Much Respect to Harmison

[Ernest]

There is a big difference between playing Zimbabwe in Pakestan or England, than in Zimbabwe.
I feel it wrong to tour Zimbabwe, but fell we have to play them at home, for thier players sakes, not thier fault.

[Occasional Fan]

Zainub, the selection policies of the ZCU are presently under review, I believe, and my understanding is that, if they are found to be racist, then Zimbabwe will be removed from the ICC's fixture lists. There is still a possibility that England will not tour at all if racism is found to be playing a role in the ZCU. Personally, I believe that that is one, but only one, reason for not touring. At least another is that, when matches were played in Zimbabwe during the World Cup, people were attracted to the grounds for their few brief moments to cherish, and were then arrested, imprisoned and abused by the Police for reasons which would not be acceptable in a liberal democracy. There are details of this in the thread entitled "It's just not cricket". I cannot understand why any team would now contemplate touring in Zimbabwe and taking the chance that such abuses would be repeated in connection with their games there.

I am sorry that you seem to have heard enough of the moral issues already, but I am sure that they are not going to go away. I know that the threads on the issue here and on the BBC board can be somewhat repetitive - unsurprisingly, as many people, myself included, are fairly entrenched in our positions on these matters - but I think this is inevitable as people will certainly be trying to influence others' opinions over the coming weeks (and not least the England players' over the next few days).

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by ernest

There is a big difference between playing Zimbabwe in Pakestan or England, than in Zimbabwe.
I feel it wrong to tour Zimbabwe, but fell we have to play them at home, for thier players sakes, not thier fault.

I don’t get it – how come playing against Zimbabwe at home is not immoral, but playing them in Zimbabwe is? How do you define morality?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

I don’t get it – how come playing against Zimbabwe at home is not immoral, but playing them in Zimbabwe is? How do you define morality?

lots of reasons, one we are avoiding playing cricket in Zimbabwe to show our displeasure at the way he has treated his own people, let alone reclaimed land with violence.

He may well have felt he was justyfied in taking the land, it's how you see it, but the way he did it with mobs, killing and worse.
Also in Englands case there are death threats against the players, would you like to go to a place where you had been threatened with death.

No ammount of security will stop the determined attacker, people just go for a stroll in Buckingham Palace these days.

I think it would be wrong not to play the sportspeople who are prepared to travel to play, they are innocent parties in all this, Magabe is a despot, why should we bolster his ego.

I define morality in states, as looking after ones people well being, treating them with respect, seeing to it they had the basics like food sanitation, and can live without fear of persicution.

[Zainub]

Occasional fan - I don't think I will change my views on this issue. For me there are a lot of repressive regimes out there - no body seems to care. But with Zimbabwe, suddenly, things change. People get killed in Palestine and Isreal on a daily basis, thousands of imorral things happen there every day, yet a champion's league match was held there only last week, with no debate over morality. Many countries that thought the war in iraq was immoral participated in the Oympics and competed against the United States, and Great Britian, among other alies. No one ever thought playing against them would be immoral as well since we didn't agree with their policies on certain isssues. It wasn't even brought up. The Pakistani Government for instance was against the war, yet we don't consider it immoral to play against an Australia and England, both being countries who sent troops to a war we consider immoral and illegal. Nations like Great Britian, United States etc, only bring up these issues when their own personal interests are involved. Because of democracy was standard for morility no-one should have been playing Pakistan either. After all our we aren't too much of democratic county either - the head of state happens to be the head of the army as well. And the prime minister got selected then elected. There has never been talk of this being imoral. Or has there been? Standards of judging morality are just not consistent enough for me to be asking sportman to be ambassodors for us in this issue. How can Steve Harmison justify playing against Zimbabwe at home being moral if he thinks touring there is not? It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

[Zainub]

SNIP >> "lots of reasons, one we are avoiding playing cricket in Zimbabwe to show our displeasure at the way he has treated his own people, let alone reclaimed land with violence."

>>What happens to that displeasure when you play them at home, suddenly it vanishes, or may be because there are so many million pounds at stake that you kind of forget you ever had any displeasure at all.

SNIP >> would you like to go to a place where you had been threatened with death.

>> I don't beleive in death threats. Our faith teaches us death is something bound to happen so there is no point in not going to a place where I've been threatened to be killed, I'm just as likely to die anywhere else in the world. That's what my principles are.

SNIP>> I define morality in states, as looking after ones people well being, treating them with respect, seeing to it they had the basics like food sanitation, and can live without fear of persicution.

>>By that defination, I could list a thousand and one places to boycott, and show displeasure against, or as the norm deem immoral. The bottom line for me remains that some people like to say a lot of things about morality, but they don't always seem to apply it every where.

[Pete]

would you like to go to a place where you had been threatened with death

They haven't been threatened this time. I think they should go. Not going to Zimbabwe is not the answer, things will not change in Zimbabwe because a cricket team refuses to tour.

All they've got to do is state, when interviewed, that they do not agree with the things that are happening in Zimbabwe and they're touring because they're just a cricket team and not a political group.

[Ernest]

Pete,
The threat was never lifted, it would be a great ego trip for Mr Magabe, the the very presence of an England team in Zimbabwe, could mean the deaths of demonstating Zimbawin's, hoping Englands presence will highlight thier plite, best not to go, united as a nation I think.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

>>What happens to that displeasure when you play them at home, suddenly it vanishes, or may be because there are so many million pounds at stake that you kind of forget you ever had any displeasure at all.

No, Mr Magabe would be the same despot leader he has always been, but that does not mean we should not play them in tournements in England, India, Australia, Pakistan, the players are individuals .I can't see how playing Zimbabwe at the moment is going to involve millions.

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

I don't beleive in death threats. Our faith teaches us death is something bound to happen so there is no point in not going to a place where I've been threatened to be killed, I'm just as likely to die anywhere else in the world. That's what my principles are.

Well we have strayed into politics, I am not going to talk religion, I will answer your question thus, what you are saying is you would not dodge a car being driven at you, because you think you would die in another way, well I would dodge that same car, and hope to cheat death for as long as possible, we all may have our cards stamped, but I am not going to stamp my own.

Originally Posted by Zainub razvi

By that defination, I could list a thousand and one places to boycott, and show displeasure against, or as the norm deem immoral. The bottom line for me remains that some people like to say a lot of things about morality, but they don't always seem to apply it every where.

Well I am only an individual, but I would not like to think that I am contributing to the suffering of any peoples, I think you are getting mixed up here with a private thing between Mr Magabe and the UK people, he has not forgot the colonial past, even though it was Britain that instigated full international sanctions against Ian Smiths UDI goverment, you would do well to remember that.the Smith government fell.
I am not asking other nations to boycott Zimbabwe, that is for the governments and peoples of individual countries to decide, if they can have normal relations with Magabe, Fine nothing to do with the UK.

If you are talking Israel, it is unsoluble, a freak of history, two religions, and two peoples wanting the same holy city, Jerusalem, partitioned under a UN mandate, would not have made any difference how that would have been partitioned.

How can cricket solve 2000 years of conflict.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by ernest

Pete,
The threat was never lifted

They're hardly going to send a letter saying they've revoked the death threat.

Incidentally, I did want Harmison to sit out these ODI's because I wanted him fresh for the South African series, but not in this way. Irrespective of what's going on in Zimbabwe, he can't dictate who he's willing to play against. The ECB are there to make that choice and if they say it's safe to tour then why not?