Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Richard]

I am under no obligation to provide my real name here.
I find your and a few other's fascination with my personal life/self to be rather besides the point and annoying.

No fascination, and no desire whatsoever to know your name. You were the one that made the suggestion of "I'm David Suzuki".

 

[ozone]

nonsense.
it is purely he-said/she-said case and Procter took decision in favour of similar skin-colored captain. Its just that simple.
Procter has NO BASIS on concluding if Bhajji is telling the truth or if Symonds is, considering there is NO neutral witness to this, there is no material or circumstantial evidence to this and therefore, the benifit of the doubt must ALWAYS go to the defendant.
The decision against Bhajji, from a legal sense, is a total farce and a total mockery of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

I disagree. Pure and Simple. I am surprised that someone who claims to be a lawyer is so narrow minded.

 

[Rollypolly1]

I disagree. Pure and Simple. I am surprised that someone who claims to be a lawyer is so narrow minded.

You cannot disagree with FACTS mate. FACT is, Procter took decision in favour of similar skinned captain in a matter that was purely he said-she said.
FACT also is, Procter grew up in the most racist society of its time and that most definitely factors in.

 

[Rollypolly1]

No fascination, and no desire whatsoever to know your name. You were the one that made the suggestion of "I'm David Suzuki".

Clearly then, sarcasm is above your level of comprehension.
Not the first time either, eh Rich ?

 

[ozone]

You cannot disagree with FACTS mate. FACT is, Procter took decision in favour of similar skinned captain in a matter that was purely he said-she said.
FACT also is, Procter grew up in the most racist society of its time and that most definitely factors in.

Right, unless you were in the room when the decisions were being made, you don't know the full story. You also appear to be calling Procter racist which I don't believe you have any proof for.

 

[ozone]

He is definately not new to the site.

 

[Richard]

Clearly then, sarcasm is above your level of comprehension.
Not the first time either, eh Rich ?

The sarcasm was equal on my part as on yours in this exchange.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Right, unless you were in the room when the decisions were being made, you don't know the full story. You also appear to be calling Procter racist which I don't believe you have any proof for.

I am not calling Procter racist, i am raising questions about it, given that he grew up in the most racist society in the world and sided with the captain of the same 'superior white race' mentality that he grew up under.

And i don't have to be in the room to know whether a decision is correct or not- remember, i am a lawyer. In a purely he-said/she-said case with ZERO material or circumstantial evidence, the ethics of justice demands that the axiom of 'innocent until proven guilty' is followed.
It does not matter who made what comment to whom- if there is zero material and circumstantial evidence and there is no neutral witnesses, there can be no guilt. Period.

And that you are arguing something as basic as this with a lawyer shows your arrogance more than anything else, really. I suggest you stick to your line of 'i don't know much legalese' and just shut up on an issue you are completely clueless on.

 

[taitmachine]

I am not calling Procter racist, i am raising questions about it, given that he grew up in the most racist society in the world and sided with the captain of the same 'superior white race' mentality that he grew up under.

And i don't have to be in the room to know whether a decision is correct or not- remember, i am a lawyer. In a purely he-said/she-said case with ZERO material or circumstantial evidence, the ethics of justice demands that the axiom of 'innocent until proven guilty' is followed.
It does not matter who made what comment to whom- if there is zero material and circumstantial evidence and there is no neutral witnesses, there can be no guilt. Period.

And that you are arguing something as basic as this with a lawyer shows your arrogance more than anything else, really. I suggest you stick to your line of 'i don't know much legalese' and just shut up on an issue you are completely clueless on.

In another thread you just said the following in relation to Australia "The most racist nation on the face of the planet, with a history that makes Nazi-Germany look like a little gangster-thug"

You are purely trying to incite & divide people on the basis of their nationality or race.

 

[howardj]

Akram: Australia are cry babies: http://foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23018793-23212,00.html

I think this whole thing was fuelled by the fact that Harbijhan has the wood on Ponting. It makes Ponting absolutely seethe to be thought of and talked about as this guy's Bunny. The reporting of Harbijhan by the skipper is, I believe, partly motivated by this. Ponting cuts up pretty nasty when someone is getting the better of him. Look at his conduct in the Ashes in 2005 - badgering umpires and blowing up at Duncan Fletcher. There's a pattern here.

 

[Rollypolly1]

"The most racist nation on the face of the planet, with a history that makes Nazi-Germany look like a little gangster-thug"

And i stand by it. I find South Africa's racial-seggregation to be despicable, but still far more acceptable than white guys going on a weekend hunting party shooting Aboriginals like in Austalia's history.

 

[ozone]

I am not calling Procter racist, i am raising questions about it, given that he grew up in the most racist society in the world and sided with the captain of the same 'superior white race' mentality that he grew up under.

And i don't have to be in the room to know whether a decision is correct or not- remember, i am a lawyer. In a purely he-said/she-said case with ZERO material or circumstantial evidence, the ethics of justice demands that the axiom of 'innocent until proven guilty' is followed.
It does not matter who made what comment to whom- if there is zero material and circumstantial evidence and there is no neutral witnesses, there can be no guilt. Period.

And that you are arguing something as basic as this with a lawyer shows your arrogance more than anything else, really. I suggest you stick to your line of 'i don't know much legalese' and just shut up on an issue you are completely clueless on.

I'm definately sick of this now. So I will sumarise for you:

1. You cannot take someone elses opinion on board, even if they provide evidence of it, so I am not sure why I bothered providing it.
2. You are clearly calling Proctor racist, what you have said above basically means that you think he, consciously or not, is racist.
3. If you really are a lawyer, which I am not sure of due to your secrecy over your identity, you don't seem to be willing to explain yourself. However, a part of me thinks you probably are a lawyer because of the way you seem to lack logic.
4. Being Anti-Australian is fine, but you take it to extremes. You simply seem to have an agenda here to make people anti-australian.
5. Stop insulting people (or at least me) and then calling them 'mate' and 'kido'. More than anything else, this gets on my nerves. Especially since you said earlier you weren't here for friends.

 

[silentstriker]

I still have no idea why/how they took the word of one team over another. Either way they rule, the are calling one side a liar but Proctor chose to accept one side's claims over another - that doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Johnners]

If Proctor made his decision based on 1 teams word over the others, he's got a lot to answer for.

Also, was there this much kerfuffle and people whinging about Aust. "not keeping it on the field" when Gilchrist reported Latif for calling him a "white c***" in 2003? (Honest question) I don't get whats so different about Gilchrist reporting that, and Symonds/Ponting reporting HB Singh in regards to "keeping it on the pitch"?

 

[silentstriker]

If Proctor made his decision based on 1 teams word over the others, he's got a lot to answer for.

Also, was there this much kerfuffle and people whinging about Aust. "not keeping it on the field" when Gilchrist reported Latif for calling him a "white c***" in 2003? (Honest question) I don't get whats so different about Gilchrist reporting that, and Symonds/Ponting reporting HB Singh in regards to "keeping it on the pitch"?

I am not sure if white **** has the type of racist connotation that 'black ****' has. But I've no problem with 'monkey' being reported at all. Or really, white ****. I don't see why you have to bring race into it at all.

 

[Johnners]

Even so, It still doesn't explain why people didn't go off at Gilchrist for being a "crybaby" or for not "keeping it on the field" (from the little I remember of it, I don't recall there being anywhere near as much fuss, I could well be proved wrong though)

 

[Burgey]

I still have no idea why/how they took the word of one team over another. Either way they rule, the are calling one side a liar but Proctor chose to accept one side's claims over another - that doesn't sit right with me.

Spot on. That is the difficlty when its one person's word over another's. I was surprised he was found guilty. Do we ever get to see a transcript of the hearing?

One small thing I would say though, is that if a tribunal/ court comes down on one person's side, it doesn't follow that they are calling the other a liar.

If Proctor made his decision based on 1 teams word over the others, he's got a lot to answer for.

At first blush yes, but we don't know how compelling the evidence was. I posted on the other thread how Harbhajan was said to have apologised for something he said at the time. If that's true (and who knows?) what was it that he said, I wonder?

 

[silentstriker]

Spot on. That is the difficlty when its one person's word over another's. I was surprised he was found guilty. Do we ever get to see a transcript of the hearing?

One small thing I would say though, is that if a tribunal/ court comes down on one person's side, it doesn't follow that they are calling the other a liar.

In this case, you pretty much are. If you say I didn't do it, and someone else says you did it. One of you is lying, or is mistaken. I doubt Harbhajan or Symonds are 'mistaken'. One is lying. In this case, it's simple. I personally think he said it. But it would be nowhere near proof enough for me to act on it.

 

[JBH001]

Even so, It still doesn't explain why people didn't go off at Gilchrist for being a "crybaby" or for not "keeping it on the field" (from the little I remember of it, I don't recall there being anywhere near as much fuss, I could well be proved wrong though)

Maybe because Latif is a Pakistani?
(And I am only partly joking too)

Seriously though, its difficult to say. I dont remember the incident all that well, but was there any other evidence besides the word of Gilly that Latif has said that? Was it, for example, corroborated by the umpires or picked up by a stump mic?

Also, I think this whole incident is cumulative and a combination of various factors. Namely, the umpiring errors that have disproportionately favoured one side over another; the doubts over Australian fielding and the pre-series agreement between Ponting and Kumble, and of course the race incident betweem Symond and Harbhajan.

Taken in isolation, any of these incidents would have probably been easily circumvented or resolved. But taken together they have tended to snowball which is making this akin to an avalanche that will either not be resolved, or will irredeemably poison the rest of the tour. Pity really, looked like we might have some good cricket.

 

[Johnners]

No we don't know what the evidence was, and even given the fact that HB Singh clearly did apologise for something, unless there was a neutral witness, the outcome was always going to be ugly, and certainly not beneficial to cricket as a whole.