Once again, you quote something with no citation. Clearly, it has an editorial point of view, and contains factual errors.
It is also untrue that "no one complained" about the decision to release him, in the first ruling. It was widely unpopular in Australia. (See below)
You mischaracterize the initial ruling, which was merely that Novak didn't have enough time at the airport to present his case. The judge didn't say his visa was correct. The decision was procedural.
To characterize the Immigration Minister's position as a "moral stain" is preposterous, and an outsized-notion of what one tennis player, however accomplished, means in terms of a sovereign nation's concerns and internal issues.
This is from the International Bar Association website, written by Marial Lewis, a top immigration attorney in Australia:
Australia has some of the strictest rules relating to restrictions on entry, border control, visa cancellation, immigration detention and deportations from the country. This article looks at what happened with tennis player Novak Djokovic was granted a visa to enter Australia with a medical...
www.ibanet.org
Some excerpts for you:
The first cancellation
Djokovic was, however, denied entry to Australia on 6 January 2022, following his visa cancellation at Melbourne airport due to his unvaccinated status which opposed border entry Australia’s requirement. He was then sent to an immigration detention centre while his appeal to the court was being processed.
The appeal was heard within a few days, on 10 January 2022.[1] In that hearing, Justice Kelly made a finding in Djokovic’s favour on the basis that he was not provided with a reasonable opportunity nor sufficient time to respond at the airport interview which was conducted very early in the morning. Djokovic was then released from detention and announced his participation in the tournament.
________________
Bold is mine. Note: Novak's unvaccinated status opposed border entry requirements. That was knowable by all, including Djokovic before he tried to get in, anyway. Also note the basis for Justice Kelly finding in Novak's favor. Not that he was right, just that he wasn't allowed sufficient time to present his case. This meant that the Minister had to re-cancel the visa, and present its case.
_______________
The second cancellation
On Djokovic’s release, his visa was cancelled for the second time a few days later, on 14 January. The visa this time was cancelled personally by the then-Minister of Immigration, Alex Hawke. The reason for its cancellation was that it was in the public interest to do so with the idea that as a role model he would encourage others to follow his footsteps in refusing to take the Covid-19 vaccination. It also came to light that Djokovic lied on his travel declaration form, which is viewed very seriously in Australia, and that he had participated in a public event in his home country, Serbia, a day after testing positive with Covid-19.
On 15 January 2022, Djokovic was taken back to immigration detention. His appeal before the full federal court was dismissed unanimously the following day, finding that the Minister’s decision was not illogical nor irrational. The court finding was that:
‘It was not irrational for the Minister to be concerned that the asserted support of some anti-vaccination groups for Mr Djokovic’s apparent position on vaccination may encourage rallies and protests that may lead to heightened community transmission.’
The court further confirmed that the Minister did not have to give reasons for his decision, but he did anyway.
_____________
Again, Bold is mine. Note that when the above says, "His appeal before the full federal court was dismissed unanimously," it refers to Djokovic, per the previous sentence. This is something you seem to have misunderstood. Also mentioned is that he lied on his travel declaration form.
_____________
She also notes these:
"The public frustrations were in relation to giving an exemption to a famous tennis player when Australians endured very harsh lockdown rules due to the pandemic including strict restrictions on normal day-to-day activities including attending funerals and conducting weddings and visiting sick loved ones in hospital."
"It was perceived by the public as extreme unfairness that a famous tennis player gets an exemption to compete in an international competition when for two years, Australia had refused travel exemptions in and out of the country to many separated families and loved ones including in many compassionate cases. Similarly, exemptions were not granted by the government to many in Australia to move freely within the country."
(To your point above that "no one objected.")
_____________
You can continue deny what is true, if that's the way you want to live your life, but, for the sake of intelligent posters here, I can't let your fake news have the last word.
