CA slams 'bigotry' against Ahmed

[Fusion]

But to have special laws based on religions is borderline madness.

First, it's not about having a "special law", but rather an exemption from a rule. Just as religion shouldn't be imposed on anyone, I would think it's perfectly ok to accommodate someone's religious beliefs as long as they're not unreasonable.

I'm a fan of a baseball team which up until recently had two players that didn't drink alcohol. Neither player's decision to abstain was because of religion (one was a recovering substance abuser and the other simply believed in a "no drugs/alcohol" philosophy). When the team won the division and the league, instead of the traditional champaign shower, they celebrated with ginger ale. I realize the situation is different in the case of Ahmed because it's a sponsor issue and not a voluntary tradition, but being accommodating can actually promote harmony and even strengthen the team bond.

 

[uvelocity]

Huh tell that to Bradman fanatics and Sachin fanatics and see the response.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Flibberty is right here.

Hope the BBC is sufficiently far removed from the Fail as a source.

That was where I read it. Don't read the Fail so knew it wasn't there I had seen it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

In all seriousness, who gives a ****. If he doesn't want to wear the logo then give him a shirt with no logo on it.

What I'm more concerned about is that the shirt hasn't had the common decency to object to wearing Mitchell Johnson.

 

[Furball]

Beats the deep fried mars bar they give in Scotland though.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah they have stopped giving Champagne, after Toure politely declined it. A classic moral panic by white/non-muslims who get offended on behalf of everyone else. Toure literally didn't care that he was handed champers and gave to Lescott, but for fear of causing offence (despite no one in the actual group themselves complaining or being consulted) the practise was changed.

No problem with Ahmeds objection, he is entitled to his views and as the sponsors agreed then it is a none issue. David Campese is a bigot, end of story.

Also a point on Khawaja, its a bit of a myth that Muslims can't drink alcohol. The Quran only directly mentions wine as being 'haram' (vaguely mentions other intoxicants I believe but none specifically), and many of my Muslim friends drink whiskey socially. Perhaps Khawaja feels this way or is indeed not a Muslim.

 

[Red]

What could have been done- Ahmed says to Cricket Australia "Look, the VB logo goes against my religious beliefs, could I be exempt from wearing it?" CA approach VB and VB says "no worries". Everyone is happy, and everyone gets on with life.

What actually happened- VB got a ****load of free advertising. What is made out to be a moral/religious/ethical issue is actually just a scummy corporate win. Then other tossers chime in with their opinion because they see themselves as relevant and important.

 

[Burgey]

Who cares if Khawaja is Moslem and likes a drink, if that's the case?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I imagine his local boozer is probably pretty chuffed.

 

[benchmark00]

Unless things have changed over the last year or so (may have seeing as though he's moved to hicksville) Usman does not drink alcohol.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, now.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[benchmark00]

He probably just fits into the 'not strictly devout' category and may not see advertising rats piss (cribb) as a massive issue.

I know plenty of people who consider themselves Christians/Catholics/whatever and still bend their missus over thrice a weekend despite not being married.

 

[watson]

It has always been the case that the only difference between a moraliser and everyone else is the general level of hypocrisy and patronising behaviour. I can't see that fact changing any time soon.

 

[Prince EWS]

What could have been done- Ahmed says to Cricket Australia "Look, the VB logo goes against my religious beliefs, could I be exempt from wearing it?" CA approach VB and VB says "no worries". Everyone is happy, and everyone gets on with life.

What actually happened- VB got a ****load of free advertising. What is made out to be a moral/religious/ethical issue is actually just a scummy corporate win. Then other tossers chime in with their opinion because they see themselves as relevant and important.

You make some seriously weird posts whenever you decide to go non-cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

To play devil's advocate slightly, why are religious objections to advertising logos treated as a separate category to other, some might argue more salient, disinclinations to wearing them?

If folk what to go to whatever building of their choice and talk to their invisible chum (or chums for polytheists), that's all good but should they qualify for special treatment? What if, say, Chris Rogers was a CAMRA member and objected to a VB logo on the (reasonable) grounds that it's macro brewed pisswater? Should he be excused too?

Yeah I agree with this. I'd like to think that if Rogers actually raised such a weird concern he'd be granted the same exemption for the same reason but I honestly just think they should both cop the logo. Suggesting that Ahmed "go home" is obviously a terrible thing to say but he's quite welcome to not be a professional sportsman if he has issues with certain kinds of legal and common advertising on his gear. As long as VB is happy enough though then it's obviously not actually an issue.

 

[benchmark00]

Did you have a problem with the great man refusing to tour Zimbabwe?

 

[Prince EWS]

Did you have a problem with the great man refusing to tour Zimbabwe?

Nah absolutely not. Withdrawing from the squad is obviously a different issue though.

 

[benchmark00]

Nah absolutely not. Withdrawing from the squad is obviously a different issue though.

So you don't feel as though he should have 'copped' it?

Presumably Fawad would have to withdraw from the squad if his request was declined. Is there a difference?

 

[benchmark00]

Just a question btw, don't necessarily agree with that. Just wondering where you draw the line.

 

[Prince EWS]

So you don't feel as though he should have 'copped' it?

Presumably Fawad would have to withdraw from the squad if his request was declined. Is there a difference?

I'd have no issue with Fawad withdrawing from the squad if he felt that was the right thing to do. "Cop it if he wants to play" is what I meant.