Symonds sent home

[silentstriker]

Maybe he has more.....

"Walk a mile in my shoes" or some such thing.

So if I become a racist, I'll have credibility on the subject? I'm not getting into the rest of this thread, but that's just odd reasoning.

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah exactly, that was a weird aspect of it too. Must have cost CA a heap of dosh too.



Don't act like you wouldn't have done the same.

Sachin looked he was in a really, really good mood actually, was bouncing around like a little kid. No-one approached him at all which I'm sure he was pretty happy about. Then as he passed the coffee place I was at, the bloke behind the counter nabbed him and asked for an autograph (heaps of celebrity signatures on plates at this place). I was neaby and joined in the convo. Nice guy.

One of the rare occasions he can enjoy the little joys of life like an ordinary guy. He can't even think of taking a walk outside his house, for fear of being mobbed by fans.

 

[silentstriker]

People on both sides on this matter constantly miss the crucial part of the judgement:

[53] In my view it is therefore necessary to determine under 3.3 whether the
“ordinary person” would be “offended, insulted, humiliated, intimidated, threatened,
disparaged or vilified” on the basis of “their race, religion, gender, colour, descent,
or national or ethnic origin” by the words that were said.

[54] Furthermore, the behaviour must be looked at in context. Such events are
always contextual and the language or gestures referred to in 3.3 cannot be looked at
in isolation and need to be considered in the context of the overall behaviour.

[55] I have set out above the agreed statement of facts. There it was accepted by
Mr Singh that he intended to be offensive towards Mr Symonds and Messrs Symonds, Hayden and Clarke were of the view that in the circumstances that
language was offensive.

[56] In the course of submissions I raised directly with counsel for Cricket Australia
Mr Ward what was the level of offence that Mr Symonds took from what was said to
him. He confirmed that Mr Symonds took the language to be offensive and seriously
insulting but did not consider it fell under the requirements of 3.3.

[57] Given that is the view of the complainant it is hard to see how the requisite
elements of 3.3 could be satisfied. However, given it is an objective interpretation
that is not the end of the matter. I must consider if the “ordinary person” would have
been offended in a 3.3 sense. That again requires a look at context. Mr Singh had
innocently, and in the tradition, of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee’s
bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to
get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not
surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive
under 2.8. But in my view even if he had used the words “alleged” an “ordinary
person” standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and
unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated
in terms of 3.3.

[58] So on that alternative basis I would also have been satisfied that the
requirements of 3.3 were not met. So as to summarise that ground. Firstly, Mr
Symonds through counsel accepts he was not offended in a 3.3 sense. Secondly on
an objective basis I do not consider the response transgressed against 3.3.

Yea, that's the important part here.

 

[Burgey]

So if I become a racist, I'll have credibility on the subject? I'm not getting into the rest of this thread, but that's just odd reasoning.

No, not that at all. More like "I've been a douche and acted like an ass, and I've copped some flak in the media for doing it so I have some idea what he's going through".

I think the comment I responded to was that Jones didn't have any credibility to comment on this coz of his comments about Amla, but I don't think that disqualifies him from his views, for the reasons I've put.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yea, that's the important part here.

Only if you think monkey isn't a racial slur. Hansen isn't black, his adminstration of the reasonable person test should be viewed with that in mind. And yes, it does make a difference.

EDIT: The bit in [57] is egregious, in my opinion;

...But in my view even if he had used the words “alleged” an “ordinary person” standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.

My cousins, Nungas all, might disagree with him I reckon. Let Hansen approach any one of them, call them a monkey and see if he walks away with the impression that they were offended but not in a racial way. His definition of an 'ordinary person' is interesting to say the least.

 

[pup11]

Disciplinary issues won't affect Symonds' selection.
Kind of makes me wonder what to make of this.

 

[Burgey]

Well, I've just heard Symonds is set to replace Morris Iemma.

Details at 6.....

 

[duffer]

My cousins, Nungas all, might disagree with him I reckon. Let Hansen approach any one of them, call them a monkey and see if he walks away with the impression that they were offended but not in a racial way. His definition of an 'ordinary person' is interesting to say the least.

I fail to see how you don't understand the difference between a white man using the slur and another darkie using it.

 

[Top_Cat]

I fail to see how you don't understand the difference between a white man using the slur and another darkie using it.

The difference isn't clear-cut and it's more of a nuanced thing but it's there. If my cousin callled me a monkey, pfft who cares. If another Nunga called me a monkey but his 'tone' was different, I might arc up. Context, tone of voice, 'your perception of their intent, etc. it all matters. You can't say that just because they're both black, therefore any racial slur used between them is automatically inoffensive. That's not reality.

Can tell you there are plenty of tensions between Indians and Nunga here in SA generally. That they're both coloured is irrelevent.

 

[silentstriker]

No, not that at all. More like "I've been a douche and acted like an ass, and I've copped some flak in the media for doing it so I have some idea what he's going through".

I think the comment I responded to was that Jones didn't have any credibility to comment on this coz of his comments about Amla, but I don't think that disqualifies him from his views, for the reasons I've put.

But what Symonds is getting is probably unfair, while Jones really brought it on himself. I don't think works the same way.

Only if you think monkey isn't a racial slur. Hansen isn't black, his adminstration of the reasonable person test should be viewed with that in mind. And yes, it does make a difference.

EDIT: The bit in [57] is egregious, in my opinion;

There are two things:

1. Proof that the word monkey was said,
2. Whether a reasonable person could complain about abuse when he admitted he was the one that started the confrontation

If (1) was satisfied via conclusive proof, the hearing would have ended there. However, (1) wasn't satisfied, but it was admitted that something offensive was said (the content differed between the defendant and the plaintiff). So he had to go on that basis.

 

[Top_Cat]

BThere are two things:

1. Proof that the word monkey was said,
2. Whether a reasonable person could complain about abuse when he admitted he was the one that started the confrontation

If (1) was satisfied, the hearing would have ended there. However, if (1) wasn't satisfied, but it was admitted that something offensive was said (the content differed between the defendant and the plaintiff). So he had to go on that basis.

No, he only went on that in administering the penalty (which was right). What I take issue with is what I detailed above, whether a reasonable person would have been offended even if monkey was used. That's crap unless your definition of a reasonable person is narrow.

 

[duffer]

The difference isn't clear-cut and it's more of a nuanced thing but it's there. If my cousin callled me a monkey, pfft who cares. If another Nunga called me a monkey but his 'tone' was different, I might arc up. Context, tone of voice, 'your perception of their intent, etc. it all matters. You can't say that just because they're both black, therefore any racial slur used between them is automatically inoffensive. That's not reality.

Can tell you there are plenty of tensions between Indians and Nunga here in SA generally. That they're both coloured is irrelevent.

Very true, but knowing Indian people and Indian culture in general it's one of the most inoffensive "slurs" you can use for any person no matter what colour they are. It's more an indicator of your mannerisms and how you carry yourself rather than being racially derogatory.

When I was there and suggested it to people that the term was used because he was black and it implied him being subhuman, they were genuinely shocked. Far and away the majority of people in India had never heard of it being used in that manner.

That's why I can sympathise with Bhajji for the reaction he got from people here, although do understand that IF that is what he said after he had been asked not to by the Aussie team earlier then I'm disgusted.

 

[silentstriker]

No, he only went on that in administering the penalty (which was right). What I take issue with is what I detailed above, whether a reasonable person would have been offended even if monkey was used. That's crap unless your definition of a reasonable person is narrow.

Well, a reasonable person certainly would, especially knowing the racial history of the term.

 

[silentstriker]

And if he didn't know before, he knew after Symonds was racially abused in India. I have no sympathy for racists, and ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[Top_Cat]

Very true, but knowing Indian people and Indian culture in general it's one of the most inoffensive "slurs" you can use for any person no matter what colour they are. It's more an indicator of your mannerisms and how you carry yourself rather than being racially derogatory.

When I was there and suggested it to people that the term was used because he was black and it implied him being subhuman, they were genuinely shocked. Far and away the majority of people in India had never heard of it being used in that manner.

That's why I can sympathise with Bhajji for the reaction he got from people here, although do understand that IF that is what he said after he had been asked not to by the Aussie team earlier then I'm disgusted.

Yeah that's right. If it was proven that he said it, the whole 'in India it's not that offensive and certainly not in the same way' defence would have fallen to bits because of previous behaviour.

 

[Top_Cat]

And if he didn't know before, he knew after Symonds was racially abused in India. I have no sympathy for racists, and ignorance is not an excuse.

Yep and this is why I baulked at the defence offered for the crowds in India. Those doing the monkey dance, even if they didn't fully understand the depth of feeling associated with such a word, they knew before doing it that it got to Symonds and in a big way. That makes them total prats. And Harbhajan, if he used monkey, knew all of this so even if ignorance was an excuse, he couldn't claim it.

 

[silentstriker]

Yep and this is why I baulked at the defence offered for the crowds in India. Those doing the monkey dance, even if they didn't fully understand the depth of feeling associated with such a word, they knew before doing it that it got to Symonds and in a big way. That makes them total prats. And Harbhajan, if he used monkey, knew all of this so even if ignorance was an excuse, he couldn't claim it.

I agree.

 

[Precambrian]

Yep and this is why I baulked at the defence offered for the crowds in India. Those doing the monkey dance, even if they didn't fully understand the depth of feeling associated with such a word, they knew before doing it that it got to Symonds and in a big way. That makes them total prats. And Harbhajan, if he used monkey, knew all of this so even if ignorance was an excuse, he couldn't claim it.

Definitely. The crowd really have no business mocking a sportsperson even on the basis of his mannerisms or anything. It's really sad when sections of Mumbai crowd were doing those monkey acts, and earlier Aussie crowd were accused by SA of calling them racial word kafir. Even, the constant booing of Bhajji was unwanted imho, as it showed how the media had managed in successfully portraying him as a villain there. To his credit, Bhajji did not sulk like Murali, took it like a man, and came out of it rather on top by winning the finals and accounting for Sym and Hay in finals.

 

[pup11]

Yep and this is why I baulked at the defence offered for the crowds in India. Those doing the monkey dance, even if they didn't fully understand the depth of feeling associated with such a word, they knew before doing it that it got to Symonds and in a big way. That makes them total prats. And Harbhajan, if he used monkey, knew all of this so even if ignorance was an excuse, he couldn't claim it.

Couldn't agree with you anymore, the explanation that pops up now and again that how Monkey is not considered a racial slur in India, just doesn't make any sense in this issue as Symonds isn't Indian, he comes from a different ethnic background and culture and a word like monkey could be seriously hurting for him, and if anybody doubted that the incident during the Mumbai Odi (where crowd mocked Symonds calling him a monkey) would have changed all that. I am not saying that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, but those coming with defensive statments such as how Monkey is not an offensive word in India, really should stop doing that, you guys are almost sounding as if even if Harbhajan might have called Symonds a monkey it shouldn't have been a big deal, just because its not an offensive term in India.
That's why i feel all the cricket boards need to educate their contracted players about different cultures and things that are strictly unacceptable on-field.

 

[pup11]

Definitely. The crowd really have no business mocking a sportsperson even on the basis of his mannerisms or anything. It's really sad when sections of Mumbai crowd were doing those monkey acts, and earlier Aussie crowd were accused by SA of calling them racial word kafir. Even, the constant booing of Bhajji was unwanted imho, as it showed how the media had managed in successfully portraying him as a villain there. To his credit, Bhajji did not sulk like Murali, took it like a man, and came out of it rather on top by winning the finals and accounting for Sym and Hay in finals.

WTF? What in Symonds' mannerism is monkey-like, would you be kind enough to let us all know that!!