CA slams 'bigotry' against Ahmed

[benchmark00]

Why the **** does someone's religion deserve to undergo criticism? **** sake man.

 

[NUFAN]

Yo Watson

y u no respect Fawad's beliefs?

 

[Spark]

No one gives **** about anyone's 'religious justifications' until they drag their religion out if the closet, dust it off for public show, and then stick it in the face of the public. Then it deserves to undergo criticism.

I don't think that's asking very much, or anything unusual. Just not long ago Mickey Arthur was asked to justify why he gave his team 'home-work'. He was scrutinised for a seemingly odd decision, so I don't see why odd religious decisions shouldn't also be put under the media spot-light. Smacks of hypocrisy and double-standard to me.

Because it has nothing to do with the cricket, **** me. And criticising someone because they're Muslim? Seriously?

Take this militant atheist crap where it belongs, seriously, because it's completely irrelevant here.

 

[watson]

Yo Watson

y u no respect Fawad's beliefs?

I hardly know where to begin. I dare say it has something to do with working for the Saudi Arabian military, and living near the Saudi-Yemen border. In my younger days of course.

 

[watson]

Why the **** does someone's religion deserve to undergo criticism? **** sake man.

For the same reason that society should question and criticise those who promote the idea of UFOs, Ghosts, The Lock Ness Monster, Scientology, Alien Abductions, Fortune Telling, Astrology, Witchcraft, and all the other cooky spooky loony stuff.

Again, if Ahmad wants to make a stand based on alcoholism rates and its negative effects on society, then that's fine by me. But that's a far cry from making a stand based on............

 

[benchmark00]

I would say your intense disdain for anyone's personal beliefs is much more loony than those beliefs themselves.

 

[BoyBrumby]

since when has someone's personal moral objections been for public consumption? It's none of our business.

In this case, as it's a relatively benign moral objection, I'd agree.

However I'm sure not all moral objections are such. It's possible a sportsman might object to playing in a team with people of a different race and could himself see it as a "personal moral objection" (it was reported as recently as 2003 that Geo Cronje, the Springbok lock, refused to share a room with a "coloured" teammate), so in such instances I'd say it becomes an issue for public consumption.

 

[Flem274*]

yeah look, watson, im atheist and i lived with a muslim for one and a half years. he was a pretty liberal one, but he doesn't drink, does the hal lal meat thing etc and tbh it was just a quirk you live with because we all had to live under the same roof and get along, so bitching at each other over our beliefs wasn't going to help (and he's a ****ing gun bloke ftr). some people like to get up at 6am because they're weird, others are vegetarian because they don't like killing animals, some people don't touch alcohol for whatever reason. if he feels it goes against what he believes in to wear a shirt with a beer logo on it then he has a right to voice his discomfort to his employers and their sponsors.

the three parties then sit down and talk about how to deal with it. turns out CA and VB dgaf if he's wearing a logo-less shirt. since they are cool with it life will go on.i dont see why joe public, who have no stake in the situation at all, should have a say in a matter involving fawad, cricket australia and VB.

 

[benchmark00]

In this case, as it's a relatively benign moral objection, I'd agree.

However I'm sure not all moral objections are such. It's possible a sportsman might object to playing in a team with people of a different race and could himself see it as a "personal moral objection" (it was reported as recently as 2003 that Geo Cronje, the Springbok lock, refused to share a room with a "coloured" teammate), so in such instances I'd say it becomes an issue for public consumption.

Why? It's an issue for the employee and their employer.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why? It's an issue for the employee and their employer.

Really? Prima facie discrimination against someone based on race and the public doesn't have a right to know?

Nah, never going to agree to that.

 

[watson]

I would say your intense disdain for anyone's personal beliefs is much more loony than those beliefs themselves.

Questioning, criticism, and inquiry are rational exercises that do not involve the feeling of Intense disdain. You have made an assumption that I feel intense disdain toward a religious person. That is simply not true.

 

[benchmark00]

Really? Prima facie discrimination against someone based on race and the public doesn't have a right to know?

Nah, never going to agree to that.

Why does a public have a right to know? Obviously it would be good to know so he is rightly bagged for the **** person he is, but having racist opinions isn't illegal, it's a moral judgment call, even if it is morally reprehensible.

If you, for example, hate fat chix (which you probably do), do you think an employer has a right to tell people about it?

 

[Flem274*]

Questioning, criticism, and inquiry are rational exercises that do not involve the feeling of Intense disdain. You have made an assumption that I feel intense disdain toward a religious person. That is simply not true.

no, the way you have expressed yourself gives us all the impression you're posting like a disdainful ****.

 

[watson]

yeah look, watson, im atheist and i lived with a muslim for one and a half years. he was a pretty liberal one, but he doesn't drink, does the hal lal meat thing etc and tbh it was just a quirk you live with because we all had to live under the same roof and get along, so bitching at each other over our beliefs wasn't going to help (and he's a ****ing gun bloke ftr). some people like to get up at 6am because they're weird, others are vegetarian because they don't like killing animals, some people don't touch alcohol for whatever reason. if he feels it goes against what he believes in to wear a shirt with a beer logo on it then he has a right to voice his discomfort to his employers and their sponsors.

the three parties then sit down and talk about how to deal with it. turns out CA and VB dgaf if he's wearing a logo-less shirt. since they are cool with it life will go on.i dont see why joe public, who have no stake in the situation at all, should have a say in a matter involving fawad, cricket australia and VB.

I am not questioning anyone's right to voice their opinion and make a stand on anything. I only ask that the case for the stand (should it enter the 'Public Domain') be articulated in a coherent and reasonable way that does not have religious affiliation front and centre of the argument. Surely that's not too much to ask of our national representatives??

 

[watson]

no, the way you have expressed yourself gives us all the impression you're posting like a disdainful ****.

OK fair enough.

But how???

 

[Spark]

I would say your intense disdain for anyone's personal beliefs is much more loony than those beliefs themselves.

word.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why does a public have a right to know? Obviously it would be good to know so he is rightly bagged for the **** person he is, but having racist opinions isn't illegal, it's a moral judgment call, even if it is morally reprehensible.

If you, for example, hate fat chix (which you probably do), do you think an employer has a right to tell people about it?

Nah, the deeper the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'.

But suppose I did, it would depend what I insisted on as a result of it to my way of thinking. If I asked not to share an office with a tubby lass then I'd say she has a right to know that why I'm asking her to be moved.

So if (say) Michael Clarke, who's unquestionably the most secure in his test position currently, demanded Fawad was dropped because he objected to sharing a dressing room with Asians and the selectors acquiesced, surely if the question is asked at some presser the public then have a right to know?

 

[benchmark00]

Nah, the deeper the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'.

But suppose I did, it would depend what I insisted on as a result of it to my way of thinking. If I asked not to share an office with a tubby lass then I'd say she has a right to know that why I'm asking her to be moved.

So if (say) Michael Clarke, who's unquestionably the most secure in his test position currently, demanded Fawad was dropped because he objected to sharing a dressing room with Asians and the selectors acquiesced, surely if the question is asked at some presser the public then have a right to know?

Well, in that specific circumstance it would be illegal for CA to drop Fawad Ahmed, so yes if there is illegal activity occurring the public deserves to know.

If Clarke refuses to play because Fawad is Asian, then it's not a right of the public to know if he chooses to step down. When pressed management shouldn't go into specifics if Clarke has those beliefs.

 

[watson]

Why? It's an issue for the employee and their employer.

If the issue involves a Neville Nobody like myself, then it need go no further than the employer. But if the employee happens to be a national representative of some kind (or someone famous with power and influence), and that person voices their opinion in public, then the issue should be debated in public via the media. Why? Because all societies progress through debate, dialogue, and discourse. Especially if the public debate coalesces into Law.

 

[andyc]

People seem to be glossing over the fact here that CA brought this up with Fawad first - no doubt as part of their efforts to be more accommodating to those of Asian descent - rather than him approaching CA asking for it to be taken off. Is it even clear whether he would've said anything had CA not brought it up? Do any of his domestic teams have similar sponsorship?