Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Andrew Pollock]

If people feel the need to sledge, they should only say what they would to a Tongan bouncer in front of a nightclub. If you get a beating, you should not say it on the field.

 

[Matt79]

The argument here is not on whether Indians are racist, its on whether the word monkey is a racial slur or not
The word monkey being a racial slur is highly debatable. By adding stupid words like monkey in the list of racial terms you trivialize the really ugly concept of racialism.

I agree in general terms, and even in this case there's an argument that "monkey" needn't be added to the "list", if such a list exists. But what damns Bhajji in my eyes, IF he said it, was that he had been involved in the previous instance when the word was used, and in which Symonds made it very clear publicly that he felt it was a racially abusive term when it was directed at him. So IF he said it, he said it knowing that Symonds would feel it as a racial slur. So IF he said it, it was his intention to be racially abusive.

 

[Matt79]

There are pretty strong secondary and circumstantial evidence that ALIENS exist but I would not bet my life on it.
If that is good enough for you......so be it. But you can't slander someone based on circumstantial and secondary evidence.

Pretty facetious argument. There's circumstantial evidence and then there's circumstantial evidence. And saying that in your opinion someone did something is only slanderous if that person can prove that you have been reckless or worse in regards to it being not true and the effect saying it would have on his reputation. - otherwise, people are free to form and express opinions. Harbhajan certainly can't be proved to have said it, so not getting banned is fair enough maybe, but he also can't be proved not to have said it, so anyone is free to say that they think he probably did without it being slander.

 

[Stu274]

How do you claim this statement to be rediculous? Its spot on if you ask me.
Now the Indians dont have a leg to stand on as far as IM concerned & we can abuse them willy nilly be it racist or otherwise & as far as Im concerned they should just take it.
As stated a bit of a consistancy is required.

What a ridiculous sentiment. Never is it okay to verbally abuse your opponents. I'm not one for sledging and Harbhajan clearly is a loose cannon in this side. As the great quote goes, 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'.

 

[Stu274]

Yeah thats another problem with todays world there are too many tossers who feel violence will resolve all issues rather than having the mental capacity to comeback without it.
Personally I think it feels alot more fulfilling to beat someone with your intellect than your fists, anyone can throw a punch its not rocket science.

If people feel the need to sledge, they should only say what they would to a Tongan bouncer in front of a nightclub. If you get a beating, you should not say it on the field.

 

[Stu274]

No your wrong sorry. Its not up to the public or the sledger to determine if something is offensive or racist to someone only the individual knows what is offensive to them & they alone can make that choice.
Its exactly the same as ***ist remarks its not up to me to say "I think calling you a slut is fine" to a work colleague etc if they find it offensive then you have a case to answer for, its not up to you or anyone else to decide if they should be offended.

The argument here is not on whether Indians are racist, its on whether the word monkey is a racial slur or not
The word monkey being a racial slur is highly debatable. By adding stupid words like monkey in the list of racial terms you trivialize the really ugly concept of racialism.

 

[Cevno]

That's the second time in this thread you've suggested that only "coloured" (to use your language) teams have the right to define what constitutes racism within cricket - an extremely poor and objectionable attitude in my opinion. Its besides the point in this instance anyway as Symonds would presumably fall into your definition of "coloured".

As to whether family-based abuse is worse than racism, its been a fairly commonly held view around the world that racism is worse. The UN has a charter against racism, and racial vilification is actually illegal in several countries, including Australia. So Bhajji could count himself fortunate not to be defending himself against a criminal charge.

As far as I am aware even according to the UN charter racism is a belief that a race is superior to another race based on inheritance.
So are you telling me that harbhajan was showing his superiority over symonds due to him being coloured when harbhajan himself is of the same complexion?It was even if he said monkey instead of "maa ki" as is claimed was a retort to abuse from symonds just due to his looks.
The point here is symonds was the instigator and he abused harbhajan first.After that harbhajan replied and symonds picked up a technicality and complained.That is inconsequencial as in a argument which is quick the general consesus is that everything goes or nothing goes.Yo just cannot abuse somebody's mother and then if he retorts back say it was racist or fascist.Either you have the balls to accept everything or just keep your mouth shut.As you do not know what is offending the other person.If you are offended by little things then that gives you no right to offend other people too.

As for the racism being worse than family abuse,the UN charter is about discrimination based on race not on abuse.Discrimination in jobs,discrimination in schools or equality in schools which is obviously worse than any form of abuse as it affects your life directly.
But if you talk in terms of abuses that is things said then things said deliberately about your family is as worse as things said about your race if not worse.

 

[Cevno]

No your wrong sorry. Its not up to the public or the sledger to determine if something is offensive or racist to someone only the individual knows what is offensive to them & they alone can make that choice.

I think " idiot" is racist.Does that make it racist?
What do you propose that every player should submit a list of what is racist ?,what is abuse?
and what is nothing.

 

[sirdj]

That's the second time in this thread you've suggested that only "coloured" (to use your language) teams have the right to define what constitutes racism within cricket - an extremely poor and objectionable attitude in my opinion. Its besides the point in this instance anyway as Symonds would presumably fall into your definition of "coloured".

As to whether family-based abuse is worse than racism, its been a fairly commonly held view around the world that racism is worse. The UN has a charter against racism, and racial vilification is actually illegal in several countries, including Australia. So Bhajji could count himself fortunate not to be defending himself against a criminal charge.

I personally feel that non-coloured people do not really understand racialism because 99% of times they have never really faced it in their lives. So although they mean well they tend to make mountains out of molehills which trivializes racialism.

With all due respects to the UN, I don't think their opinion in cricket really counts. What counts more is the opinion of member nations of the ICC.

As regards Symonds colour, he is half white & fairer than Harbhajan.

 

[Stu274]

So what your saying is as long as he only says it to Simons face directly & not in front of another Indians who will not back him up & not on tape etc then he is fine to racially abuse away to his hearts desire.... nice one...
Also Im pretty sure we know that racism exists whereas Aliens arnt quite as definate.

There are pretty strong secondary and circumstantial evidence that ALIENS exist but I would not bet my life on it.
If that is good enough for you......so be it. But you can't slander someone based on circumstantial and secondary evidence.

 

[Cevno]

How do you claim this statement to be rediculous? Its spot on if you ask me.
Now the Indians dont have a leg to stand on as far as IM concerned & we can abuse them willy nilly be it racist or otherwise & as far as Im concerned they should just take it.
As stated a bit of a consistancy is required.

He has been charged with abuse and not racist abuse.
It has been proved he said " maa ki " not monkey by a neutral judge.
Australians have called indians all sort of things in the past and they have not reacted or responded .But when an indian responded it was the aussies who cried wolf.If you cannot take it you have lost the right to give it too.

 

[sirdj]

Yeah thats another problem with todays world there are too many tossers who feel violence will resolve all issues rather than having the mental capacity to comeback without it.
Personally I think it feels alot more fulfilling to beat someone with your intellect than your fists, anyone can throw a punch its not rocket science.

as IM concerned & we can abuse them willy nilly be it racist or otherwise & as far as Im concerned they should just take it.

Which has been brilliantly displayed by your language and your words

 

[pasag]

The argument here is not on whether Indians are racist, its on whether the word monkey is a racial slur or not
The word monkey being a racial slur is highly debatable. By adding stupid words like monkey in the list of racial terms you trivialize the really ugly concept of racialism.

Did you feel the same thing when Gibbs was banned for calling Pakistani crowd members "a bunch of animals", if so then fine, but to me it seems a lot of people seem to be taking a certain stance when it suits them. I remember at the time over there alot of sub-continental members had to explain to some anglo members that what he said was racist (animal=sub-human) when certain people tried to downplay the whole thing as a harmless comment. Now the exact opposite is occuring.

Both can be debated, but I wonder whether people are taking stances for when it suits them and really, for me at least, it's hard to take alot of the stuff said here seriously.

 

[Stu274]

Just stating fact mate, at least that is how the law sees it in this country & IM pretty sure the game in question was in this country not elsewhere?
As with drug smugglers etc if you travel to another country you should know the laws & you should follow them or suffer the consequences.

I think " idiot" is racist.Does that make it racist?
What do you propose that every player should submit a list of what is racist ?,what is abuse?
and what is nothing.

 

[Richard]

The recording from stump cam, as shown on channel 9 tonight, seems to show pretty clearly that several Australian players all immediately thought that they heard Harbhajan call Symonds a monkey.

But really, that wasn't ever in doubt, was it?

 

[Cevno]

So what your saying is as long as he only says it to Simons face directly & not in front of another Indians who will not back him up & not on tape etc then he is fine to racially abuse away to his hearts desire.... nice one...
Also Im pretty sure we know that racism exists whereas Aliens arnt quite as definate.

You know the fact of the matter is symonds incited it.
As far as evidence is considered it is symonds who has admitted to abusing bhajji in public and it is harbhajan who has been fined.
Which by no means is equal justice.
You cannot presume that Bhajji has said anything because same can be claimed about symonds too .

 

[Stu274]

Thankyou :P

Which has been brilliantly displayed by your language and your words

 

[Matt79]

I personally feel that non-coloured people do not really understand racialism because 99% of times they have never really faced it in their lives. So although they mean well they tend to make mountains out of molehills which trivializes racialism.

With all due respects to the UN, I don't think their opinion in cricket really counts. What counts more is the opinion of member nations of the ICC.

As regards Symonds colour, he is half white & fairer than Harbhajan.

Sorry, I just don't agree with any of the points you make there. Someone being half-white means that they can't be discriminated against on account of the other half of their heritage? Or racial abuse can only happen to people of darker skin than the abuser? Both are ridiculous propositions.

And what's trivialising in saying that being denigrated about the heritage of one of your parents is unacceptable? What is it that we non-coloured people are failing to understand here? You're saying that the use of the word "monkey" is a molehill? Is the use of the word "black"? To echo the argument that monkey was just describing what Symonds looks like, surely calling some a black something-or-other is just describing what they look like? I abhor racism in all its forms, and while sometimes the specific examples can seem line-ball or even, yes trivial, the only way to effectively remove it from a sport or environment is to smack down every example that occurs.

 

[sirdj]

Pretty facetious argument. There's circumstantial evidence and then there's circumstantial evidence. And saying that in your opinion someone did something is only slanderous if that person can prove that you have been reckless or worse in regards to it being not true and the effect saying it would have on his reputation. - otherwise, people are free to form and express opinions. Harbhajan certainly can't be proved to have said it, so not getting banned is fair enough maybe, but he also can't be proved not to have said it, so anyone is free to say that they think he probably did without it being slander.

In legal terms it does not have to be reckless to constitute slander. The legal defination of slander is "communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation".

So to claim in a public forum that Harbhajan said it without adding that it is in 'your opinion' constitutes slander.

 

[Stu274]

You seem to miss the point.
Abuse & racist abuse are two different things weather you like it or not.

You know the fact of the matter is symonds incited it.
As far as evidence is considered it is symonds who has admitted to abusing bhajji in public and it is harbhajan who has been fined.
Which by no means is equal justice.
You cannot presume that Bhajji has said anything because same can be claimed about symonds too .