CA slams 'bigotry' against Ahmed

[Prince EWS]

Just a question btw, don't necessarily agree with that. Just wondering where you draw the line.

In the end it's a pretty complicated issue because of the nature of advertising. Fawad's probably done the right thing here assuming he does have very strong objections; he's asked for an exemption with intentions of re-evaluating his position if it wasn't granted. I'm sure Carlton and United are privately unhappy with it but advertising is all about PR in the first place so they're obviously not going to come out and say "nah **** we have a contractual agreement with CA so you have to cop it or **** off"; it'd cost a lot more business than they'd gain from the advertising of the eleventh player, not to mention the good press they'll get from giving it the a-okay now.

It's an unfortunate result IMO but probably the most sensible one, with everyone having acting in a pretty proper fashion (except Campo of course). Just doesn't quite sit well with me though.

 

[Furball]

I'm actually more aware of VB's sponsorship because their logo isn't on Ahmad's shirt.

 

[watson]

I'm actually more aware of VB's sponsorship because their logo isn't on Ahmad's shirt.

And therein lies the irony.

If Ahmad had actually made a rational and coherent public statement along the lines of - "On behalf of the 48,000 Australian families affected by poverty or domestic violence last year due to alcoholism, I refuse to wear the VB logo out of good conscience." - then I doubt that VB would have been so happy, and both the public and CA would be more sympathetic to his cause.

However, if Ahmad merely stated something ridiculous and meaningless like - "I refuse to wear the VB logo because my religion prohibits it." - then he deserves to be treated with contempt.

That is, any public figure, whether they be a sportsman, politician, Pope, Imam, or whatever, should have to explain their religious or moral objections in a clear and logical way, a way that doesn't use the cop-out of mere religious affiliation, or use the vacous term, "because God says so."

 

[benchmark00]

a) how have CA not been sympathetic?
b) since when has someone's personal moral objections been for public consumption? It's none of our business.

 

[Spikey]

However, if Ahmad merely stated something ridiculous and meaningless like - "I refuse to wear the VB logo because my religion prohibits it." - then he deserves to be treated with contempt.

that quote doesn't strike me as ridiculous and meaningless

 

[Hooksey]

I'm actually more aware of VB's sponsorship because their logo isn't on Ahmad's shirt.

I'm sure that's the case across the board.

 

[watson]

a) how have CA not been sympathetic?
b) since when has someone's personal moral objections been for public consumption? It's none of our business.

All religious pronouncements entering the 'public domain' must be expected to be scrutinised by the public. This is especially the case with religious pronouncements made by individuals who are influential and powerful, civil servants, or people representing their country.

It is one of the foundations of a secular democratic society, and exists so that the 'religious fundamentalists' are kept in their box and out of harms way.

 

[benchmark00]

What is this, I don't even...

In what world is what some bloke believes, religiously speaking, been anyone's business just because he plays cricket?

As long as the adminstrative board (CA) and the sponsor in question (VB) are aware of the issues it needs not go further. If by chance people ask the question why, he only needs to explain it is a personal belief of his. It is not up to us to decide whether he is required to wear the logo when playing, it's up to CA & VB, everyone else can go jam themselves.

 

[watson]

that quote doesn't strike me as ridiculous and meaningless

The statement, "I refuse to wear the VB logo because my religion prohibits it." is very similar to the statement, " I refuse to wear the VB logo because I have a banana in my trousers."

That is, both statements tell us nothing about why wearing a VB logo is unethical.

 

[uvelocity]

In the end it's a pretty complicated issue because of the nature of advertising. Fawad's probably done the right thing here assuming he does have very strong objections; he's asked for an exemption with intentions of re-evaluating his position if it wasn't granted. I'm sure Carlton and United are privately unhappy with it but advertising is all about PR in the first place so they're obviously not going to come out and say "nah **** we have a contractual agreement with CA so you have to cop it or **** off"; it'd cost a lot more business than they'd gain from the advertising of the eleventh player, not to mention the good press they'll get from giving it the a-okay now.

It's an unfortunate result IMO but probably the most sensible one, with everyone having acting in a pretty proper fashion (except Campo of course). Just doesn't quite sit well with me though.

bearing in mind vb is a benchybogan beer, they probably would have sold more beer by saying they wouldn't let a muslim wear their logo tbh

 

[watson]

What is this, I don't even...

In what world is what some bloke believes, religiously speaking, been anyone's business just because he plays cricket?

As long as the adminstrative board (CA) and the sponsor in question (VB) are aware of the issues it needs not go further. If by chance people ask the question why, he only needs to explain it is a personal belief of his. It is not up to us to decide whether he is required to wear the logo when playing, it's up to CA & VB, everyone else can go jam themselves.

If a deal was done in private between Ahmad, VB, and CA then sure, I don't want to know about it, and I don't care.

But that is no longer the case. The reason for refusing the sponsor are in the Public Domain, and they happen to be religious. Therefore, as a representative of Australia Ahmad should expect to undergo some kind of public criticism, and hence defend his action with some kind of rational answer.

 

[Spark]

Wow, superiority complex much?

 

[benchmark00]

I just can not understand this. This is like something you read in the comments section of foxsports.

 

[Spark]

I mean, how absurd. The bloke's there to bowl leggies ffs. Who gives a **** about his "religious justifications"?

 

[Furball]

Sounds lime someone's just finished reading The God Delusion.

 

[NUFAN]

The statement, "I refuse to wear the VB logo because my religion prohibits it." is very similar to the statement, " I refuse to wear the VB logo because I have a banana in my trousers."

That is, both statements tell us nothing about why wearing a VB logo is unethical.

WTF - You seriously can't see the connection? I mean seriously??

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The statement, "I refuse to wear the VB logo because my religion prohibits it." is very similar to the statement, " I refuse to wear the VB logo because I have a banana in my trousers."

That is, both statements tell us nothing about why wearing a VB logo is unethical.

A bit of a long bow to draw IMO. It's fairly well-known that orthodox Islam forbids alcohol as a reckless and destructive habit; any strict adherent could get cold feet about actively promoting it - which advertising in sport unapologetically does. I would be very surprised if Matthew Hayden, devoutly Catholic enough to cross himself after a ton, wouldn't raise a ruckus if the Test team was sponsored by Durex while he was playing. Regardless of whether it's the safe thing to do after finding a banana in your trousers.

 

[watson]

I mean, how absurd. The bloke's there to bowl leggies ffs. Who gives a **** about his "religious justifications"?

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.

 

[NUFAN]

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.

Sounds like you've been living in your closet if you seriously think that Fawad Ahmed has just dragged his religion out of the closet - its been a massive story FFS.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

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.

Fuzzy is also walking a very tight rope among the local Muslim community. Some imams have been tactless enough to speak out against women wearing revealing clothing as the root problem of s3exual assault - do you really think they'd hesitate to grab a headline for calling out Australia's most prominent Muslim sportsman on some sponsorship triviality? Never mind the uproar that would follow on both sides?