Why the hypocrisy on Zimbabwe ?

[Dasa]

It's actually quite sad that some from the sub-continent lose all objectivity when discussing either Australia or their own country.

This post is a classic example - "Australia is one of major western allies of China pre/post Tiananman". Has to be amongst the greatest pieces of bs posted on this website. Do you even understand the meaning of the word "ally"?

Here's a tip - if you want to criticise Australia, there's plenty of scope (past treatment of Aborigines, detention centre conditions, refugee processing and probably 100s of other issues). Feel free but you'll have to be quick because Australians themselves will be in the queue.

And to cap it off, the hypocrisy that comes into play when someone actually points out the flaws in your own country's policies/actions. Ooooh, that's below the belt. FFS, we have an entire thread criticising one nation and it's improper to point something relevant out about another nation? Just as well I didnt highlight India's position on Zimbabwe (pretty freakin sad reading), the toys would have been thrown out of the pram quicker than I could say the word "hypocrite."

I'm not saying Sanz is right or wrong here, but you seem to have chosen a path to argue and are refusing to back away from that even though it's completely irrelevant. Sanz never said India's policy on Zimbabwe/China/whatever was right....he's just pointing out the hypocrisy in the Australian govt position. Yet, you continue to attack India when no-one is trying to defend them! How about actually addressing the points Sanz makes instead of fabricating irrelevant points that you can refute and then pat yourself on the back for?
As for the comment about "some from the sub-continent", you're far far worse than anyone "from the sub-continent" here, not that it should matter where anyone is from.

 

[R_D]

Sanz, the way you've carried ourself through this thread is unimpressive to say the least. Try not to play the man and instead tackle the actual post itself. Your ad-hominem arguments consisting of nothing but sniping are laced with hatred and anger and are unbecoming, imo. Enough is enough. Social is equally as bad and as two of the older members here, it's really, really poor.

Fwiw, I agree with Social's contention that not touring Zimbabwe and at the same time not boycotting other countries is not hypocritical at all.

Great observation there .. shoot down one guy and add oh yeah meant same for social as well
post by Dasa just about somes up everything for me.
For no reason whatsover Social keeps bringing india into it.. nonone's saying we agree with what indian govt is doing but to avoid touring one nation citing human rights and yet another nation which is a bigger offender of human rights. Seems quite hyporitical to me.

quote] It's actually quite sad that some from the sub-continent lose all objectivity when discussing either Australia or their own country.
[/quote]

Obviousally only sub-cont do this ?... case of pot calling kettle black ?

 

[pasag]

Great observation there .. shoot down one guy and add oh yeah meant same for social as well
post by Dasa just about somes up everything for me.

Well If you look in the context I was responding to Sanz's comment to me when all I said was I agree with Social re: Zimbabwe. Therefore the bulk of my post will be responding to Sanz but as I said the same thing goes for Social. I agree with Dasa's post above as well, but your impilcation here is unfounded as is the use of the roll-eyes tbh.

 

[social]

It has got nothing to do with this thread, but I will answer this. If India bans a tour of Zimbabwe citing Human Rights, then it should do the same with Beijing Olympics.

If Indian Government flip-flops its decision based on who it is dealing with it, it is every bit of hypocrite as the current aussie government.

Btw - Is the Aussie govt going to Pay the 2 Million Dollar to ZCU or it was just another one of Hollow statements of John Howard ?

So, you're assuming that every situation demands the same response, irrespective of the personalities involved
, history is irrelevant - this approach might work in never-never land but we're dealing with the real world

 

[social]

I find it sad that you continue to attack my sub-continent background because you are unable to make any valid argument for your point and have lost in the debate..

No, you simply demand the same response to everyone irrespective of the circumstances, history, personalities etc

That's not rebuttal - it's idealistic nonsense

 

[social]

I'm not saying Sanz is right or wrong here, but you seem to have chosen a path to argue and are refusing to back away from that even though it's completely irrelevant. Sanz never said India's policy on Zimbabwe/China/whatever was right....he's just pointing out the hypocrisy in the Australian govt position. Yet, you continue to attack India when no-one is trying to defend them! How about actually addressing the points Sanz makes instead of fabricating irrelevant points that you can refute and then pat yourself on the back for?
As for the comment about "some from the sub-continent", you're far far worse than anyone "from the sub-continent" here, not that it should matter where anyone is from.

I've defended Australia's position on this issue innumerable times

I simply find it pathetic that someone from a country that has maintained a purely self-serving policy on both Zimbabwe and China would presume to criticise a country that is at least trying to make a difference.

And then, when asked to expand on he would do, the only answer is "be consistent."

Sanz's position seems to be that he couldnt give a stuff about human rights violations anywhere so long as India puts up a united and consistent front.

Thank God there are people in charge of foreign policy in my country who actually care what happens in the world outside our borders.

 

[Dasa]

I've defended Australia's position on this issue innumerable times

I simply find it pathetic that someone from a country that has maintained a purely self-serving policy on both Zimbabwe and China would presume to criticise a country that is at least trying to make a difference.

And then, when asked to expand on he would do, the only answer is "be consistent."

Sanz's position seems to be that he couldnt give a stuff about human rights violations anywhere so long as India puts up a united and consistent front.

Thank God there are people in charge of foreign policy in my country who actually care what happens in the world outside our borders.

Disregarding all the petty sniping, when will you realise that simply being from one country doesn't mean you represent the country? Whether Sanz is from India or not is irrelevant - he isn't representing India, in fact as he has stated, he's representing himself and only himself. If we do go by your logic, then no-one would be able to comment on another nation's policies ever, because every nation is hypocritical and every nation has made errors.

 

[shortpitched713]

If we do go by your logic, then no-one would be able to comment on another nation's policies ever, because every nation is hypocritical and every nation has made errors.

Not USA.

 

[social]

Disregarding all the petty sniping, when will you realise that simply being from one country doesn't mean you represent the country? Whether Sanz is from India or not is irrelevant - he isn't representing India, in fact as he has stated, he's representing himself and only himself. If we do go by your logic, then no-one would be able to comment on another nation's policies ever, because every nation is hypocritical and every nation has made errors.

Highlight the rest of the quote as well

Unfortunately, Sanz is OK to go by every decision his country makes so long as it it consistent and bugger the consequences

 

[Will Scarlet]

It's probably been said already but:

If Zimbabwe had a racist white government it would be hit with the same type of sanctions that South Africa did during apartheid. Being black doesn't make racist attitudes acceptable.

Therefore, as much as I despise John Howard I agree with the Australian government's actions.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah I just read that too. Interesting loophole, since CA aren't the ones deciding not to go.

Reminds me of the England situation with Zimbabwe when the government kept saying that they didn't really want the team to go, but refused to actually make orders like Howard has.

 

[Sanz]

Highlight the rest of the quote as well

Unfortunately, Sanz is OK to go by every decision his country makes so long as it it consistent and bugger the consequences

The least you could do is put words into my mouth. But Knowing you, I dont expect anything from you.

Btw - Did you hear what Dean Jones had to say ? Or he is also another hypocrite Aussie like Geoff Marsh ?

 

[pup11]

South Africa as the neutral venue...

South African cricket board has said that its ready to stage the series between Zimbabwe and Australia.

So would both the boards agree to play on a neutral venue??

P.S: Anyways what did Deano say??

 

[Sanz]

P.S: Anyways what did Deano say??

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21718854-662,00.html

Pretty interesting read.

Dean Jones backs tour

Dean Jones

May 13, 2007 12:00am

I KNOW I'll cop a lot of flak for saying this, but Australia's cricketers must go to Zimbabwe in September.

We have a moral responsibility, as the world's best cricket team, to look after cricket and spread the word about the sport.

And the country that needs us most right now, for the sport and not the politics, is Zimbabwe. I used to believe we should not tour there, but that was before I worked there in the media.

A lot of people explained to me that seeing the Australians would be a tremendous boost for the country's youth. It would inspire them to take up the game, rather than go back to a life of crime.

We as a nation are making a lot of political noise about President Robert Mugabe -- and rightly so. His is a ruthless regime and the sooner the dictator is gone the better the country will be. But the cricketers have a chance to go there and make a protest. If they don't go, they will forfeit that opportunity.

The last time the Australians toured, Mugabe did not turn up to a game. If he fronted this time, the Aussies could refuse to take the field to meet him. Now, that would be a significant protest. It would show the world what Australians think of this man.

I have sympathy for Cricket Australia because it is damned if the team goes, and damned if it doesn't. It is all well and good for the Government to say it will pay the $2.4 million penalty for not touring. I'm sure Mugabe would say it cost his country millions more than that, and how could we query that from afar?

And there is no guarantee Zimbabwe cricket would receive the money. The International Cricket Council could send it, but what would there be to stop Mugabe from snatching it -- as he has with much financial reward in his country?

More important to me is the moral obligation I feel we have as the world's best cricket country to make the tour.

We owe Zimbabwe. We owe it big time for past favours.

When many of Australia's top cricketers took the blood money and went on the rebel tour of South Africa, Zimbabwe helped provide experience for our next generation to develop quickly.

I was one of them. I made my first overseas tour there in 1984 under Dirk Wellham. I went again in Robbie Kerr's team in 1985. Zimbabwe obliged with a tour by New South Wales, a team that included the young talent of Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh.

That was a period when we in Australia were looking for help and Zimbabwe came to the party.

I think in its time of need, given the state of the nation and its loss of Test status, that we have an obligation to say thanks for past help.

Having been there a few times in recent years, I can tell you that the opportunity to see this great Australian team would be a major boost to cricket in Zimbabwe. If we don't go, so many children will miss a lifetime chance to be influenced by the elite of the game. In the current climate, the option is to turn to crime. We owe these Zimbabwean kids a glimmer of hope in a land of misery.

I know this is a complex situation. The Government doesn't want our players to tour because it would appear we are giving Mugabe a chance to say his rule cannot be too bad because Australia sends its champion team.

At the same time, the Government won't impose trade restrictions on the country because it believes that would hurt only the suffering population.

I say the same about the cricket. The only people to be penalised if we don't go will be the suffering public.

This team knows it has responsibilities. If it is given permission by the Government to tour, it will take up the challenge.

Our cricketers will put on a great show to prove to Mugabe that this game is special -- and he is not.

 

[Sanz]

I simply find it pathetic that someone from a country that has maintained a purely self-serving policy on both Zimbabwe and China would presume to criticise a country that is at least trying to make a difference..

Here is someone from your own country making the same point about the hypocritical stand :-

"....Next year, not only will we compete, we will celebrate the fact that the Olympic Games are being held in China. A military dictatorship in Pakistan has never bothered us. What if, on our way to soccer's World Cup, we find ourselves drawn to play a nation in similar circumstances to those in Zimbabwe? Do we agree to boycott ourselves out of the tournament?

A tour of Zimbabwe is, in a sense, easily boycotted. The nation's cricket is in disarray. Its team is scarcely third-rate. No one's heart could ever truly be in a contest as unequal as this would be. Besides, it's only another meaningless one-day series.

But that's part of the problem. Next time, we must be able to make the same decision regardless of the consequence of the sporting encounter. To not be able to do so would be hypocritical...."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/murky-politics-of-boycotting/2007/05/11/1178390555015.html

 

[social]

Here is someone from your own country making the same point about the hypocritical stand :-

"....Next year, not only will we compete, we will celebrate the fact that the Olympic Games are being held in China. A military dictatorship in Pakistan has never bothered us. What if, on our way to soccer's World Cup, we find ourselves drawn to play a nation in similar circumstances to those in Zimbabwe? Do we agree to boycott ourselves out of the tournament?

A tour of Zimbabwe is, in a sense, easily boycotted. The nation's cricket is in disarray. Its team is scarcely third-rate. No one's heart could ever truly be in a contest as unequal as this would be. Besides, it's only another meaningless one-day series.

But that's part of the problem. Next time, we must be able to make the same decision regardless of the consequence of the sporting encounter. To not be able to do so would be hypocritical...."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/murky-politics-of-boycotting/2007/05/11/1178390555015.html

The great thing about Australia is that there is relative freedom of speech when compared to, say, Zimbabwe and China for example and, as such, Tim Lane was one of many Australians to express similar views.

However, whilst he makes some sound points, his view that the decision was relatively "easy" only tells half the story.

It was "easy" because the government, the opposition, 90% of respondents in a television poll and various community leaders (including the Catholic Church who, if you remember, allowed Mugabe to circumvent travel restrictions by issuing a Vatican passport) supported the action.

However, if it was so easy, why have countries, including Australia backed away from it in the past?

The answer is obvious - they were hoping for change without resorting to such measures.

Unfortunately, hope is gone

In relation to China and the Olympics, you can guarantee that Australia will attend barring some disaster in China itself.

Like it or not, people have seen change in China since they became somewhat integrated into the world community and, as such, there is hope that diplomacy/exposure will work.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with the world's most populous nation and a leadership that is resistant to change, it takes time

 

[Sanz]

The great thing about Australia is that there is relative freedom of speech when compared to, say, Zimbabwe and China for example and, as such, Tim Lane was one of many Australians to express similar views.

Obviously when an Aussie expresses this kind of opinion, it is freedom of speech, when I said similar things, you came up with your usual diatribe and attacked my subcontinent background.

 

[Langeveldt]

Good article from Dean Jones...

On a side note, I think Eskom here in SA is cutting the amount of electricity it supplies to Zimbabwe.. They will only have four hours of power a day now, which would probably affect the cricket in some way

 

[social]

Obviously when an Aussie expresses this kind of opinion, it is freedom of speech, when I said similar things, you came up with your usual diatribe and attacked my subcontinent background.

You'll notice that I didnt say that I agreed with him

 

[social]

Seems like Africa and UN continue to be weak as piss

http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/