Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[aussie_26]

They've called the Indian's plenty of expletives in the past let me tell you. I've talked to many of the Indian players on numerous occassions they've come here in Australia and they all respect Australia for their cricket but always say they get a lot of verbal abuse from them.

racist comments ? i dont think so

 

[sirdj]

why did he call symonds a monkey ?

you also have to remember that he had already been told not to use that word, there is a clear cut line about what is racist.

Where is the evidence that he did call Symonds a monkey in Sydney??
And like I said previously the opinion on whether the term monkey is racial is debatable as coloured players like Michael Holding dont think it is.

 

[masterblaster]

racist comments ? i dont think so

Well it's just been proven that Harbhajan didn't say racist comments either, by an impartial New Zealand High Court official. Whatever happened to the age old Australian legal statement 'innocent until proven guilty'? and 'guilty only when proven'?

There was no proof and it was the word of one team against the word of another. Legally, there's not a strong case at all in convicting somebody guilty.

 

[biased indian]

the whole problem here was lack of evidance..i think every one is forgeting the same....

its clearly evident that Harbhajan said some thing...you just have to look the way hayden reacts...but wht was said is some thing no body is sure ..so with no evidance to prove...3 test match ban was too much...

 

[aussie_26]

Where is the evidence that he did call Symonds a monkey in Sydney??
And like I said previously the opinion on whether the term monkey is racial is debatable as coloured players like Michael Holding dont think it is.

there is no way the aussies are going to put on an act like that if he didnt call symonds a monkey.there are some people who wouldnt find anything racist they just dont care, but most would find being called a monkey which is a lesser form of a human because of there colour racist.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Well it's just been proven that Harbhajan didn't say racist comments either, by an impartial New Zealand High Court official. Whatever happened to the age old Australian legal statement 'innocent until proven guilty'? and 'guilty only when proven'?

There was no proof and it was the word of one team against the word of another. Legally, there's not a strong case at all in convicting somebody guilty.

TBBH, MB, those two points are contradictory. Harbhajan's innocence has not been comprehensively proven, it's simply a failure to prove him guilty that has gotten him off.

If it's one's word against another's that is not definitive proof of innocence - it's just ample grounds for exoneration. In principle, and judging by the Australian reaction (which would be bloody hard to stage) Harbhajan is not innocent as such.

Seems reminiscent of the Scottish Not Proven maxim: "We know you did it, but we can't prove it." Seems more appropriate in the circumstances than a 'Not Guilty' ruling.

 

[Tony]

The two cricket boards got together and downgraded the charge to racial abuse...so the question of proof was not even considered in the appeal. There is no proof that Bhajji racially abused Symonds and no proof that he didnt. The charge being downgraded meant that the circumstantial evidence (ie video) showed that something abusive was said and the racist comment issue wasnt even considered.

Did he call Symonds a monkey or not .....we actually dont know.

If he did he should have owned up pleaded guilty with severe provocation from the Australians, spur of the moment etc and with that plea may have been fined half the match fee anyway and saved us all alot of trouble.

 

[sirdj]

there is no way the aussies are going to put on an act like that if he didnt call symonds a monkey.there are some people who wouldnt find anything racist they just dont care, but most would find being called a monkey which is a lesser form of a human because of there colour racist.

Firstly I would never pretend to understand why the Aussies complained, but they could have misheard. Nobody heard exactly what was said. Harbhajan said something....Symonds thinks he said big monkey....Ponting and Hayden heard nothing but just jumped in. Should someone's reputation be soiled based of hearsay? I don't think so.

Secondly monkey does not mean a lesser human, it just means a monkey. Humans did not evolve from Monkeys, they evolved from Apes there are a few millenniums of difference between the two. Stupid humans chanting monkey does not make the word a racial slur, it just shows how uneducated & stupid they are. Stupider humans incorporating it as a racial slur in books of law are equally foolish. If you want a list of racial slurs then you have to consult people who actually face it daily like many Aborigines/Indians/Pakistani/Arabs do in Australia and other western countries.

Symonds is half white AND fairer than Harbhajan. So there is no question about it being about the colour of his skin.

 

[Tony]

Sorry downgraded the charge to abuse but not racial

 

[sirdj]

TBBH, MB, those two points are contradictory. Harbhajan's innocence has not been comprehensively proven.

As per law innocence does not have to be proven, guilt does. You cant punish someone without evidence. No evidence meant that Harbhajan had to be punished for the lesser charge of abuse which he has admitted to.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

As per law innocence does not have to be proven, guilt does. You cant punish someone without evidence. No evidence meant that Harbhajan had to be punished for the lesser charge of abuse which he has admitted to.

Very true. I'm just saying he might not be innocent per se.

 

[Tony]

The debate about whether the word monkey or not is racist has been done to death on here. On the last tour of India the crowd chanted it to Symonds and other incidents....ie it is racist and they know it is racist..and that is the point.

There is plenty things on the web with Indians alleging that Bucknor was racist against them. There is stuff from the west indies saying that the Indians had it in for Bucknor because he was black. So you can go and produce an internet link saying that the word monkey is not racist (like some people had) or you can talk about how black students get treated in India (like someone else did). Again not the point

The question was whether Bhajji said it or not - this was not in fact heard in the end.

Be that as it may I said back awhile that I dont think it should have been reported. If umpires and no-one else hear it and the players says he didnt say it where are you? You do need a high burden of proof in these circs to slur the guy if he is adamant he didnt say it

 

[sirdj]

Very true. I'm just saying he might not be innocent per se.

But you can't, as you have no evidence to base that feeling on.
If that is your opinion then it remains just that, your opinion. You choose to trust the words of Symonds, which is fair enough. But it does not mean that can publicly claim that Harbhajan was guilty without adding the disclaimer(in your opinion) because that is slander.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Seems reminiscent of the Scottish Not Proven maxim: "We know you did it, but we can't prove it." Seems more appropriate in the circumstances than a 'Not Guilty' ruling.

It's popularly known as "guilty, but don't do it again" north of the border, I believe.

 

[Matt79]

According to me there is no place for any kind of sledging in cricket or any other game as it does not give a good example for kids or fans.

But to answer your question, since when have the Aussies been shy of using foul language EVER??
If you are referring to using racial abuses then who gets to decide what constitutes racial abuse? A coloured team or a non-coloured team? And who decides what is worse racial abuse or abuse directed at your family? In the Harbhajan case opinion was split on whether the word monkey was racial in the first place( even Michael Holding said that 'monkey' is not racial), so forget about the complete absence of evidence that he even said it.

That's the second time in this thread you've suggested that only "coloured" (to use your language) teams have the right to define what constitutes racism within cricket - an extremely poor and objectionable attitude in my opinion. Its besides the point in this instance anyway as Symonds would presumably fall into your definition of "coloured".

As to whether family-based abuse is worse than racism, its been a fairly commonly held view around the world that racism is worse. The UN has a charter against racism, and racial vilification is actually illegal in several countries, including Australia. So Bhajji could count himself fortunate not to be defending himself against a criminal charge.

 

[Matt79]

The recording from stump cam, as shown on channel 9 tonight, seems to show pretty clearly that several Australian players all immediately thought that they heard Harbhajan call Symonds a monkey.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As per law innocence does not have to be proven, guilt does. You cant punish someone without evidence. No evidence meant that Harbhajan had to be punished for the lesser charge of abuse which he has admitted to.

You're conflating two different points there. I'd agree that the case against Harbhajan wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it doesn't then follow there was no evidence. There was no prima facie evidence, but there was some pretty strong secondary and circumstantial evidence against him.

 

[sirdj]

The debate about whether the word monkey or not is racist has been done to death on here. On the last tour of India the crowd chanted it to Symonds and other incidents....ie it is racist and they know it is racist..and that is the point.

There is plenty things on the web with Indians alleging that Bucknor was racist against them. There is stuff from the west indies saying that the Indians had it in for Bucknor because he was black. So you can go and produce an internet link saying that the word monkey is not racist (like some people had) or you can talk about how black students get treated in India (like someone else did). Again not the point

The question was whether Bhajji said it or not - this was not in fact heard in the end.

Be that as it may I said back awhile that I dont think it should have been reported. If umpires and no-one else hear it and the players says he didnt say it where are you? You do need a high burden of proof in these circs to slur the guy if he is adamant he didnt say it

The argument here is not on whether Indians are racist, its on whether the word monkey is a racial slur or not
The word monkey being a racial slur is highly debatable. By adding stupid words like monkey in the list of racial terms you trivialize the really ugly concept of racialism.

 

[sirdj]

You're conflating two different points there. I'd agree that the case against Harbhajan wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it doesn't then follow there was no evidence. There was no prima facie evidence, but there was some pretty strong secondary and circumstantial evidence against him.

There are pretty strong secondary and circumstantial evidence that ALIENS exist but I would not bet my life on it.
If that is good enough for you......so be it. But you can't slander someone based on circumstantial and secondary evidence.

 

[Andrew Pollock]

If people feel the need to sledge, they should only say what they would to a Tongan bouncer in front of a nightclub. If you get a beating, you should not say it on the field.