Official Gibbs Ban Thread

[Slow Love™]

Do you really think that's what he was insinuating?

I didn't. Will re-read it and try to decipher something of that sort from it.

How would you interpret these remarks?

As for the other issue, if the offending fans were white would you still have said what you said? That's what the racism argument boils down to, you see.

I'm asking this question because when the South African team suffered racist abuse from spectators - most of them white - in Australia last season, there was no shouting about or at the fans from the field. At least, none seems to have been recorded.

There was something close to hate in your voice, Hersch, and that's not a pretty sound. I have this mental pen pic of you as an easy-going bloke who enjoys his talent and realises how lucky he is to make his living in the sunshine. That wasn't what I heard on that tape.

 

[Richard]

Certainly the third doesn't seem to me to have any connections - saying that he seemed to have a hate for those "fans" is hardly insinuating he hated them for reasons of their race.

The first two, I think, are simply reiterating what he said early on:

I'm trying to explain why some people might call you racist

Maybe I'm just trying to give the BotD when I shouldn't be... dunno. I just generally quite like Telford Vice's writings and don't really want to think of him as a dirty-double-crossed-double-crosser.

 

[Slow Love™]

Certainly the third doesn't seem to me to have any connections - saying that he seemed to have a hate for those "fans" is hardly insinuating he hated them for reasons of their race.

The first two, I think, are simply reiterating what he said early on:

Maybe I'm just trying to give the BotD when I shouldn't be... dunno. I just generally quite like Telford Vice's writings and don't really want to think of him as a dirty-double-crossed-double-crosser.

Surely the invoking of the word "hate" is contextual with the allegation of racist behaviour. Do you seriously think Vice would have gone there if Gibbs had said "****ing idiots" or "****ing loudmouths"?

Vice may be a perfectly good writer - I can't recall that I've read him before. I just think he's being fairly disingenuous in this piece with his "I'm not calling you a racist, mind" spiel when his questions so strongly imply that Gibbs's reaction was influenced by the ethnicity/color of the troublemakers (and furthermore, he "sounded" hateful).

Maybe it's just me though.

 

[Richard]

As I say - my interpretation of it is that he's trying to find reasons why it's not-unreasonable to interpret Gibbs' behaviour as racist - not to say "see, your behaviour and attitude makes it clear to me that you've racist underlyings".

I guess we can't really know his true thoughts on the matter without knowing him well. Knowing you, though, Jesse, I'd normally expect you to be one to give the BotD if you're unknown... mind, I suppose you'd say you're not in the unknown if the phrase suggests so strongly to you what you say it suggests...

 

[silentstriker]

But he is right though, isn't he? I don't think he is a racist, but what he said was. I am sure he personally didn't mean it that way, but that doesn't change what he said. You have no way to know what he 'meant'. It's about what he said.

 

[Richard]

I'll take a GIMH route and ask you this here...

You're pretty pessimistic if you're already including Munaf Patel and Sreesanth in the "mediocrity" stakes!

(Assuming, that is, that you're an Indian fan, which I don't know for concrete)

 

[Slow Love™]

As I say - my interpretation of it is that he's trying to find reasons why it's not-unreasonable to interpret Gibbs' behaviour as racist - not to say "see, your behaviour and attitude makes it clear to me that you've racist underlyings".

I guess we can't really know his true thoughts on the matter without knowing him well. Knowing you, though, Jesse, I'd normally expect you to be one to give the BotD if you're unknown... mind, I suppose you'd say you're not in the unknown if the phrase suggests so strongly to you what you say it suggests...

Well, to me the tone of the questions is clearly accusatory. "If the fans were white, would you have still said what you said?" "Why is it that when you were racially abused by white spectators in Australia, you never went off like this?" And "there was something close to hate in your voice" to me is clear insinuation IMO. If it was just about Gibbs being careless I really don't think he'd be making these particular suggestions, so much as simply saying he needed to be careful with how he expressed himself. That's how it comes across to me, anyway.

 

[Richard]

I suppose the tone is vital, and that's something writing doesn't convey (ref the Pietersen "Lee tried to kill me" comments of 20 months ago). If he was saying "If the fans were white, would you have still said what you said?" "Why is it that when you were racially abused by white spectators in Australia, you guys never went off like this?" then yes, he was being accusatory.

If, however, he was talking lightly and inquisitively, then for me he was being nothing of the sort. And that, to me, was how it came across - the tone of the whole article.

I sincerely hope, and I daresay Telford does too, that there aren't legions who've interpreted it as you have!

 

[archie mac]

But he is right though, isn't he? I don't think he is a racist, but what he said was. I am sure he personally didn't mean it that way, but that doesn't change what he said. You have no way to know what he 'meant'. It's about what he said.

This is right, it does not matter whether he was trying to be racist or not (I don't think he was personally) but he said these remarks they were inappropriate and he has to pay a price.

 

[silentstriker]

I'll take a GIMH route and ask you this here...

You're pretty pessimistic if you're already including Munaf Patel and Sreesanth in the "mediocrity" stakes!

(Assuming, that is, that you're an Indian fan, which I don't know for concrete)

Just extrapolating the future based on 50 years of past history, that's all. In 50 years, we've had zero world class fast bowlers. We've had one decent one (Dev) and one passable one (Srinath), but no world class ones.

Thats a pretty good track record, and one I am confident basing my predictions on. And yes, I'm an Indian fan .

PS, whats GIMH?

 

[Richard]

GeraintIsMyHero, one of the top posters on CC. Don't actually know his real name...

(And the route I was referring to is this one)

Mohammad Nissar and Ladhabhai Nakum Amar Singh weren't passable \ decent?

IMO Patel and Sreesanth have it in them to be decent, too.

 

[silentstriker]

Mohammad Nissar and Ladhabhai Nakum Amar Singh weren't passable \ decent?

IMO Patel and Sreesanth have it in them to be decent, too.

I said fifty years , and neither played enough tests. And Agarkar and Khan had it in them to be decent when they burst on the scene too (Agarkar quickest to 50 wickets in ODI for example).

 

[social]

But he is right though, isn't he? I don't think he is a racist, but what he said was. I am sure he personally didn't mean it that way, but that doesn't change what he said. You have no way to know what he 'meant'. It's about what he said.

So why is it racist?

If similar comments, i.e. substitute "Australian" for "Pakistani", had been passed in Australia, would they be deemed so?

Of course not!

Gibbs, in fact, has accurately described their nationality and, by all accounts, behaviour.

Suspend Gibbs for ordinary behaviour by all means but judging him a racist based on these comments simply holds no water.

 

[C_C]

So why is it racist?

It isn't racist technically (since Pakistani != race) but it is bigoted since he used the term 'Pakistanis' in his diatribe.

If similar comments, i.e. substitute "Australian" for "Pakistani", had been passed in Australia, would they be deemed so?

This is either one of your typical BS-speak that goes along with your typical ethnocentric battle-lines or Australia is an exception to the rule.
For naming a country while in middle of praising/denegrating comments directed at an individual(or groups of indivuduals) is ALWAYS seen as a blanket statement and therefore, generalising (and bigoted, if the connotation is negetive).
If i say ' f*king Indians', it would be seen as a comment against Indians, not just a description of your target subject. Same holds true in Canada, US, UK, Middle-east, India, etc etc.

 

[social]

It isn't racist technically (since Pakistani != race) but it is bigoted since he used the term 'Pakistanis' in his diatribe.



This is either one of your typical BS-speak that goes along with your typical ethnocentric battle-lines or Australia is an exception to the rule.
For naming a country while in middle of praising/denegrating comments directed at an individual(or groups of indivuduals) is ALWAYS seen as a blanket statement and therefore, generalising (and bigoted, if the connotation is negetive).
If i say ' f*king Indians', it would be seen as a comment against Indians, not just a description of your target subject. Same holds true in Canada, US, UK, Middle-east, India, etc etc.

Oh please, cut the crap - a group of guys in Pakistani colours were apparently abusing his team-mates so he called them "f-ng Pakistanis".

They are "f-ing Pakistanis"

 

[C_C]

Oh please, cut the crap - a group of guys in Pakistani colours were apparently abusing his team-mates so he called them "f-ng Pakistanis".

They are "f-ing Pakistanis"

And as i said, directing 'f-ing Pakistanis' at a group of people is directing it towards the whole nation.
You either live in a weird nation or you are unaware of the proper usage of English in this scenario.
If you use the term 'f-ing Canadians', you will tick off a lot of Canadians.
Infact, a Toronto DJ got into hot water for saying 'f-ing Quebecois morons' on his radio show while talking about a bunch of tools in Quebec giving him a hard time in a bar last year around Christmas time.
The reasoning for this, is that you are associating a negetive ( in this case, f-ing) to a nation. It is irrelevant to what precise audience you are directing it under whatever duress - if I, also a citizen/ethnic of the same composition as your target, happen to be standing by without getting involved, your comment also encapsulates me since you used a nation-name.

The standard of speech whenever speaking in a public forum through the media is not what you'd be speaking in your home. It is irrelevant if you are a sporting icon/DJ/Politician/Movie star, etc etc - if you are 'caught on air', the standard of scrutiny is higher.

 

[social]

And as i said, directing 'f-ing Pakistanis' at a group of people is directing it towards the whole nation.
You either live in a weird nation or you are unaware of the proper usage of English in this scenario.
If you use the term 'f-ing Canadians', you will tick off a lot of Canadians.
Infact, a Toronto DJ got into hot water for saying 'f-ing Quebecois morons' on his radio show while talking about a bunch of tools in Quebec giving him a hard time in a bar last year around Christmas time.

I understand that you'll tick off a heap off people and Gibbs should face sanctions because his remarks have caused offence not just to Pakistanis but to cricket fans who dont like to be reminded that their heroes are fallible

However, without evidence to support it, no-one can unequivocally claim that his remarks were racist or an intended slur on the people of Pakistan. After all, it's not like he qualified his description by saying words to the effect of "typical etc etc"

Maybe they were simply as they appeared - namely a torrent of abuse hurled at a group of fans whose behaviour was bad enough to warrant eviction from the ground

 

[C_C]

However, without evidence to support it, no-one can unequivocally claim that his remarks were racist or an intended slur on the people of Pakistan.

He is on the soundbyte saying 'f-ing Pakistanis'. As i explained to you (and you can probably find discussions on it if you dig through Toronto Star/CBC archives to 2005 dec), his 'offence' is associating 'f-ing', a negetive qualifier, with 'Pakistani', a country.
Intentions are irrelevant. What is relevant is what was said and was it deemed offensive by people and was it a credible offence in the terminologies.
The answer to that, is, yes!

 

[Dasa]

Posting in this thread because so as not to clog up the official Pakistan vs South Africa thread. Anyway, seeing your comments in that thread, care to explain?

Shoaib's ban was ridiculous

People tend to forget that when stump mikes were first introduced in Oz in the 80s during WSC, the air was blue with players calling each other "white this" and "black that" and it resulted in volumes being turned down (not because of racist overtones but because of swearing in prime-time).

Now, sensitivities have changed and bleeding hearts care more about the fact that xmillion people (who dont have tvs btw) who werent even the subject might be offended than the fact that players are being verbally and physically abused - it's a joke

Oh yeah of course, I'm a bleeding heart because I'm offended by people making negative stereotypes about something that I am and cannot change.

So I gather he was asking how Nel's mother was?

Racist overtones was a convenient excuse but really holds no water as:

a. Gibbs is colored and his comments were directed to people of similar extraction; and

b. well, let's face it, any excuse will do so long as it gives Pak an advantage

Haha no. Seriously, no. How are you any worse than BhupinderSingh etc.?

He is on the soundbyte saying 'f-ing Pakistanis'. As i explained to you (and you can probably find discussions on it if you dig through Toronto Star/CBC archives to 2005 dec), his 'offence' is associating 'f-ing', a negetive qualifier, with 'Pakistani', a country.
Intentions are irrelevant. What is relevant is what was said and was it deemed offensive by people and was it a credible offence in the terminologies.
The answer to that, is, yes!

Pretty much sums it up there. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way you can defend the comments themselves, no matter what the intention behind them was. Doesn't stop some people trying though.

 

[Slow Love™]

This is right, it does not matter whether he was trying to be racist or not (I don't think he was personally) but he said these remarks they were inappropriate and he has to pay a price.

Yeah, no argument there - the rules of conduct are pretty clear about what a player cannot do, and he pretty clearly violated this by bringing nationality into his comments like that. So he obviously must play a penalty, and I'm fine with that.

But it appears to me that Broad has categorized the remarks as racial abuse, which is a very distinctive (and serious) charge. It's a technical point, but I think we should be careful about that. As others have said, Lehmann's charge against Sri Lanka is amply clear, and I doubt many would take issue with that. I don't think this is the same.