Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Slow Love™]

Why don't you try making a jibe like that to professional people and see the outcome ?
I'd advice caution though.

C_C?

 

[Rollypolly1]

C_C?

Huh ? now thats what i call a cryptic response.

 

[duffer]

Remember- nobody heard what Bhajji said- it is purely a he-said/she-said thing. Yet, a white South African, growing up in the most depraved society of all ( Apartheid era South Africa) took the word of a white captain than over that of a brown guy(Sachin).

Plus i find it pretty flipping ironic that amidst all this hogwash about what Harbhajan supposedly said, nobody noticed that the ONLY black player (who's parent hails from Jamaica) got reprived by the ONLY black umpire on the field (who is also Jamaican), not once but TWICE ( it was Bucknor both times- refusing to give Symonds out in his 30s and then refusing to call 3rd umpire for run-out chance). Not only that, it was Bucknor too, who helped his fellow black-man and half-Jamaican out with a total shocker of a decision against Dravid.

yet, it is Bhajji, who's been fined for racism with not one shred of tangiable or circumstantial evidence to boot. But hey, this is Australia, isn't it ? racism is a way of life there.

I think those things all happening in conjunction is pretty much what has gotten all of India into the frenzy that they are in right now.

 

[Slow Love™]

Huh ? now thats what i call a cryptic response.

Haha, never mind, your posting style just reminded me of someone.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Haha, never mind, your posting style just reminded me of someone.

K. Cheers.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I've been following this thread but didn't really want to post on it. But I couldn't sit back any longer without commenting!

Some of the replies on this thread are hilarious. Now I'm not saying he said it or not, no one will know but himself. But if he did say it, to try and make out it wasn't meant in a racist way is so incredibly blind its laughable. He's not a hermit who's spent all his life in a cave somewhere, the guy is an international cricketer who has played in many countries, including county stints which required he lived in these countries for extended periods.

We had the same rubbish come out when Asif got done for doing drugs. People making excuses left, right and centre.

To say he didn't know the word Monkey would be offensive...what planet are you people on! Given what happened to Symonds previously, then there's even less excuse to claim he didn't know the meaning behind it.

As usual, we also have people on here claiming its all down to the ICC having an agenda against India / Pakistan. More fuel for the fire! I even see someone now saying the Black umpires are favouring Black players, what a very small and simple minded world they live in.

I'm also upset with the BCCI's reaction to this. Of course they want to back their player up, and that's totally understandable. But to threaten the tour unless the ruling is overturned is just pure Blackmail and something which they should be cited for. The ruling should be based on the facts at hand, not outside pressures like that.

Rant over.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I think those things all happening in conjunction is pretty much what has gotten all of India into the frenzy that they are in right now.

Lets face it, it doesn't take much to get them into a frenzy does it?

 

[ozone]

Why don't you try making a jibe like that to professional people and see the outcome ?
I'd advice caution though.

Umm, don't really know what your point is. Any decent professional sportsman would not be affected by a jibe like this. And you can only really deal with sportsmen because insulting someone to try to distract them is not really practical in an office.

 

[jeevan]

The fact that someone called your mom promiscuous doesn't make it true. To me, if you're going to get riled up over that, you shouldn't be playing international sport. Say something back.

And continue a race to the bottom. Or atleast as low as ICC Level3 definitions-du-jour will allow you to.

BTW I would much rather ban sledging and be able to follow Inzamam (who had his own sensitivities) than add the very arbitrary requirement that you propose for international cricket players.

 

[Rollypolly1]

I've been following this thread but didn't really want to post on it. But I couldn't sit back any longer without commenting!

Some of the replies on this thread are hilarious. Now I'm not saying he said it or not, no one will know but himself. But if he did say it, to try and make out it wasn't meant in a racist way is so incredibly blind its laughable. He's not a hermit who's spent all his life in a cave somewhere, the guy is an international cricketer who has played in many countries, including county stints which required he lived in these countries for extended periods.

We had the same rubbish come out when Asif got done for doing drugs. People making excuses left, right and centre.

To say he didn't know the word Monkey would be offensive...what planet are you people on! Given what happened to Symonds previously, then there's even less excuse to claim he didn't know the meaning behind it.

As usual, we also have people on here claiming its all down to the ICC having an agenda against India / Pakistan. More fuel for the fire! I even see someone now saying the Black umpires are favouring Black players, what a very small and simple minded world they live in.

I'm also upset with the BCCI's reaction to this. Of course they want to back their player up, and that's totally understandable. But to threaten the tour unless the ruling is overturned is just pure Blackmail and something which they should be cited for. The ruling should be based on the facts at hand, not outside pressures like that.

Rant over.

About your highlighted parts - The culture Bhajji comes from does not define Monkey in a racist sense. And regardless of where he is standing, whether in Australia or Mars, Bhajji has a right to make comments in relation to HIS cultural upbringing.

It has also been clarified that 'monkey' is an inflammatory word but definitely not a racist word in some cultures.

Well the ruling wasn't based on facts at hand in the first place- it was based on hear-say. So BCCI is completely justified in threatening to pull out of the tour after such a farcial match where a player gets banned due to simple hear-say but nobody utters a word about the (atleast circumstantial) evidence of racist favouritism of Symonds by Bucknor or an Apartheid-white guy siding with the white captain or the totally DISHONEST Australian captain who claimed a grassed chance as well as a totally DISHONEST Australian wicketkeeper who appealed for a clear case of not out from his vantage point.

 

[silentstriker]

About your highlighted parts - The culture Bhajji comes from does not define Monkey in a racist sense. And regardless of where he is standing, whether in Australia or Mars, Bhajji has a right to make comments in relation to HIS cultural upbringing.

No he does not. He does not live in a bubble.

 

[Rollypolly1]

No he does not. He does not live in a bubble.

He does not live in a bubble but fact still remains that a person's notion of terminology is influenced by HIS/HER culture first, everything else second.
If Aussies don't behave any differently when they come to India, why should Bhajji when he is down under ?

 

[Bracken]

Well the ruling wasn't based on facts at hand in the first place- it was based on hear-say. So BCCI is completely justified in threatening to pull out of the tour after such a farcial match where a player gets banned due to simple hear-say but nobody utters a word about the (atleast circumstantial) evidence of racist favouritism of Symonds by Bucknor or an Apartheid-white guy siding with the white captain or the totally DISHONEST Australian captain who claimed a grassed chance as well as a totally DISHONEST Australian wicketkeeper who appealed for a clear case of not out from his vantage point.

Don't let me get in the way of your widespread arc of defamation or anything, but just to clear one thing up...

If you want to use legalese to back up your "argument", at least get it right.

"Person X told me that he heard Person Y say whatever"- Hearsay.

"I heard Person Y say whatever"- Not hearsay. Admissible evidence in pretty much any court in the world.

Assuming that the Australian players gave evidence that they heard Harbhajan say whatever he was accused of saying, then the verdict wasn't made on the basis of hearsay. You can debate whether or not Proctor assigned the correct weight to the evidence, but it wasn't hearsay. It was bona fide evidence.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled character assassination...

 

[Rollypolly1]

"I heard Person Y say whatever"- Not hearsay. Admissible evidence in pretty much any court in the world.

Err no, it is NOT admissible evidence if there is NO other evidence- circumstancial or material- to back up that comment.

It was bona fide evidence.

Nope it is not. It is a claim. Not evidence. And in a case where 'witnesses' are definitely of questionable integrity in this case (questionable because of THEIR involvement/relation with the claimant), it is absolutely ZERO case.

If you just claim that i verbally abused you and you raise your buddies and co-workers as the only witness, no legitimate court in the world would grant you the case, since your claim is backed up by NOTHING but people of questionable intent in this case.

But then again, i can understand if your view of legalese is a bit blinkered- afterall, your country rules 'rape = she wanting it' depending on the skin color of the person.

 

[ozone]

Err no, it is NOT admissible evidence if there is NO other evidence- circumstancial or material- to back up that comment.

Yes it is. In a court of law this person is known as a witness. However, in this case as the witnesses are the mates of the players in question, the witness may not be reliable.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Yes it is. In a court of law this person is known as a witness.

Mate, i dunno which school you learnt your basic law/civics in or perhaps your country's already questionable legalese has these kind of ******** rules written into it. But trust me when i say that in most of the civilized world, you CANNOT raise your personal friend/co-worker/team-mate as a credible witness with zero circumstantial or material evidence to support your claim.
For the ONLY way a personal testimony is entertained in a court of law, in the case where there is ZERO material & circumstantial evidence, is when the witness's character is established without a shadow of doubt and where the witness has NO RELATION/perceived bias to the claimant.
You cannot, i repeat, CANNOT, raise your mom/co-worker/buddy/soccer-teammate/etc. as a witness to something said (or done) with no material or circumstantial evidence. For it is clear as daylight that the personal involvement of the witness to the claimant fundamentally rules him/her out for being unreliable.

If you do not know even this, i suggest you try it out - go lodge a complaint with the police that your neighbour called you a Nazi or KKK and then raise your brother as the only witness. See how far you get.

 

[Bracken]

Err no, it is NOT admissible evidence if there is NO other evidence- circumstancial or material- to back up that comment.

Err, yes, it is. It is absolutely admissible. It is up to the convening authority to assign appropriate weight to it.

Nope it is not. It is a claim. Not evidence. And in a case where 'witnesses' are definitely of questionable integrity in this case (questionable because of THEIR involvement/relation with the claimant), it is absolutely ZERO case.

Yes, it is. A charge is laid, and then everything that is submitted within the hearing is called "evidence". These are simple dictionary definitions.

"Evidence" is not interchangeable with "proof". The convening authority assigns weight to the available evidence, and makes a judgment based on the cumulative weight of the presented evidence. That cumulative weight is then considered against the required standard (eg. "Beyond reasonable doubt", or "by the balance of probabilities" and determines guilt. This is not an opinion, this is simply a procedural fact.

If you just claim that i verbally abused you and you raise your buddies and co-workers as the only witness, no legitimate court in the world would grant you the case, since your claim is backed up by NOTHING but people of questionable intent in this case.

That would depend on whether the authority (in this case, the judge or magistrate or whatever) decides that the evidentary value of mine and my buddies' claims met the required standard or not.

But then again, i can understand if your view of legalese is a bit blinkered- afterall, your country rules 'rape = she wanting it' depending on the skin color of the person.

Sigh.

 

[ozone]

Mate, i dunno which school you learnt your basic law/civics in or perhaps your country's already questionable legalese has these kind of ******** rules written into it.

Ha, if you are having a jibe at the British legal system, I'm gonna guess you're american.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Ha, if you are having a jibe at the British legal system, I'm gonna guess you're american.

No, i am having a jibe at the Australian legal system- which is based in structure to the British legal system but is NOT the same.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Anyway...

One thing that's struck me is Proctor's choice of words, (link to Cricinfo report) "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin."

Now unless other evidence has been presented at the hearing that the public isn't privy to, is that really the case? The stump mikes & the standing umpires heard nothing and Harbhajan's teammates similarly. There's possibly a balance of probability that he said it, but beyond reasonable doubt? Not for me.