"Minister's decision in Djokovic case dangerous precedent"
Greg Barnes, Julian Assange's lawyer and legal adviser to WikiLeaks, spoke about the Djokovic case.
Source: B92
Close the entire text of the article here
Foto: Profimedia
He said that the rationale of the Australian minister about the abolition of the visa for tennis player Novak Djokovic was "an extremely dangerous precedent", stating that the political reasons were part of such a decision.
"One of the most dangerous aspects of Djokovic's case is the readiness of the federal authorities to assess that someone is risky for public order only on the basis of what they believe would be the views of that person," Barnes said.
"This is an Orwellian situation and is deeply problematic in a society that should be committed to freedom of speech and freedom of thought," said Barnes, who is also a spokesman for the Australian Bar Association.
"The minister has such broad and effective power that he allows him to play with someone's life," he said. "Inevitably, the political consequences shaped this decision, because the concept of 'public interest' is so broad that it allows the minister political considerations, although theoretically it should not be done."
Let us remind you, the competent minister annulled the court ruling approving Novak's visa, so he said that Djokovic is a threat to the public good, because he will help spread anti-vaccine sentiments.
Yes, indeed. Can't agree more if it sets a precedent. Should watch the British judicial system’s procedures closely.
Djokovic's case involves improper judicial procedures: (1) Federal Court of Australia did not direct the Minister, should he not be satisfied, to appeal its decision (10/01/22) determining Djokovic’s visa was valid, (2) Immigration Minister Alex Hawke overturned this court ruling on 14/01/22 close to 6.00pm by cancelling Djokovic’s visa (3) in the Federal Court of Australia under Chief Justice James Allsop, Judge Anthony Kelly who had made a ruling on 10/01/22 did not direct Minister Alex Hawke to appeal to a higher court, instead, set up a new proceeding to which the should-be appellant, the Immigration Minister, was now made respondent and Djokovic became appellant to the Minister's decision (!)
A government minister can make personal decision that overturns court ruling? Come on Australia is not under Hitler or Mussolini! But it did actually happen under Scott Morrison resulting in Djokovic being escorted back to the detention centre in the manner of arrest and keeping in custody. The actions of the judiciary under James Allsop and of the government, beyond doubt, amount to criminal use of public authority. Covid-19 should not be an excuse here! Collusion of government and the judiciary? Not surprising due to the ingrained Australian electoral practice - all political parties get together at election and fix who is in who is out of the parliament.
(Marianne Henry, 23 January 2022 23:23)
A gross injustice to Mr Djokovic, who has always been a good friend to Australia. A dangerous precedent for Australia, perpetrated by self-serving politicians who were happy to treat Novak unjustly in their pathetic hunt for the vote of the 'lowest common denominator' in the upcoming elections. Shame on you.
(Michael Panetta, 21 January 2022 14:55)
Orwellian? Yes, but it is more what the Communists regimes used to do and worse.
Legislation already exists in western societies that could do the worse part. Most cant see it because its being done very slowly and when they do see it, its too late.
(sj, 20 January 2022 22:24)
Orwellian? Yes, but it is more what the Communists regimes used to do and worse.
Legislation already exists in western societies that could do the worse part. Most cant see it because its being done very slowly and when they do see it, its too late.
(sj, 20 January 2022 22:24)
A gross injustice to Mr Djokovic, who has always been a good friend to Australia. A dangerous precedent for Australia, perpetrated by self-serving politicians who were happy to treat Novak unjustly in their pathetic hunt for the vote of the 'lowest common denominator' in the upcoming elections. Shame on you.
(Michael Panetta, 21 January 2022 14:55)
Yes, indeed. Can't agree more if it sets a precedent. Should watch the British judicial system’s procedures closely.
Djokovic's case involves improper judicial procedures: (1) Federal Court of Australia did not direct the Minister, should he not be satisfied, to appeal its decision (10/01/22) determining Djokovic’s visa was valid, (2) Immigration Minister Alex Hawke overturned this court ruling on 14/01/22 close to 6.00pm by cancelling Djokovic’s visa (3) in the Federal Court of Australia under Chief Justice James Allsop, Judge Anthony Kelly who had made a ruling on 10/01/22 did not direct Minister Alex Hawke to appeal to a higher court, instead, set up a new proceeding to which the should-be appellant, the Immigration Minister, was now made respondent and Djokovic became appellant to the Minister's decision (!)
A government minister can make personal decision that overturns court ruling? Come on Australia is not under Hitler or Mussolini! But it did actually happen under Scott Morrison resulting in Djokovic being escorted back to the detention centre in the manner of arrest and keeping in custody. The actions of the judiciary under James Allsop and of the government, beyond doubt, amount to criminal use of public authority. Covid-19 should not be an excuse here! Collusion of government and the judiciary? Not surprising due to the ingrained Australian electoral practice - all political parties get together at election and fix who is in who is out of the parliament.
(Marianne Henry, 23 January 2022 23:23)
Orwellian? Yes, but it is more what the Communists regimes used to do and worse.
Legislation already exists in western societies that could do the worse part. Most cant see it because its being done very slowly and when they do see it, its too late.
(sj, 20 January 2022 22:24)
A gross injustice to Mr Djokovic, who has always been a good friend to Australia. A dangerous precedent for Australia, perpetrated by self-serving politicians who were happy to treat Novak unjustly in their pathetic hunt for the vote of the 'lowest common denominator' in the upcoming elections. Shame on you.
(Michael Panetta, 21 January 2022 14:55)
Yes, indeed. Can't agree more if it sets a precedent. Should watch the British judicial system’s procedures closely.
Djokovic's case involves improper judicial procedures: (1) Federal Court of Australia did not direct the Minister, should he not be satisfied, to appeal its decision (10/01/22) determining Djokovic’s visa was valid, (2) Immigration Minister Alex Hawke overturned this court ruling on 14/01/22 close to 6.00pm by cancelling Djokovic’s visa (3) in the Federal Court of Australia under Chief Justice James Allsop, Judge Anthony Kelly who had made a ruling on 10/01/22 did not direct Minister Alex Hawke to appeal to a higher court, instead, set up a new proceeding to which the should-be appellant, the Immigration Minister, was now made respondent and Djokovic became appellant to the Minister's decision (!)
A government minister can make personal decision that overturns court ruling? Come on Australia is not under Hitler or Mussolini! But it did actually happen under Scott Morrison resulting in Djokovic being escorted back to the detention centre in the manner of arrest and keeping in custody. The actions of the judiciary under James Allsop and of the government, beyond doubt, amount to criminal use of public authority. Covid-19 should not be an excuse here! Collusion of government and the judiciary? Not surprising due to the ingrained Australian electoral practice - all political parties get together at election and fix who is in who is out of the parliament.
(Marianne Henry, 23 January 2022 23:23)