Black Caps generic thread

[marc71178]

I'm talking about the lack of support England had when they tried to not play Zimbabwe.

 

[bradman2005]

That has to be the longest sentence I've seen in a while...98 words!

And politics never has and never will stay out of sport

Um ok Watever i think ur the only one who cares
i dont care as long as i get my point across

 

[Retox]

I'm talking about the lack of support England had when they tried to not play Zimbabwe.

No one likes the english?

 

[Retox]

Even though he's not performing that well?

He is in the top 10 eco ODI bowlers lately... As I said above. He is not a wicket taker.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Happy to see Bond coming back. It will be great for cricket in general if he reaches his former heights as a player.

 

[sportychic33]

Even though he's not performing that well?

well he can't really be "performing that well", considering that he is just coming back from an injry and hasn't played a game since 9th Jan. Check your facts out

 

[Tim]

It's no surprise that NZ are only getting involved now. Labour need some ammunition for the elections and many New Zealanders agree that Zimbabwe should be banned so this will be seen as a positive move if Labour block them from touring here.

 

[C_C]

Time for consistency- (note: i am NOT pro-Mugabe) : If Zimbabwe is banned for attrocities against human rights, Australia and England should be banned too for attrocities against human rights and invasion of a sovereign nation illegally.

 

[shaka]

Lets keep it focussed and not go on a tangent into politics that have nothing to do with cricket.

 

[shaka]

www.blackcaps.co.nz has a fan poll which asks which player was the unluckiest not to be picked for the NZ cricket tour to Zimbabwe, options are Matthew Sinclair, Daryl Tuffey, Michael Papps or Jeff Wilson, what are your thoughts? I say Sinclair, maybe Jeffo for not being allowed to get more international experience.

 

[marc71178]

Lets keep it focussed and not go on a tangent into politics that have nothing to do with cricket.

C_C will go to any lengths to attack England and Australia I'm afraid, but that is about his worst attempt yet.

 

[C_C]

C_C will go to any lengths to attack England and Australia I'm afraid, but that is about his worst attempt yet

Umm.... dont be an idiot.
I am stating it as it is.
Dont you find it inconsistent that some call for the exclusion of ZIM due to its human rights violation as a state policy but the very same sources do not call for the exclusions of Australia or England due to human rights violation as a state policy in Iraq and waging an illegal war ?

And if you dont, you better explain why not.
Leave yer nationalism at home when you talk to me- i am not nationalistic and i dont care much for nationalism.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Time for consistency- (note: i am NOT pro-Mugabe) : If Zimbabwe is banned for attrocities against human rights, Australia and England should be banned too for attrocities against human rights and invasion of a sovereign nation illegally.

Do you have any understanding of human rights law at all, or what exactly warrants sanctions against a nation for violating human rights?

Let me state absolutely categorically - there are almost NO nations AT ALL who have not violated human rights in some way or another in some fashion or another since the establishment of the various treaties by which we judge basic standards of human rights. Undoubtedly there would be some way to pull out a random example of a country that has never been accused of such, but we can safely say that virtually any country you could care to name has violations of human rights within its borders from time to time, or has state policies in other countries which could be construed to contravene international agreements. This includes, without question, each and every test cricket nation, all of whom in some way or another has violated human rights agreements.

I did a research piece on Australian breaches of human rights agreements recently, and there are plenty which would seem incredibly insignificant on the global scale, but did happen. For example, there was an official challenge at the federal level on the grounds of a human rights agreement breach because in Tasmania sodomy was still illegal, which was seen (correctly, imo) to violate the implied right to privacy and freedom of reasonable behaviour enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a gay man living in that state.

Stepping away from your chosen targets for a moment, Pakistan recently had a parliamentary vote which rejected a change to the law to ban honour killings. Which do you think is a more direct and unquestionable violation of human rights agreements, invading Iraq and thereby going against international opinion and engaging in a war which may potentially be decided by an international court without power to be illegal, or refusing to ban honor killings, a practice SPECIFICALLY prohibited in MANY human rights agreements, including the big one - the UDoHR? Which nation, in your rational, reasonable, unnationalistic mind would be more deserving of a ban from test cricket?

Now, having established that each and every test nation violates human rights and international treaties in some way or another on a semi-regular basis, why has Zimbabwe been singled out? In answering this question why not ask why the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and various other impartial, non anglo-australian biased groups of significance have also singled out Zimbabwe? Could it be that in Australia and England, people's homes are not being bulldozed without reason? That the elections are not rigged? Those who speak out against the government are not exiled from the country, threatened with violence or death or even kicked off the cricket team? Any of the OTHER things which these groups have pointed out? Why was it apartheid South Africa was banned from test cricket, while Australia where aboriginals were marginalised in society was not? Could it be a question of an absolutely monsterous difference in scale and severity, perhaps? The same as this, perhaps?

I've been as critical as anyone over what issues of hypocrisy in dealing with Zimbabwe from Australia do exist (Howard inviting in white farmers who had been kicked off their land as refugees while rejecting Afganistani boat people displaced by allied bombing, for example), but to suggest that the ban of Zimbabwe would equate to a necessary ban for Australia and England from international cricket has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard on this forum. It is just despicably arrogant and ignorant of the relevant facts, and does a great disservice and insult not only to the people of those countries you single out for criticism, but also those have suffered under Mugabe in Zimbabwe for you to so belittle their plight.

 

[C_C]

Do you have any understanding of human rights law at all, or what exactly warrants sanctions against a nation for violating human rights?

I have a decent understanding of this subject matter- decent i say, because i am not familiar with the exact legalese.

Let me state absolutely categorically - there are almost NO nations AT ALL who have not violated human rights in some way or another in some fashion or another since the establishment of the various treaties by which we judge basic standards of human rights.

Agreed. Which makes 'barring a nation' absurdly hypocritical unless you are talking on a far more efficient and damaging programs like apartheid.

I did a research piece on Australian breaches of human rights agreements recently, and there are plenty which would seem incredibly insignificant on the global scale, but did happen. For example, there was an official challenge at the federal level on the grounds of a human rights agreement breach because in Tasmania sodomy was still illegal, which was seen (correctly, imo) to violate the implied right to privacy and freedom of reasonable behaviour enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a gay man living in that state.

This is under the assumption that human rights violations happen only in internal matters and not external.

. Which do you think is a more direct and unquestionable violation of human rights agreements, invading Iraq and thereby going against international opinion and engaging in a war which may potentially be decided by an international court without power to be illegal, or refusing to ban honor killings, a practice SPECIFICALLY prohibited in MANY human rights agreements, including the big one - the UDoHR? Which nation, in your rational, reasonable, unnationalistic mind would be more deserving of a ban from test cricket?

Both are pretty much guilty. Its 'to-MAY-toes/to-MAH-toes' to me.
Irrespective of whether the international court of law have some actual power or not, the question of justice and fairplay must never be tied to the power equation. Hence judiciary(at least in theory) MUST be indepedent of the executive branch of the government.
There are quiete a few human rights attrocities that have happened in Iraq...the catalouge is volumnous.
Since many have died in a systematic, pre-planned template without any reasoning to fairness or in agreement of international LAW ( btw- the war in iraq is in violation to international LAW- not just a matter of difference in opinion between several nations), it is no different to honor-killings or systematic targetting of mugabe's regimen.
People are people- its irrelevant whether you target your own citizens or go butcher people on the other corner of the globe.

In answering this question why not ask why the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and various other impartial, non anglo-australian biased groups of significance have also singled out Zimbabwe? Could it be that in Australia and England, people's homes are not being bulldozed without reason? That the elections are not rigged? Those who speak out against the government are not exiled from the country, threatened with violence or death or even kicked off the cricket team? Any of the OTHER things which these groups have pointed out?

The same Amnesty International, Human Rights Wtch and various other impartial 'non anglo-australian' groups highlight the human rights disaster in Iraq.
They have certainly not singled out Zimbabwe while sitting mum on Iraq as you seem to imply.

Why was it apartheid South Africa was banned from test cricket, while Australia where aboriginals were marginalised in society was not? Could it be a question of an absolutely monsterous difference in scale and severity, perhaps? The same as this, perhaps?

Scale is different, severity, atleast until recently, was not.
Why did Australia escape international sanctions ? because of several geo-political reasons and a much more descrete operatoin from the establishment.
The end results ( apart from a difference in scale) were pretty much the same- but then again, scale is dependent on base population and the aborigines never numbered as many folks as colored folks in RSA.

but to suggest that the ban of Zimbabwe would equate to a necessary ban for Australia and England from international cricket has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard on this forum. It is just despicably arrogant and ignorant of the relevant facts, and does a great disservice and insult not only to the people of those countries you single out for criticism, but also those have suffered under Mugabe in Zimbabwe for you to so belittle their plight.

ironically, the guy who works in the nearby safeway is a zimabwean refugee and he shares the EXACT SAME train of thought as i do- that it is hypocritical to single out Mugabe while not singling out the 'allied' nations in Iraq, who, if anything, have perpetrated human rights violations in the same scale (if not higher) than Mugabe has.
Dont get me wrong- i am not advocating Mugabe to be set scot free.
I would want the whip cracked hard on Mugabe- but so too on the 'allied nations' in Iraq.

At the end of the day, what the bottomline is, is this: Mugabe is committing human rights disaster against his own people, while the allied nations are committing human rights disasters against the Iraqi people. As i said,to-MAY-toes, to-MAH-toes.
Same shyte.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm happy to discuss this further, but I'm not going to hi-jack the black caps thread with another quotewar, so start a new thread if you're interested.

 

[C_C]

I'm happy to discuss this further, but I'm not going to hi-jack the black caps thread with another quotewar, so start a new thread if you're interested.

i dont think this forum is the proper place for this discussion actually.
Why dont you give me your msn email (if you have it) and i will add you to my msn messenger chat...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

i dont think this forum is the proper place for this discussion actually.
Why dont you give me your msn email (if you have it) and i will add you to my msn messenger chat...

Sure. mobyhater@hotmail.com

 

[marc71178]

Umm.... dont be an idiot.
I am stating it as it is.

No, you are not - you are massively over-reacting against the Australians and English - about par for the course though.

 

[C_C]

No, you are not - you are massively over-reacting against the Australians and English - about par for the course though.

I have detailed my reasoning for what you are terming 'overreacting'.
I would certainly like to see any logical reasoning as to why the zimbabwe situation is any different from the iraq situation, apart from the nominal fact that one involves the citizens of a nation brutalising their own folks while the other involves brutalising citizens of a foreign nation.
As per being 'par for the course'- you are yet to show any sorta 'anti-aussie/anti-english' bias i have in a demonstrable fashion.
In short, thou art too touchy and too short on countering my points.
Therefore thou indulge in idiotic personal attacks than countering the point.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just in case anyone is interested, a few NZer's are playing in my local leagues- here are their stats so far

Lou Vincent - I 12 NO 2 HS 110 Runs 281 Ave 28.10
O 114.1 Mds 20 Rns 393 Wks 26 Ave 15.12

Paul Wiseman I 8 NO 2 HS 59 Runs 135 Ave 22.5
O 102.5 Mds 17 Runs 345 W 25 Ave 13.8

Neil Broome I 11 NO 1 HS 89 Runs 247 Ave 24.7
O 58.0 Mds 4 Runs 290 W 4 Ave 72.5

Lou Vincent effectively a bowling allrounder...