Atherton on Zimbabwe

[Langeveldt]

Couldnt help but be angered by an article on Zimbabwe by Atherton in the Telegraph, where he warned of "unrest" and violence, and said an England tour is definitely not on.
When will the cronies and others high up in English cricket realize that touring Zimbabwe is not a "****tail" for violence and unrest... its such rubbish, when will they realize that Mugabe neither cares or will do anything if England tour.. He has convinced himself and his "supporters" that he is above what any English politician says or does... He is immune to condemnation, wherever it comes from...

I hope England get the oppertunity to make a real difference, give the Zims a good hiding in their own back yard, and donate a percentage of their match wages to an AIDS charity or similar...

Sorry to be so negative, but this talk of cancelling a tour a year away worries me...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah, same here

The Aussies almost forfeited the Zimbabwe leg of the world cup, too

 

[Richard]

I totally agree with you on this, Langevelt - it really does baffle me that people think England not touring will make an iota of difference.

 

[luckyeddie]

There's a number of pundits like Athers whose one philosophy nowadays seems to be "If you cannot say nothing, say something stupid".

Nothing like courting controversy to get one in the news.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, it's hardly controversial - everyone knows that ill-informed public opinion is that England not going to Zimbabwe to play cricket will help in some way.
If someone says something in support of this view, they're going to get the empathy vote.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I don't want us in Zimbabwe - however I don't think Zimbabwe have a place at the International table in any context whilst the current dictator is in charge.

So, an English boycott will make very, very little difference and seem like colonial tinkering. You had no problems with their touring here, hence there is no issue with our touring there.

 

[Craig]

I bet the ECB gave into protesters to change their mind not to go to Zimbabwe after deciding to go. It cost England a spot in the Super Sixes.

 

[age_master]

I don't think Zimbabwe have a place at the International table in any context whilst the current dictator is in charge.

have to agree with this.

 

[Salamuddin]

well Pakistan is run by a dictator -- why should there be any place at the international cricket table for them going by your logic ?

 

[Richard]

I don't want us in Zimbabwe - however I don't think Zimbabwe have a place at the International table in any context whilst the current dictator is in charge.

So, an English boycott will make very, very little difference and seem like colonial tinkering. You had no problems with their touring here, hence there is no issue with our touring there.

I agree very much with the top part - I still don't think it will make much of a difference to the Zimbabwean domestic situation but there is a small chance of it doing so. But it has to be a unilateral, uni-cricket thing; not just one nation. That will make sod all difference, and simply further lower the cricket-wide estimation of England.
The Pakistan issue is a strange one, little alluded to but surely of a similar nature. Pervez Musharraf may be a better leader than Mugabe, but he is still a dictator - and that seems to be the main objection to Mugabe.

 

[luckyeddie]

well Pakistan is run by a dictator -- why should there be any place at the international cricket table for them going by your logic ?

Further parallels with respect to suspension from the Commonwealth too, but I'm not pushing this point any further.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The Pakistan issue is a strange one, little alluded to but surely of a similar nature. Pervez Musharraf may be a better leader than Mugabe, but he is still a dictator - and that seems to be the main objection to Mugabe.

The issue is more Human Rights abuses than Dictatorship in my book - and Pakistan does also have elections planned IIRC. China and Cuba are also one-party states, and political ideology/system is not a cause for action until it starts to infringe basic human rights.

And no, China doesn't deserve the Olympics with the Tibet situation.

 

[Richard]

In my book the dictatorship issue would barely be noticed but for the human-rights abuse.

 

[marc71178]

In my book the dictatorship issue would barely be noticed but for the human-rights abuse.

I think that's spot on.

Hounding people out of their farms so that his people could have them is just a small example of the problems.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I think that's spot on.

Hounding people out of their farms so that his people could have them is just a small example of the problems.

Wow, marc and Richard actually agree :O *goes off to mark calendar*

Seriously, though, I have to agree with the consensus here. Zimbabwe shouldn't play international cricket, but as long as there is no unilateral boycott, England shouldn't do anything on their own, and certainly not refuse to tour after Zim's tour last year.

 

[hourn]

What would actually cause more unrest in Zimbabwe is if England didn't tour.

 

[marc71178]

What would actually cause more unrest in Zimbabwe is if England didn't tour.

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

[Langeveldt]

What would actually cause more unrest in Zimbabwe is if England didn't tour.

Most definitely not, the public have more important things to worry about..

And Pakistan's dictator doesnt forcibly starve those who don't support him...

 

[Tom Halsey]

I agree with marc and Langeveldt. But I also agree with Eddie in that pundits go by the rule:
"If I can't say something, I'll say something stupid"

 

[Salamuddin]

Pakistan's dictator has long been accused of sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir.
Human rights groups such as Amnesty International have bemoaned the persecution of Hindu and Christian minority groups in Pakistan under the Musharraf regime.
And democracay activists will tell you that there is no real justice in Pakistan.

Look...I don't want to comment on the wrongs and rights of the regimes of Mugabe and Musharraf. This board isn't the place for that.
My point is the moment you start mixing cricket with politics, you've got some serious questions to answer.

If you exclude Zimbabwe from the ICC on the basis of human rights abuses committed by the Mugabe regime, then why not exclude Pakistan ? Who's to say that the crimes committed by Mugabe's regime are any worse than those of Musharraf's regime ?
Who's to say those crimes are worse than alleged Indian army abuses in Kashmir or alleged Sri Lankan atrocities on the Tamil populace in the Emerald Island ?
Indeed why not consider excluding Australia for their act in detaining Afghan and Iraqi children (seeking asylum) for months on end behind barbed wire in Woomera -- an act soundly condemned by the UNHCR and Amnesty International ?