Mike Procter interview

[Cevno]

I don't think the idea that "abuse is abuse" holds water for very long; it's pretty obvious that if someone was abused for (say) having a clashing shirt and tie or an unfortunate haircut and someone else is abused for their race, ***ual orienation or moral probity of their sister then the latter examples are graver offences, so there is demonstrably a hierarchy.

That aside, I'm not advocating a western cultural hegemony, but there has to be some recognition of the "when in Rome" principle. I don't take my shoes off on the rare occasions I'm forced to go to church, but if I went to a Mosque and refused to do it I'd be behaving like a prick, yes? I personally couldn't care less about removing my shoes, but as I'm aware my hosts do I'd happily acquiesce.

If my memory serves Harbhajan's alleged offence took place during the Sydney test? I'll admit I don't recall what Symonds reportedly said to him initially, but there's no way the off-spinner would've been unaware of the host nation's sensitivity towards racial abuse, especially in light of his previous (undenied) use of the term during the Australians' preceding 2007 tour of India & Indian spectators being arrested for making monkey noises and gestures towards Symonds.

If Symonds had called Harbhajan's mother a whore or whatever then he's an arsehole too, but your argument is at best of the "two wrongs" variety.

I don't think you are disagreeing with him here. His point is not that Harbhajan should be excused if he indeed made a racist comment, but that Symonds if he indeed abused his mother/sister is equally worse and also the instigator. Though obviously we don't know what was said either way for certain as it was 1 man's word against other.

I agree with the When in rome principle too, but then if you apply in to the 2007 tour of India then Monkey really isn't a known Racist term in India(infact it was akin to calling Mcgrath a Giraffe for example in a teasing way). It's a bit of a tricky thing with different connotations to the same thing in different cultures and histories, and thus more dependant on to whom you are saying what. International context is important either way and thus removing all these kind of offensive things is required.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I agree with the When in rome principle too, but then if you apply in to the 2007 tour of India then Monkey really isn't a known Racist term in India(infact it was akin to calling Mcgrath a Giraffe for example). It's a bit of a tricky thing with different connotations to the same thing in different cultures and histories, and thus more dependant on to whom you are saying what. International context is important either way and thus removing all these kind of offensive things is required.

My point was that were Harbhajan not aware of the connotations of "monkey" before he used it in 2007, he would've been afterwards with the contretemps that ensued.

& I'm sure I didn't imagine the arrests (or possibly ejections from the stadium), so on some level it must be considered offensive in India, surely?

 

[Cevno]

My point was that were Harbhajan not aware of the connotations of "monkey" before he used it in 2007, he would've been afterwards with the contretemps that ensued.

Yeah, don't disagree with this. But don't think anyone said that either.

& I'm sure I didn't imagine the arrests (or possibly ejections from the stadium), so on some level it must be considered offensive in India, surely?

The Monkey type actions by the crowd due the International context and the ICC rules was certainly considered offensive. And it was a disgrace it happened a second time despite the furore after the first instance. Some of the people were booked under Anti - Discrimination laws(don't know what came from it) and it has been updated since.

But my point was that calling someone a Monkey here is not likely to get you in trouble with law. Infact, during a I - League football match a commentator a few months ago described the goalkeeper as a gorilla when he made a save with a big clutched jump. On the other hand, there are laws against other types of offensive verbal abuse, however hard they may be to implement.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah, don't disagree with this. But don't think anyone said that either.



The Monkey type actions by the crowd due the International context and the ICC rules was certainly considered offensive. And it was a disgrace it happened a second time despite the furore after the first instance. Some of the people were booked under Anti - Discrimination laws(don't know what came from it) and it has been updated since.

But my point was that calling someone a Monkey here is not likely to get you in trouble with law. Infact, during a I - League football match a commentator a few months ago described the goalkeeper as a gorilla when he made a save with a big clutched jump. On the other hand, there are laws against other types of offensive verbal abuse, however hard they may be to implement.

Calling someone a gorilla because they have big hands or wear arseless chaps isn't offensive, but calling someone a monkey because it's related to the 'not fully evolved' line of thinking clearly is.

I can call someone a monkey in Australia or England or wherever because they climb trees very well. That's not racist. but if I say it with reference to the 'not evolved' line of thinking, then it clearly is racially motivated.

 

[Cevno]

Calling someone a gorilla because they have big hands or wear arseless chaps isn't offensive, but calling someone a monkey because it's related to the 'not fully evolved' line of thinking clearly is.

I can call someone a monkey in Australia or England or wherever because they climb trees very well. That's not racist. but if I say it with reference to the 'not evolved' line of thinking, then it clearly is racially motivated.

Yeah, that's what i said initially. Intent and who you say it to is important, though Intent is obviously the toughest thing to judge.

Then there is a thin line in between where you just say something to someone to annoy him or even due to his physical appearances without knowing the context and history behind that. Which is likely to happen more in places where the term is not a known racist term vs a place where there is awareness about it.


Anyways, have got bit sidetracked from the initial point about abuse directed towards family being as offensive as word with racial undertones. Don't think ayone has given a argument against that so far.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah, don't disagree with this. But don't think anyone said that either.

Sorry, but I thought you were implying it when you said this:

if you apply in to the 2007 tour of India then Monkey really isn't a known Racist term in India

I wasn't suggesting it is (for the simple reason that I don't know either way), but rather using that incident to illustrate that Harbhajan would've been fully aware of how it would go across in Australia after that.

If I misunderstood I apologise.

 

[Cevno]

Sorry, but I thought you were implying it when you said this:



I wasn't suggesting it is (for the simple reason that I don't know either way), but rather using that incident to illustrate that Harbhajan would've been fully aware of how it would go across in Australia after that.

If I misunderstood I apologise.

Yeah, was only using it to show that When In Rome principle won't work in all circumstances, especially when judging what is offensive and what is not. It is more dependant on Intent and who you are saying it too, especially with people of different cultures and different backgrounds involved.

If Harbhajan indeed said that in the Sydney test, after the previous history then he is clearly guilty of saying a known racist word.

 

[chicane]

My point was that were Harbhajan not aware of the connotations of "monkey" before he used it in 2007, he would've been afterwards with the contretemps that ensued.

& I'm sure I didn't imagine the arrests (or possibly ejections from the stadium), so on some level it must be considered offensive in India, surely?

Monkey insults are not generally implied as racist in India. It's also weird, the basis on which Symo was being considered to be abused applies to that crowd of idiots too, doesn't it?

It may have been in reference to Symo's hair, I know monkeys and dreadlocks don't seem to fit, but I can't explain it anymore than saying that monkey is commonly used as an insult here if someone looks funny/ugly.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Anyways, have got bit sidetracked from the initial point about abuse directed towards family being as offensive as word with racial undertones. Don't think ayone has given a argument against that so far.

Well, it rather depends on what the abuse towards the family is, doesn't it?

Some of the most famous sledges fall into the realm of "abuse directed towards the family" (Brandes's line about McGrath's wife giving him a biscuit every time he ****s her & Marsh asking Botham "How's your wife and my kids?" off the top of my head), but I don't think either would be considered to be crossing the line of acceptability, would it?

I can't think of an occasion where one could say that of any racist abuse.

 

[honestbharani]

That's because you don't get it.

EDIT: to explain, the first thing that you're now thinking about is what to say back to the person who sledged, not what happens next on the field. Secondly, the sledger is expecting/hoping for a response, and so basically the only thing that you can say to "infuriate the crap out of the sledger" would be something that oversteps the common line of decency. And that says more about you than the person who started the sledging.

But there is nothing to "get"...


People just need to get over this idea that what is acceptable sledging and what isn't is some sort of written down law.. It isn't.. It is always going to be interpreted differently by different people and no one is more right than the next one about it. Either you do it or you don't and when you do it, don't expect sympathy when you cop something back and you go back crying to tell mommy about it..

 

[honestbharani]

The history of racism has many other connotations that causes depersonalizes an entire group of people. It's a special case of dehumanization that has a very nasty history (both in society and in cricket) and unfortunately its effect are still prevalent today (directly and indirectly), and so rightfully so, the governing body has decided that it requires a special category of punishment.

I don't like it, but I've come around that unfortunately it might be time to ban all sledging. However, even with that ban, I would definitely be in favor of treating racial taunts and sledges much more harshly than a sledge about someone's mother.

Again, that is your opinion. As an Indian, I think the opposite and it might be the same from the cricket following brethren from Pak, SL and Bangladesh.. As I said earlier, some people just need to grow out of "I know what is the worst thing that can be said on a cricket field".. When a sport is spread across so many different cultures and nations, that sort of statement can never EVER be right, be it whoever who is making that statement.

 

[Cevno]

Well, it rather depends on what the abuse towards the family is, doesn't it?

Some of the most famous sledges fall into the realm of "abuse directed towards the family" (Brandes's line about McGrath's wife giving him a biscuit every time he ****s her & Marsh asking Botham "How's your wife and my kids?" off the top of my head), but I don't think either would be considered to be crossing the line of acceptability, would it?

I can't think of an occasion where one could say that of any racist abuse.

Yeah, they certainly would in some places, especially the second one. You'd get away calling people racist terms but certainly not that.

Then there are those that Sanz posted that are as worse as any racial abuse, but as CWB said are something that you would get away with in a premiership while a racist term is big news.

I think the point which Smali was referring to earlier(albeit in a over aggresive manner) was that Western standards and ethics have dominated sports so far, but those may not be true everywhere. What is more offensive in one culture/background may not be in another and vice versa.

 

[honestbharani]

Do you forget the background to the whole incident?

When it happened in Australia, the background was that it was a group of Aussies trying to set up Bhajji to say that word and get him banned.

 

[honestbharani]

The idea of sledging is nothing more than to distract your opponent from concentrating on the game properly. If someone chirps at you and you chirp straight back, they've likely done their job.

Then why complain about it? And who draws these lines of what is acceptable and what isn't? Sometimes, people just need to think beyond their own perceptions of the world, especially seeing their horizons are pretty narrow.

 

[honestbharani]

Of course you can. Was the genesis of my and most right thinking people's hatred of the simpering Indian cricket culture. But to say, as you do, that the only time St Sachin of the Cochlea Implant was accused of selective deafness was later in Gilchrist's book it utter bull****. It was said at the time.

Whether he did change his story or not is a different thing to whether the allegation was made against him at the time. Ftr I believe he did. Fits his self-righteousness down pat.

Again.. you are being a smart ass saying "right thinking people"... Who decides they think right? You? It shows to me they are wrong if that is the criteria, for instance..


You just gotta wake up and understand that the world and culture are very broad things and not just what you think of them to be.

 

[honestbharani]

Matters as much as what you think about it, not that I mentioned anything other than Indian cricket. I'm as interested in Indian culture generally as I am in visiting an inert under water sea mount.

Would you prefer not to discuss it at all?

And that's the problem.. You wanna criticize a side's cricket cultue but you don't give a damn about the country's culture. (which is thousands of years old, btw.. You are missing out on a lot of wonderful history and a VERY ahead-of-its time civilization that was then wasted due to foreign invasions).. In essence, you are basically saying everyone should be sensitive and aware of Western and Australian culture and what their definition of sledging is but the same privilege is not granted to Indians. Is that because we are Indians?

 

[honestbharani]

Official Report from Proctor:

https://docs.google.com/View?docID=dct39c8s_80hpbr8gd9&revision=_latest

Report from Judge Hansen:



Judgment of Justice John Hansen

Certainly seems like he changed his story to me.

Well, it looks like in the first report, Procter is the one who decided Sachin didn't hear anything..


So I am not sure how we can conclude it was Sachin who changed his story.

 

[Cevno]

HB, multi - quote the posts you want to respond too and put it in 2/3 posts.

 

[honestbharani]

Quite so.

I think one instinctively understands racist abuse is of a different magnitude to calling someone a "See You Next Time". In the UK at least this difference is enshrined in legislation now. Whether one agrees with this or not is a question for another thread, but to use the example of that **** who was gaoled for posting a load of racist guff after Muamba collapsed, if he'd left it at "Muamba's dead LOL" or whatever it was he'd have probably been all right. That he then responded with a torrent of racist invective earned him a holiday at her majesty's pleasure.

Personal attack aside, I've always wondered what it'd be like to live in a world that only has two colours, black or white. Would love to know.

I mean, I find the whole idea that somehow all abuse is equally bad regardless of whether it contains racial under/overtones... difficult to reconcile, tstl.

---

BB's made my argument for me anyway.

I find it amazing that two of the posters I respect the most here at CW are displaying this kind of posting behaviour. While I understand not all kinds of sledging should be treated the same, I am sure you guys can AT LEAST see why what is major level verbal abuse and what is minor level verbal abuse would be different for people from different cultures? As I said before, it is a lot more abusive to me when someone insults my mother or other family members than if someone calls me a monkey? Does it mean I still have to live by rules framed with a totally different culture in mind? If Symonds saying something about my mom hurts me emotionally just as much as it does Symonds when someone calls him a monkey, would he be treated the same way Harbhajan originally was?

 

[honestbharani]

HB, multi - quote the posts you want to respond too and put it in 2/3 posts.

I am trying my best mate.. The thing doesn't seem to work across different pages for some reason for me.




BTW, how many of the guys jumping up and down defending Proctor and saying he was "let down" in this incident actually remember that he gave an interview even before Sydneygate, stating the levels of tolerance he shows for teams like Australia and South Africa is more as they are from more of a "sledging" background or something of that sort?


He was an official ICC match referee at that point and he was basically admitting he was biased towards Aussies and Saffers and Englishmen... If that doesn't let you open for claims of racism, I am not sure what does.


And we have had a whole bunch of posters here calling Gavaskar and Harbhajan "racists" with far less proof..