitution of non-adverse decision under subsection 501(1) or (2)

classic.austlii.edu.au

Action by Minister--natural justice does not apply

(3) The Minister may set aside the original decision and:

(a) refuse to grant a visa to the person; or

(b) cancel a visa that has been granted to the person;

if:

(c) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test (as defined by section 501); and

(d) the Minister is satisfied that the refusal or cancellation is in the national interest.

(4) The rules of natural justice, and the code of procedure set out in Subdivision AB of Division 3 of Part 2, do not apply to a decision under subsection (3).

(4A) Under subsection (2) or (3), the Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person even if the original decision under subsection (1) was a decision not to exercise the power conferred by subsection 501(1) to refuse to grant a visa to the person.

Minister's exercise of power

(5) The power under subsection (2) or (3) may only be exercised by the Minister personally.

(6) The Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise the power under subsection (2) or (3) in respect of the original decision, whether or not the Minister is requested to do so, or in any other circumstances.

Decision not reviewable under Part 5 or 7

(7) A decision under subsection (2) or (3) is not reviewable under Part 5 or 7.

None of that disputes what I previously said but you still didn’t answer my question.

 

[Avenger]

Racism starts as soon as you start broadcasting where you are from.
That is where the divide kind of begins. You are a very passionate Serbian man who is proud of his herritage. You want everyone to know it but at the same time you are labelling yourself different to others and so it begins

But we are different buddy. Do you know how my name was changed at school and later in the majority of my legal documents from Goran to Gordon?

My teacher in first class kept pronouncing my name Go Ran at school and I kept correcting her so she had a solution.

Miss Jones (God bless her) said, ‘I appreciate you came from a war torn communist country, You Ko Slaviya (sic) and we can’t change your surname. (Yugoslavia in the 70’s was the most progressive peaceful socialist country in Europe but anyway)

…I was thinking because we already have a Gary and Greg already in the class to change your christian name to Gordon that way we only have to add a letter ‘

I came home and told dad and in an effort to fit in, dad said, ‘so what, Gordon it is.’

The rest is history.

 

[Avenger]

That is cancel culture, boy who cried wolf bullshit.
You are well within your right to say that you feel that something said or done is racist.
But once it is retorted as not coming from a racially discriminatory view, either knowingly or accidentally, then to continually claim racism is detrimental to those actually being discriminated.

I accept it from someone who explains themselves like @hineyrulz but I can’t accept it from the western media that have never clarified themselves.

 

[84 Baby]

I accept it from someone who explains themselves like @hineyrulz but I can’t accept it from the western media that have never clarified themselves.

I may have missed it but does the western media vilify all Serbians?

 

[Avenger]

I may have missed it but does the western media vilify all Serbians?

Not all. But it doesn’t have to for someone of a Serbian background to feel shitty about it.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

A bit like what the Yorkshire County Cricket captain did to Cheteshwar Pujara after he signed up for them. 'We're going to call you 'Steve''.

I would just say this. People can be discriminated against for reasons other than 'race' (or more correctly here 'nationality' or ethnic sub-group). Sometimes it is simply a prejudice against anyone who is not from here. In this particular case, to the extent that there is a racial motivation for any of this, I reckon it fits more into prejudic against non-Anglo people/cultures than anything specifically about Novak being a Serb. Now, I might not think that if I was of Serbian extraction.

 

[Avenger]

I found this interesting. Looks like he with his current stance will only be able to play in half of the grand slams.

Novak Djokovic is out of the Australian Open. But what about the other grand slams?

If Novak Djokovic remains unvaccinated, will he face similar hurdles at the year’s other grand slam events? Here is what to know about the policies in place for the other major tournaments, and how Djokovic might be affected.

www.smh.com.au

 

[84 Baby]

Not all. But it doesn’t have to for someone of a Serbian background to feel shitty about it.

A bit like what the Yorkshire County Cricket captain did to Cheteshwar Pujara after he signed up for them. 'We're going to call you 'Steve''.

I would just say this. People can be discriminated against for reasons other than 'race' (or more correctly here 'nationality' or ethnic sub-group). Sometimes it is simply a prejudice against anyone who is not from here. In this particular case, to the extent that there is a racial motivation for any of this, I reckon it fits more into prejudic against non-Anglo people/cultures than anything specifically about Novak being a Serb. Now, I might not think that if I was of Serbian extraction.

Admittedly right now if you said you were Serbian, there’s a high chance you’d be lumped in with Novak, which would be vilification. Although the ones crowding and jumping on the car the other day did that no favours. Not that I think that had anything to do with them being Serbian. Heaps of them probably weren’t.
And I’ll agree that there is a degree of “he’s not from here” because there is that in ALL immigration matters because people from Australia/insert any country are given greater privilege in Australia/insert country again.
But I stand by, claiming racism when there actually isn’t, is what actually draws the racism card into play and creates further divide in actual racist matters.

 

[Avenger]

Is anyone going to comment about Novak’s classy statement when he was deported?

Even the Serbian Prime Minister stated that he has nothing against Australia and that all Australians would still be welcome to Serbia and treated better than how Novak was.

Morrison’s statement may as well have been done by an irrelevant robot.

 

[Happy MEel]

Is anyone going to comment about Novak’s classy statement when he was deported?

Even the Serbian Prime Minister stated that he has nothing against Australia and that all Australians would still be welcome to Serbia and treated better than how Novak was.

Morrison’s statement may as well have been done by an irrelevant robot.

It was a classy statement, as was his message to the Kok. That changes very little in the context of this discussion.

 

[Avenger]

It was a classy statement, as was his message to the Kok. That changes very little in the context of this discussion.

It puts a little cream on a shit sandwich.

 

[hindy111]

Shame if he never comes to Australia again. I would of loved to see him win 10 Aus opens.
Let's hope he can get a fake vaccine passport.

 

[Avenger]

Shame if he never comes to Australia again. I would of loved to see him win 10 Aus opens.
Let's hope he can get a fake vaccine passport.

You actually made me properly laugh out loud.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Which one is more important and carries more weight to assess him as a person?

They are both important. No doubt he’s done some amazing stuff, but he’s also let himself down at times. Still, he’s far from the biggest dickhead in tennis.

 

[Happy MEel]

Like I said read my posts in chronology. I knew he would lose yesterday because it is almost impossible to defeat a God Law. Remember when I said that legal matters are usually won with the path of least resistance. It happened yesterday. It was never about whether the right decision was made. It was about the lawfulness of an administrative decision.

Nothing bumbling about that. You just don’t understand the legal process. The good thing for you is I’m here to teach you despite your bias. There’s that word again that you don’t quite understand and cannot delineate.

Hang on…pretty much every post I’ve seen has agreed that the Gov devised a legal argument that had the most chance of winning, nothing more. It was you who went on ad nauseum about fairness. So what is it about the legal process exactly that you know more about?

I’d also be surprised if the judges provided too many opinions on the validity of the Gov’s argument in their summation.

 

[Avenger]

Hang on…pretty much every post I’ve seen has agreed that the Gov devised a legal argument that had the most chance of winning, nothing more. It was you who went on ad nauseum about fairness. So what is it about the legal process exactly that you know more about?

That he was going to win the first round when it was shown that he wasn’t given a fair go and that it would be difficult to defeat a change in administrative law. The second part. The one yesterday.

 

[Happy MEel]

That he was going to win the first round when it was shown that he wasn’t given a fair go and that it would be difficult to defeat a change in administrative law. The second part. The one yesterday.

I thought the first hearing was 50/50 and we were in agreement it’d be very difficult to overturn the second. Again, I don’t see how this provides any evidence of a far superior knowledge of legal process.