The Harbhajan ban: a cross cultural view
R. Bharat Rao
the completely polar views taken by the two camps -- many rsc veterans
whose opinions I respected had opinions completely opposite to what
seemed to be an obvious miscarriage of misjustice (and a equal number
agreed with me as well). Upon reflection, I believe the differing
reactions may spring from our cultural differences. And this, I'm
afraid, will be repeated in the Harbhajan scenario.
In this thread, I want to look only at the Harbhajan incident. I
don't care about the umpiring errors, or even if Harbhajan was sledged
rudely by Symonds. Just whether Harbhajan used a racial slar at
Sydney (no matter what the provocation, if any or none), and why
seemingly reasonable people have such polar views on the issue of the
ban that has been handed out.
Obwarning: I'm not a psychologist, nor do I play one on rsc.
Obwarning 2: If psychobabble isn't your cup of tea, hit skip.
The difference, at least in the Denness case, I now believe lies in
the importance that different people place upon "process," as drawn
from my personal & cultural experiences. I am Indian by birth and
education, and haved worked for many years in the US for a multi-
national company with roots in Europe. My company takes "process"
extremely seriously, with the view that good processes are essential
to having good outcomes. This is a generalization of course, but I
find that folks out of Europe are much much much more process-oriented
than myself and others from India, and this is something I have to
consciously work on and avoid slipping into my more natural mode of
"what is the specific problem here; lets just fix it."
So in the Denness affair, the "process-oriented" group's stance was:
"there was a process in place; it was followed -- report by umpires to
an independent independent arbiter -- the MR -- who ruled. Suck it
up, and if you don't like it, change the process. But don't try to
fix this one incident ."
The opposing camp, which I was call the "justice-oriented" camp said:
"There is an an obvious miscarriage of justice. The injustice needs to
be fixed -- and we will worry about the process later."
A second factor, that is very important to many of the "justice-
oriented" group, and I believe, to many Indians, is their reputation.
To have your reputation besmirched unfairly would be intolerable to
many. Personally speaking, were I to be accused and condemned of a
racial slur (and banned) without sufficient evidence, I would use
every means at my disposal to not only clear my name, and would stop
at nothing, even if it meant crippling the ICC with long-drawn out
legal processes. One key point in the Denness episode was that I
don't think "process-oriented" group understood just how damaging the
accusation of cheating was perceived to be by Indians.
And a similar situation seems to be developing here. What aggreives
me (and presumably some of my fellow-Indians) is that there seems to
be a clear injustice. On what basis can you ban one player based
purely on one man's word against the other?
It is important to me, not only that the process be fair, but that it
be demonstrably shown to be fair. So far, all we know for sure is
that no umpires heard anything, no stump mikes heard anything,
Harbhajan denies racially abusing Symonds, and the only one close to
the exchange was Sachin Tendulkar who agrees with that. So at best it
appears to be one man's word against another.
The Proctor statement "This was not a case of just taking the word of
an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the
process was a fair one." is not enough for me (and I imagine that it
isn't enough for most other Indians). In my justice-oriented view of
the world, I want to know what evidence there was for Proctor ruling
the way he did. The fact the Harbhajan did or didn't abuse Symonds in
India is irrelevant -- he is being banned for abusing him on the field
in THIS Test. While I'm fully prepared to believe that Harbhajan may
have done so, I need to see hard proof that used to come to this
conclusion before taking such a serious action. Not that he likely
abused him, or may have abused him, but that he clearly did. This is
not a "pick the more likely of the two outcomes" but my sense of
justice tells me a case of "innocent until proven guilty," where the
burden of proof on the prosecution is far greater than than on the
defense.
And, the process-oriented group is again saying that "well, an
impartial arbiter ruled against Harbhajan. Let him take his ban. Don't
be crybabies and call off the tour" whereas the justice-oriented group
seems to say "how can you find Harbhajan guilty without proof of his
wrongdoing? How can you assume that because he abused Symonds in India
3 months ago, that he did the same here?"
The situation isn't helped by people dragging in the umpiring into
this issue -- it is irrelevant -- or that Harbhajan was provoked --
that may be a reason to expect leniency or clemency, but again isn't
relevant to the basic question of his guilt. On what evidence was
Harbhajan found guilty.
The Bucknor situation is a microcosm of this same argument. The
process-oriented folks say "The ICC has appointed Bucknor -- end of
story" whereas the justice-oriented folks say "You have to be
kidding. How can you expect India to take the field with that fool at
the helm" In this one, I have some more acceptance of the process
oriented view, as again no one's integrity is involved here, but in
the Harbhajan matter, I find myself fully in the "justice" camp --
show me why you ruled that way Mr. Referee, or reverse the ban.
And I am very concenred that if such evidence isn't produced, and if
Harbhajan's ban isn't reversed, that the tour will be called off. It
will be a pity, but for the "process" folks to dismiss that reaction
as "a bunch of whiners" would be as incorrect as the "justice" folks
labeling all the process folks "a bunch of racists."
If wiser heads do not prevail and demand increased transperancy from
Mike Proctor to satisfactorily show the evidence he used to rule
against Harbhajan, I suspect we will not see any more India-Australia
cricket in 2008.
Bharat
Madhav
"R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b35fd4a-ec56-436f...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Nice analogies and comments but the fundamental problem is
Australians will "never" accept equality.
There is not even a single australian fan on this newsgroup
with the guts and conscience to accept the truth and facts.
Even the moderately reasonable Fran, Ian Galbraith, JPD, Rod and
a couple of other australian fans on rsc are showing their
true colors with endless spin of the events and justifying
Australian behavior and Harbhajans unjustifiable and
indefensible ban.
100% of Australian fans on rsc live in a denial state denying
racism at every instance and spinning every situation
and event.
As an example how many of these australian rsc fans
in Fran, Ian Galbraith, Rod, JPD responded and
countered Will_S, alvey, wedge, sceptical RACIALLY
ABUSING Indians in every thread ?
NONE.
As long as these fundamental problems are not resolved,
these "process oriented' and 'justice oriented"
theories dont apply.
Look at the justice system in west. The moment
some one is accused, both the prosecution and
the defense starts spinning, lying, spreading
rumours and false stories in the media to
get manipulate the masses and the media.
Justice system in the western culture is
turned into ENTERTAINMENT and
a competition between the PROSECUTION
and the DEFENSE to find out who is the
BETTER LIAR and SPINNER.
I do not call Fran, Ian Galbraith, JPD, Rod
as racists but you can see the effect of this
fundamental problem in the western culture
on their opinions and views in crisis
situations like current one.
sudha
R. Bharat Rao wrote:
> In the aftermath of the Mike Denness affair, I remained surprised by
> the completely polar views taken by the two camps -- many rsc veterans
> whose opinions I respected had opinions completely opposite to what
> seemed to be an obvious miscarriage of misjustice (and a equal number
> agreed with me as well). Upon reflection, I believe the differing
> reactions may spring from our cultural differences. And this, I'm
> afraid, will be repeated in the Harbhajan scenario.
>
> In this thread, I want to look only at the Harbhajan incident. I
> don't care about the umpiring errors, or even if Harbhajan was sledged
> rudely by Symonds. Just whether Harbhajan used a racial slar at
> Sydney (no matter what the provocation, if any or none), and why
> seemingly reasonable people have such polar views on the issue of the
> ban that has been handed out.
>
> The Bucknor situation is a microcosm of this same argument. The
> process-oriented folks say "The ICC has appointed Bucknor -- end of
> story" whereas the justice-oriented folks say "You have to be
> kidding. How can you expect India to take the field with that fool at
> the helm" In this one, I have some more acceptance of the process
> oriented view, as again no one's integrity is involved here, but in
> the Harbhajan matter, I find myself fully in the "justice" camp --
> show me why you ruled that way Mr. Referee, or reverse the ban.
>
> And I am very concenred that if such evidence isn't produced, and if
> Harbhajan's ban isn't reversed, that the tour will be called off. It
> will be a pity, but for the "process" folks to dismiss that reaction
> as "a bunch of whiners" would be as incorrect as the "justice" folks
> labeling all the process folks "a bunch of racists."
>
> If wiser heads do not prevail and demand increased transperancy from
> Mike Proctor to satisfactorily show the evidence he used to rule
> against Harbhajan, I suspect we will not see any more India-Australia
> cricket in 2008.
>
> Bharat
Bharat,
The system/process you are refering to is called the New Jersey
Turnpike rule n the US.
The speed limit on that highway is 65mph. Almost all cars travel above
65mph, most of them around 70-80mph. When a cop spots a car driven by
a certain community it is stopped and the rule book is thrown at them
(but an evidence is shown in the form of radar output readings). This
is precisely how the ICC ystem has been working in the lat few years.
In this case there is no evidence other than hearsay and no neutral
(or is it neutered) party has given evidence. This cannot stand in a
court of law.
If this had happened in the US the concerned parties would be
discussing an out of court award settlement for Harby by now.
Good luck
Raj
Lindsay Went
A thoughtful post. And there's a big difference in how to respond to
such injustices. I was amazed that Pakistan were willing to concede a
game they were winning over an injustice. I would have wanted the
captain's head had that been the Australian response in that situation.
With that experience as a guide, I was not surprised to see India pull
the plug pending a successful appeal. The general view in my circle of
friends and relatives is
a) Australia have got the hide of an elephant complaining about
something that's said to them on the field, with their history. And
knowing the people involved, it's not like they wouldn't have said
something first.
b) India are being a bunch of sooks by not accepting the umpire's
verdict and threatening to take their bat and ball and go home.
So there's very little sympathy for Australia's complaints and claims of
purity but not much more for India's response.
I consider that the appeals process is tainted beyond measure by the
intimidation, they have no choice but to acquit Harby, which might have
happened anyway since it was the verdict I was expecting the first time
due to the lack of corroborating evidence. I'd prefer it if we didn't
bother holding an appeal and just had the ICC overrule the decision to
satisfy India.
If it was an Australian who'd been nailed in the same circumstances and
I thought he was innocent I'd be looking for us to go through the
appeals process, and if we lose, simply undermine the decision itself
with powerful attacks upon the grounds for making that decision. The
idea being to de-legitimize the decision rather than to go home if the
decision was wrong. The penalty is ultimately of nuisance value if your
people think you were right.
Ponting's problem here is that a lot of Australians don't think he's
right and are unimpressed with his dismissive response to the Indian
complaints. This was exemplified in Roebuck's shrill piece this morning.
It was long on rhetoric and short on logic but he reflected the
emotional reaction very well.
And I agree there's a big difference in those differing approaches to
dealing with an injustice and I enjoyed the clear way you put it together.
vgu...@gmail.com
You make some good points, but I think in an emotionally charged
arguments, process and justice oriented people often use whichever
form of logic that is convenient. For instance, I think there are
Aussies here, whose knee jerk reaction to even relatively documented
stuff on the field is, "prove it," and the standard of proof is that
you'd have had to be a fly sitting on the drying sweat of one of the
players and have not only a miked recording but a sheepish video of
the player after the fact admitting that yes he'd been a bad boy.
Think back to some of the defense of Slater's behaviour in India. Many
of these same people are saying that Symonds said he heard HS call him
a monkey, and 4 people on his team corroborated it, and it must be so.
This is a process-oriented group making a justice oriented argument,
as you would call it. Similarly, we have Indians here who would have
shouted bloody murder had an Indian player accused an Aussie of racist
sledging. They'd be posting for his head! These same people who
believe justice should be done, process be damned, suddenly believe in
process - show me the proof/process that Proctor used to arrive at his
conclusion.
My opinion - problem is that emotion has taken over and all logic or
rational thinking patterns abandoned.
V
R. Bharat Rao
wrote:
> And I agree there's a big difference in those differing approaches to
Thanks for your thoughtful response Lindsay. One final comment --
SDM's post indicated that he viewed this as a mere administrative
decison -- not a legal one. And really not a big deal. OTOH, most
Indians -- myself included -- view this as a very big deal, and will
do whatever it takes to preserve it.
One final point -- a lot of people have tried to turn this into,
"isn't it more likely that Harbhajan said it than he didn't" or "isn't
Symonds lying"? I actually find this irrelevant.
Without saying which one of (A) Harbhajan racially abused Symonds and
is lying (B) Symonds made it up and is lying or (C) Neither is lying,
its just a mis-heard word -- without saying which one I think is most
likely, my position is.
As long as there is at least a small chance (say at least 20%) that
(B) OR (C) occured, in the absence of firm proof, Harbhajan must be
acquitted.
And that -- if you see the repeated statements from the Indian camp
about there being no proof or corroborating evidence -- is the key.
Without any proof, the assumption is the Harbhajan will be absolved.
And I suspect most "process-oriented" folks just don't -- or can't --
understand that.
> If it was an Australian who'd been nailed in the same circumstances and
> I thought he was innocent I'd be looking for us to go through the
> appeals process, and if we lose, simply undermine the decision itself
> with powerful attacks upon the grounds for making that decision. The
> idea being to de-legitimize the decision rather than to go home if the
> decision was wrong.
This is the process oriented view - fight it through the process.
> The penalty is ultimately of nuisance value if your
> people think you were right.
And again, here is the different response. If the accustation is
false, the "justice-oriented" view is to refuse to accept the penalty
-- period. By accepting the penalty, in some way you tacitly admit
your guilt. If Harbhajan is banned, his reputation will be damaged
in Indian circles -- my family may well feel "shamed". If, OTOH, he
fights it tooth and nail by any means possible, and is finally banned
(in much the way Sehwag was), he in fact, gains in stature. I'm
simplifying a complex social phenomenon (summed up often by the older
generation as "what will people say of us if.. ?") but accepting this
penalty meekly (which is what appealing and accepting the ban after
the rejected appeal would be) when you believe it is wrong goes
against the very fabric of Indian society.
So the penalty will be appealed against, and if it isn't overturned
-- then watch out. It is definitely not a "I will appeal and accept
the verdict if it goes against me" situation. Any appeal that only
reviews the procedures (did the MR use the correct procedures, which
would be the primary concern of the "process" folks) and not the
content of the hearing, would only further incense the "justice" folks
that the world was out to get them..
The ONLY way the ban will be accepted (at least in the short run) will
be if Proctor produces irrefutable proof or at the least some evidence
that indicates that it was highly highly likely that Harbhajan used
the slur - for instance, catching him saying "monk" on tape would
suffice to convince most people that he did use the slur (though it
may not be enough in a court of law).
The only other alternative is a delaying one -- to suggest that this
be reviewed after the tour end (particularly if they remove Bucknor on
some technicality) -- and then it may be possible to quietly give
Harbhajan a suspended sentence or a 1-Test ban, and as long as all
this happens after the furore has died down. But, right now, nothing
less than a revocation (which I fear won't come, because it goes
against every instinct of the "process" folks) will satisfy folks.
Bharat
trop...@gmail.com
> Nice analogies and comments but the fundamental problem is
> Australians will "never" accept equality.
We've got a lot more equality than India. We don't have your caste
system for starters.
Abhijit
Nice analysis. Having gone through many posts and reactions elsewhere,
I see another "cultural" aspect that I think has led to the dichotomy
of opinions. I am talking about the word "monkey" involved in this
case. [I am not concerned for the moment whether that really is
involved or not.]
The fact that "monkey" hardly goes beyond a small joke in Indian
community makes an Indian in general wonder how come such an utterance
(if at all, there are doubts) be taken so seriously so as to result in
a big punishment. After all, majority of Indians even worship a god
who has the form of a monkey. How can such a word be thought of as a
racial abuse? The fact that the alleged offendor is an Indian, his
psychlogical make-up will always be that "monkey" is not an abusive
term, let alone racist. Now the fact that is being repeated is given
the incidents in India, he was aware "monkey" is unacceptable ramark
to make against Symonds, but that's it. It is "unacceptable" to
Symonds. That is, he gets annoyed on hearing this. But racial abuse?
No way. So when led to a situation of confrontation, he would like to
say something that annoys the annoyer. Quite obvious. [Please don't
take it as justification of anything, for there is no evidence beyond
suspicion one way or the other.]
Now coming to the other culture, it is apparent "monkey" is considered
a derogatory term. I am still not fully convinced, it is considered
"racist" sensu stricto though some posters have tried to use the sub-
human analogy. Thus, they have a point of supporting the punishment
(again given that the word is uttered in the first place which remains
inconclusive).
So it turns out to be a clash of cultures. The question then is which
side should the administration take? The involvement of 2 cultures
here is 50-50. I would expect an able administrator to stand above the
cultural differences and not look at the issue from his own cultural
perspective. Has that happened? I doubt it.
R. Bharat Rao
> You make some good points, but I think in an emotionally charged
> arguments, process and justice oriented people often use whichever
> form of logic that is convenient. For instance, I think there are
> Aussies here, whose knee jerk reaction to even relatively documented
> stuff on the field is, "prove it," and the standard of proof is that
> you'd have had to be a fly sitting on the drying sweat of one of the
> players and have not only a miked recording but a sheepish video of
> the player after the fact admitting that yes he'd been a bad boy.
> Think back to some of the defense of Slater's behaviour in India. Many
> of these same people are saying that Symonds said he heard HS call him
> a monkey, and 4 people on his team corroborated it, and it must be so.
> This is a process-oriented group making a justice oriented argument,
> as you would call it. Similarly, we have Indians here who would have
> shouted bloody murder had an Indian player accused an Aussie of racist
> sledging. They'd be posting for his head! These same people who
> believe justice should be done, process be damned, suddenly believe in
> process - show me the proof/process that Proctor used to arrive at his
> conclusion.
>
> My opinion - problem is that emotion has taken over and all logic or
> rational thinking patterns abandoned.
There is some truth in what you say, but there is a difference between
proof and process. Proof applies to both the "process" and "justice"
oriented views.
And obviously, people are extremely complex organisms. Labelling them
as one or the other is a gross over-simplification, and people will
use different reasoning systems at different time -- and oft-time on
rsc, no reasoning system or an alvey-reasoning system :-)
My point here is, in some sense both sides are "right" based on their
own systems. However, not understanding why this has completely
outraged the Indian team, and where that outrage springs from, will
lead to disaster.
Bharat
Geico Caveman
well.
R. Bharat Rao
Good point. I don't find it racist at all -- I frequently call
naughty children (my own, nephews, neices, children of close friends.
etc.) "little monkeys" and mean it affectionately -- but I'm going to
be very careful now (at least with the kids of non-Indian friends) in
using that word.
However, to me the issue is whether he said it. If he said it not
meaning it to be racist, I would be unhappy that he was banned, but
I'd accept it. (Actually, given the coverage in India, I'd expect him
to know it was perceived as racist -- so thats moot.)
To me the fundamental issue is "can it be proven that Harbhajan said
it -- if not acquit him"? Not, "its quite likely he said it, so ban
him" or "if we wait to get 100% proof, then no one will be
punished" (another common process-oriented response to this scenario,
which is clearly perceived to be different from a case of law.)
Regards,
Bharat
cricd...@hotmail.com
between process and justice. The purpose of process is,
in cases like these, to make sure that justice is done.
There are times when, as you say, process does not lead
to justice. The solution is not simply to fix the process
to prevent future injustices, but also to reverse the
miscarriage. This is not an eastern or western approach,
but an universal one. You'll be familiar, I'm sure, of the
case of the Georgia teen convicted of child molestation
for having consensual sex with a fellow teenager. After
the harsh mandatory sentence was handed down, the law was
changed, *and* (after an unconscionable delay) his sentence
was commuted.
Fixing the present situation, though, would require, as
you observe, "transparency" and the ICC has shown itself
on occasion after occasion to be opaque (not to mention
obtuse).
vgu...@gmail.com
Good point that there is a difference between proof and process. I
thought about that too, shortly after hitting send. I think Abhijit's
point elsewhere about the extent of the cultural difference in the
meaning of the term monkey is also key. I don't know if HS said it,
and if he did say it after warning, the guy is pretty dense. However,
it is worthwhile pointing out just how harmless the term
"bandar" (monkey for non-Hindi speakers) is in India. It is nearly a
term of endearment; something I call my kids practically every day,
though I have spent half my childhood in India and half in the States
(where the term would probably have similar connotations to
Australia). Despite having grown up here, I find it very hard to get
charged up about this term. Yes, I know it is not my right to decide
what Symonds finds offensive and so I'd support the ban if HS did say
it, but I'd have a pretty hard time swallowing that the guy meant it
as a racist comment, consciously or subconsciously.
V
Ian Galbraith
First let me say you've raised some interesting points.
[snip]
> And a similar situation seems to be developing here. What aggreives
> me (and presumably some of my fellow-Indians) is that there seems to
> be a clear injustice. On what basis can you ban one player based
> purely on one man's word against the other?
Except its not just Symonds vs Harbhajan. Reportedly 5 Australian players
(including Symonds) heard the remark, and of course there is Tendulkar on
the Indian side.
[snip]
> The Proctor statement "This was not a case of just taking the word of
> an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the
> process was a fair one." is not enough for me (and I imagine that it
> isn't enough for most other Indians). In my justice-oriented view of
> the world, I want to know what evidence there was for Proctor ruling
> the way he did. The fact the Harbhajan did or didn't abuse Symonds in
> India is irrelevant -- he is being banned for abusing him on the field
> in THIS Test. While I'm fully prepared to believe that Harbhajan may
> have done so, I need to see hard proof that used to come to this
> conclusion before taking such a serious action. Not that he likely
> abused him, or may have abused him, but that he clearly did. This is
> not a "pick the more likely of the two outcomes" but my sense of
> justice tells me a case of "innocent until proven guilty," where the
> burden of proof on the prosecution is far greater than than on the
> defense.
Transparency is fair enough. Given the gravity of the situation they
should be more transparent in how the decision was arrived at.
> And, the process-oriented group is again saying that "well, an
> impartial arbiter ruled against Harbhajan. Let him take his ban. Don't
> be crybabies and call off the tour" whereas the justice-oriented group
> seems to say "how can you find Harbhajan guilty without proof of his
> wrongdoing? How can you assume that because he abused Symonds in India
> 3 months ago, that he did the same here?"
Its evidence of a possible pattern of behaviour. Its obviously not
evidence by itself but it adds weight.
[snip]
> The Bucknor situation is a microcosm of this same argument. The
I don't think many are defending Bucknor.
[snip]
--
"If nothing that we do matters, then all that matters is what we do" -
Angel
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> The system/process you are refering to is called the New Jersey
> Turnpike rule n the US.
> The speed limit on that highway is 65mph. Almost all cars travel above
> 65mph, most of them around 70-80mph. When a cop spots a car driven by
> a certain community it is stopped and the rule book is thrown at them
> (but an evidence is shown in the form of radar output readings). This
> is precisely how the ICC ystem has been working in the lat few years.
> In this case there is no evidence other than hearsay and no neutral
> (or is it neutered) party has given evidence. This cannot stand in a
> court of law.
You obviously no nothing about courts of law. Direct testimony by a
person of what that person heard is not hearsay. Hearsay would be Tait
testifying that Symonds told him that Harbhajan called him (Symonds) a
monkey.
To quote the dicitonary definition:
hear·say
Pronunciation[heer-sey]
–noun
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and
not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a
malicious hearsay.
–adjective
[snip]
--
"It is almost impossible systematically to constitute a natural moral
law. Nature has no principles. She furnishes us with no reason to believe
that human life is to be respected. Nature in her indifference, makes no
distinction between good and evil." - Anatole France
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> With that experience as a guide, I was not surprised to see India pull
> the plug pending a successful appeal. The general view in my circle of
> friends and relatives is
>
> a) Australia have got the hide of an elephant complaining about
> something that's said to them on the field, with their history. And
> knowing the people involved, it's not like they wouldn't have said
> something first.
Yeah well that just indicates a complete lack of understanding about
racial abuse, just like Tony Greig and sadly Sunil Gavaskar.
And I say again, if what Symonds said to Harbhajan was so bad why haven't
they reported him like they've done to Hogg who merely (from an Aust.
POV) called Harbhajan a bastard.
[snip]
> I consider that the appeals process is tainted beyond measure by the
> intimidation, they have no choice but to acquit Harby, which might have
> happened anyway since it was the verdict I was expecting the first time
> due to the lack of corroborating evidence. I'd prefer it if we didn't
> bother holding an appeal and just had the ICC overrule the decision to
> satisfy India.
The ICC been seen to roll over on India? Yeah that would help their image
no end.
> If it was an Australian who'd been nailed in the same circumstances and
> I thought he was innocent I'd be looking for us to go through the
> appeals process, and if we lose, simply undermine the decision itself
> with powerful attacks upon the grounds for making that decision. The
> idea being to de-legitimize the decision rather than to go home if the
> decision was wrong. The penalty is ultimately of nuisance value if your
> people think you were right.
Australia would simply resolve to nail India to the wall in the next test
and come out breathing fire.
[snip]
--
"And artists, or their heirs, who fall into the trap of attacking the
collagists and satirists and digital samplers of their work are attacking
the next generation of creators for the crime of being influenced, for
the crime of responding with the same mixture of intoxication,
resentment, lust, and glee that characterizes all artistic successors. By
doing so they make the world smaller, betraying what seems to me the
primary motivation for participating in the world of culture in the first
place: to make the world larger." - Jonathan Lethem
Phil.
<India is irrelevant -- he is being banned for abusing him on the
field
<in THIS Test.
Bharat, the only way I find the above to be relevant is that if
Harbhajan did say it then the defence that 'I didn't know it's an
offensive word to a black Australian' goes out the window. Talking
about this with some of my Indian friends the consensus was that for
someone to use the word Monkey would be unbelievably stupid after the
ODI series. It's unfortunate that this occurred on Proctor's watch
because I've long thought that he's rather poor and often makes the
situation worse.
Phil.
R. Bharat Rao
Yes, the "ignorance" defense, but that not relevant here, because he
clearly did say it in Indian and was told it was racist.
I just don't see the proof that says he said it this time - you seem
to assume he did -- but I don't see any proof.
Bharat
cricd...@hotmail.com
> As an example how many of these australian rsc fans
> in Fran, Ian Galbraith, Rod, JPD responded and
> countered Will_S, alvey, wedge, sceptical RACIALLY
> ABUSING Indians in every thread ?
>
> NONE.
It's not the obligation of a person from any country
to disavow every rabid dog that claims a shared ancestry.
But, since I've broken my rule to respond to you this
once, let me take the opportunity to tell you, with all
the warmth at my disposal, that I consider you a blot
on this newsgroup, a foul stain, a pestilence and a plague.
You're clearly unhinged enough to need treatment. Please
seek it, and stop infesting this group. You have nothing
of value to add, but, always, so much to subtract.
R. Bharat Rao
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 21:00:24 -0800 (PST), R. Bharat Rao wrote:
> > And a similar situation seems to be developing here. What aggreives
> > me (and presumably some of my fellow-Indians) is that there seems to
> > be a clear injustice. On what basis can you ban one player based
> > purely on one man's word against the other?
>
> Except its not just Symonds vs Harbhajan. Reportedly 5 Australian players
> (including Symonds) heard the remark, and of course there is Tendulkar on
> the Indian side.
That completely strains my credulity. I saw the video of the
incident, and when Symonds and Harbhajan are talking there seems to be
no one nearby except Tendulkar who is walking over to talk with him.
Ponting and Gilchrist are no where near -- Hayden stops by afterwards,
as if to ask "did you say that?" (maybe hearing it from Symonds) and
then just lifts his hand up and strides away clearly very angry --
Tendulkar is smiling through this saying its no big deal.
I just don't believe 4 others heard the comment. They may have
corroborated what happened in India, which no one is disagreeing with,
but at Sydney? See below. Note -- I'm not saying that 4 others lied
to support Symonds, just that my belief is that no one else
corroborated Symonds.
And if it is as you reported, then I want Proctor to say clearly who
those 5 are and for them to verify it -- it strains my belief that
Harbhajan said the word loud enough for 4 others to hear, but not for
the umpires or Tendulkar to hear it. I will however believe it if we
can identify the frame when this was reportedly said, and from the
video show that all 4 were within earshot at the same time -- after
all, the claim is that he said it once, not repeatedly, so all 5
should be within earshot at the same instant.
As I said, I don't believe there were 5 others who heard it. But
first I don't want (reportedly) being used to condemn a man -- Proctor
should state that 5 Aussies heard the word "monkey" being used, who
they were, the 5 should agree that they testified as such -- and then
I'd like to do the video test. And if such an instant exists, I may
begin to be convinced - -but at this time, pending further
clarification by Proctor and corroboration by the Aussies, I believe
the sum total of real evidence at Sydney is Symonds word.
Bharat
Mohan
<snip>
> I'd like to do the video test. And if such an instant exists, I may
> begin to be convinced - -but at this time, pending further
> clarification by Proctor and corroboration by the Aussies, I believe
> the sum total of real evidence at Sydney is Symonds word.
It is the last sentence I have a problem with. What's wrong with: "at
this time, pending further clarification by Procter or ICC, we don't
know what the real evidence is and hence can't conclude either way"?
Mohan
R. Bharat Rao
Bucknor has been removed from T3. This may be just about enough to
placate the BCCI and allow the ICC to use a delaying tactic. Its
50-50 at this point, but the tour may go one even without the
Harbhajan ban being overturned. I don't know what the window of time
to appeal the ban is, but this may be a means of delaying and defusing
the situation.
Speed is a smart man -- he presumably realized that if he didn't give
in somewhat, the BCCI would have no alternative but to pull the plug
(the pressure from the public back home would have been too much).
Will the team insist on the ban being removed -- its 50-50 I think,
but they might be persuaded by the BCCI to continue.
At least one semi-decent outcome -- Bucknor will never umpire a Test
against India again.
Bharat
bongo...@gmail.com
Good points overall Bharat, as usual.
Unfortunately, with the ICC, the 'process' is known to be broken (and
to some people, unfair) and no one has yet tried to fix it. Noises
have been made about Bucknor's incompetency as far back as 3 years
ago. Yet he continues to serve in the Elite Panel. There is a lack of
transparency regarding how umpires are rated over various test series.
the only time ICC took any action was in response to the WC fiasco.
R. Bharat Rao
Ehh.. this is addressing Ian's point that the evidence against Bhajji
was not just Symonds word but that of 5 Aussies who heard him abuse
Symonds. My point is until I actually see Proctor saying that is the
case and the 5 Aussies corroborating that they heard Bhajji abuse
Symonds, I believe that the only relevant evidence against Bhajji is
Symonds' word. As in, I haven't seen any formal corroboration that 4
others claim to have heard him abuse Symonds.
Bharat
Paul Robson
> To me the fundamental issue is "can it be proven that Harbhajan said
> it -- if not acquit him"? Not, "its quite likely he said it, so ban
> him" or "if we wait to get 100% proof, then no one will be
> punished" (another common process-oriented response to this scenario,
> which is clearly perceived to be different from a case of law.)
Which it actually is. If you go down this road you end up with the
Ranatunga scenario where lawyers threaten the ICC, and umpires are sued
for damages for giving bad decisions.
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
Good analysis of the mess. I know you are ignoring the openly partial
decisions of the umpires as well as the boorish attitude of the
Australian captain and some of his cohorts in this whole mess. However
it is hard to look at the Harbhajan ban in isolation. The Harbhajan
ban was like rubbing salt to an inflicted wound. Had Australia played
the game in the true spirit of the game and had the umpires not
affected the outcome of the game, I'm sure the reactions from the
Indian camp would not be this emotional at all. Now even just
appealing the ban and playing along in the next test makes little
sense as you can very well expect Bucknor to continue his intentional
bungling ways!
As for Proctor and his decision I agree he has to come out and explain
why he arrived at the decision and provide the proof for everyone to
see, otherwise he will be pulling ICC down the drain. I heard the
Chetan Chauhan interview on the radio and he mentioned the other
Australians (other than Symonds) provided vague descriptions on what
they heard. It was basically Symonds word against Harbhajan's.
Raghu
Mo...@unimail.com.au
> In the aftermath of the Mike Denness affair, I remained surprised by
> the completely polar views taken by the two camps -- many rsc veterans
> whose opinions I respected had opinions completely opposite to what
> seemed to be an obvious miscarriage of misjustice (and a equal number
> agreed with me as well). Upon reflection, I believe the differing
> reactions may spring from our cultural differences. And this, I'm
> afraid, will be repeated in the Harbhajan scenario.
>
> In this thread, I want to look only at the Harbhajan incident. I
> don't care about the umpiring errors, or even if Harbhajan was sledged
> rudely by Symonds. Just whether Harbhajan used a racial slar at
> Sydney (no matter what the provocation, if any or none), and why
> seemingly reasonable people have such polar views on the issue of the
> ban that has been handed out.
>
> Obwarning: I'm not a psychologist, nor do I play one on rsc.
> Obwarning 2: If psychobabble isn't your cup of tea, hit skip.
>
> The difference, at least in the Denness case, I now believe lies in
> the importance that different people place upon "process," as drawn
> from my personal & cultural experiences.
>
> "there was a process in place; it was followed -- report by umpires to
> an independent independent arbiter -- the MR -- who ruled. Suck it
> up, and if you don't like it, change the process. But don't try to
> fix this one incident ."
>
> The opposing camp, which I was call the "justice-oriented" camp said:
> "There is an an obvious miscarriage of justice. The injustice needs to
> be fixed -- and we will worry about the process later."
This will probably come out pretty harsh. I'm not sure I don't mean
it to. I have a lot of respect for you, but I really, really think
you have the wrong end of the stick on this one. I suggest, quite
openly, that your consideration for the reputation of your countrymen
has clouded your judgment. So here goes.
The difference here, and a real problem among many of the process
hacks is that, well, "your lot" made the fucking processes. We only
have these damn things because of the constant whining and complaining
and incessant going on about how terrible these naughty other players
are.
And because of all of it over the years, things have changed. And,
you know, some of the time the changes have been pretty good - even if
they aren't all the necessary, it still lets people know where they
are. The only problem, when it starts applying to "your lot," you
once again go off your damn heads about how unfair it all is.
So yes, suck it up. If you must, we'll once again; for the millionth
time, we'll change the fucking processes again because "your lot"
don't like what happens. But for the love of all things, "your lot"
cannot continue to move the goal posts so that it applies only when
"your lot" feel like it.
> A second factor, that is very important to many of the "justice-
> oriented" group, and I believe, to many Indians, is their reputation.
> To have your reputation besmirched unfairly would be intolerable to
> many. Personally speaking, were I to be accused and condemned of a
> racial slur (and banned) without sufficient evidence, I would use
> every means at my disposal to not only clear my name, and would stop
> at nothing, even if it meant crippling the ICC with long-drawn out
> legal processes. One key point in the Denness episode was that I
> don't think "process-oriented" group understood just how damaging the
> accusation of cheating was perceived to be by Indians.
And yet, oh my do "your lot" have no problem dishing out such
accusations in the other direction. If this is the stance by "your
lot" how disgracefully hypocritical has the associated accusations
against the Australian players and umpires, not only now but over the
years - strangely enough, every single time "your lot" want to come
out and declare such-and-such a ruling does not apply to "your lot"
and how the decision must be over=turned and the process changed
because "your lot" have had their reputation damaged.
Stuff the reputations of everyone else, they don't matter. But, by
Gilly, those reputations of "your lot" are so important that it is
vital we disregard due process.
One question for you: Doesn't it also damage reputations if "your
lot" are so stupid they breach the current rules "accidentally" all
the time?
> And a similar situation seems to be developing here. What aggreives
> me (and presumably some of my fellow-Indians) is that there seems to
> be a clear injustice. On what basis can you ban one player based
> purely on one man's word against the other?
On what basis can you assert that this is what happened? There's
plenty of other versions of the story (such as the Maa-Kii) version
that don't require anything of the sort. My money is on the Indian
evidence concentrating on "Monkey" not being racist or HS attempting
to take the school-bullies sophistry line.... of course, you might be
right - but on what grounds is it ok to suggest that HS reputation is
damaged by the accusations, but Australian player reputations are not
equally damaged by suggestions they are lying. Someone's reputation
deserves to be damaged here.. but that's why we have match referees.
And the thing about match referees is that its their judgment we have
to rely on.
How about you take the umpire's decision? hmm?
> It is important to me, not only that the process be fair, but that it
> be demonstrably shown to be fair. So far, all we know for sure is
> that no umpires heard anything, no stump mikes heard anything,
> Harbhajan denies racially abusing Symonds, and the only one close to
> the exchange was Sachin Tendulkar who agrees with that. So at best it
> appears to be one man's word against another.
Says you. We don't know the content of each person's evidence and,
while I realise you raise this, you should realise that it affects all
aspects of it. If you can't get a "guilty" verdict out of it, then
you also don't get to place a value on the evidence that necessitates
a "not guilty" verdict.
> The Proctor statement "This was not a case of just taking the word of
> an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the
> process was a fair one." is not enough for me (and I imagine that it
> isn't enough for most other Indians).
Of course it isn't. But you either have judges that you accept the
ruling of or you do not. ANd it's clear from this and from previous
experience that "your lot" are not interested in accepting the ruling
of judges when it doesn't suit "your lot."
> In my justice-oriented view of
> the world, I want to know what evidence there was for Proctor ruling
> the way he did. The fact the Harbhajan did or didn't abuse Symonds in
> India is irrelevant -- he is being banned for abusing him on the field
> in THIS Test.
Completely agree, but this isn't part of the evidence released
either. You're just guessing.
> While I'm fully prepared to believe that Harbhajan may
> have done so, I need to see hard proof that used to come to this
> conclusion before taking such a serious action. Not that he likely
> abused him, or may have abused him, but that he clearly did. This is
> not a "pick the more likely of the two outcomes" but my sense of
> justice tells me a case of "innocent until proven guilty," where the
> burden of proof on the prosecution is far greater than than on the
> defense.
Mike Proctor appears to have found it the likely outcome. He's the
match referee.
> And, the process-oriented group is again saying that "well, an
> impartial arbiter ruled against Harbhajan. Let him take his ban. Don't
> be crybabies and call off the tour" whereas the justice-oriented group
> seems to say "how can you find Harbhajan guilty without proof of his
> wrongdoing? How can you assume that because he abused Symonds in India
> 3 months ago, that he did the same here?"
We can't, but again this isn't part of the (lack of) evidence released
and you're guessing again.
> The situation isn't helped by people dragging in the umpiring into
> this issue --
Or indeed catches and things?
Moby
<snipped bit about umpiring because you excluded it at the start of
the statement>
Madhav
<trop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15084b89-c28f-486e...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Indians NEVER killed any WHITE/BLACK/YELLOW person
because of their skin color and they NEVER OCCUPIED,
ENSLAVED and LOOTED OTHERS LAND and
WEALTH like YOU DID.
Time for your bed. Your mommy forgot to remind you Tropicus.
Madhav
<cricd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:817209c5-10cd-4540...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 8, 12:30 am, "Madhav" <Mad...@Madhav.com> wrote:
>> As an example how many of these australian rsc fans
>> in Fran, Ian Galbraith, Rod, JPD responded and
>> countered Will_S, alvey, wedge, sceptical RACIALLY
>> ABUSING Indians in every thread ?
>>
>> NONE.
>
> It's not the obligation of a person from any country
> to disavow every rabid dog that claims a shared ancestry.
It is an obligation when they attack me.
> But, since I've broken my rule to respond to you this
> once,
I will be indebted to you forever for responding to my
comment.
>let me take the opportunity to tell you,
UNSOLICITED ADVICE.
Here is mine.
Let me take the opportunity to tell you,
?with all
> the warmth at my disposal,
with all the warmth, love, affection and
compassion at my disposal
?that I consider you a blot
> on this newsgroup,
You think toooooo highly about yourself.
It is very dangerous to your mental health.
> foul stain, a pestilence and a plague.
All great men are hated. I love it.
> You're clearly unhinged enough to need treatment.
You are another Indian slave that thinks writing
good english is "intellect".........Roflmao
>please
> seek it, and stop infesting this group.
I will continue to infest this group whatever that means to you.
hahahaha
>You have nothing
> of value to add, but, always, so much to subtract.
I dont live to get approval from your white masters like
you do.
Seek help for your slavish mentality.
Tex
"Madhav" <Mad...@Madhav.com> wrote in message news:flvb41$7se$1...@aioe.org...
>
> <trop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:15084b89-c28f-486e...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 8, 4:30 pm, "Madhav" <Mad...@Madhav.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nice analogies and comments but the fundamental problem is
>>> Australians will "never" accept equality.
>>
>> We've got a lot more equality than India. We don't have your caste
>> system for starters.
>
>
> Indians NEVER killed any WHITE/BLACK/YELLOW person
> because of their skin color
They didn't have to, they've got their caste system. Unlike the racist past
of the west, the Indian caste system is still there
>and they NEVER OCCUPIED,
> ENSLAVED and LOOTED OTHERS LAND and
> WEALTH like YOU DID.
I did? When exactly?
> Time for your bed. Your mommy forgot to remind you Tropicus.
Calm down you squealing, racially-insecure dingbat
Madhav
"R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b35fd4a-ec56-436f...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> In the aftermath of the Mike Denness affair, I remained surprised by
> the completely polar views taken by the two camps -- many rsc veterans
> whose opinions I respected had opinions completely opposite to what
> seemed to be an obvious miscarriage of misjustice (and a equal number
> agreed with me as well). Upon reflection, I believe the differing
> reactions may spring from our cultural differences. And this, I'm
> afraid, will be repeated in the Harbhajan scenario.
>
> In this thread, I want to look only at the Harbhajan incident. I
> don't care about the umpiring errors, or even if Harbhajan was sledged
> rudely by Symonds. Just whether Harbhajan used a racial slar at
> Sydney (no matter what the provocation, if any or none), and why
> seemingly reasonable people have such polar views on the issue of the
> ban that has been handed out.
>
> Obwarning: I'm not a psychologist, nor do I play one on rsc.
> Obwarning 2: If psychobabble isn't your cup of tea, hit skip.
>
> The difference, at least in the Denness case, I now believe lies in
> the importance that different people place upon "process," as drawn
> education, and haved worked for many years in the US for a multi-
> national company with roots in Europe. My company takes "process"
> extremely seriously, with the view that good processes are essential
> to having good outcomes. This is a generalization of course, but I
> find that folks out of Europe are much much much more process-oriented
> than myself and others from India, and this is something I have to
> consciously work on and avoid slipping into my more natural mode of
> "what is the specific problem here; lets just fix it."
>
> "there was a process in place; it was followed -- report by umpires to
> an independent independent arbiter -- the MR -- who ruled. Suck it
> up, and if you don't like it, change the process. But don't try to
> fix this one incident ."
>
> The opposing camp, which I was call the "justice-oriented" camp said:
> "There is an an obvious miscarriage of justice. The injustice needs to
> be fixed -- and we will worry about the process later."
>
> oriented" group, and I believe, to many Indians, is their reputation.
> To have your reputation besmirched unfairly would be intolerable to
> many. Personally speaking, were I to be accused and condemned of a
> racial slur (and banned) without sufficient evidence, I would use
> every means at my disposal to not only clear my name, and would stop
> at nothing, even if it meant crippling the ICC with long-drawn out
> legal processes. One key point in the Denness episode was that I
> don't think "process-oriented" group understood just how damaging the
> accusation of cheating was perceived to be by Indians.
>
> me (and presumably some of my fellow-Indians) is that there seems to
> be a clear injustice. On what basis can you ban one player based
> purely on one man's word against the other?
>
> be demonstrably shown to be fair. So far, all we know for sure is
> that no umpires heard anything, no stump mikes heard anything,
> Harbhajan denies racially abusing Symonds, and the only one close to
> the exchange was Sachin Tendulkar who agrees with that. So at best it
> appears to be one man's word against another.
>
> an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the
> process was a fair one." is not enough for me (and I imagine that it
> the world, I want to know what evidence there was for Proctor ruling
> the way he did. The fact the Harbhajan did or didn't abuse Symonds in
> India is irrelevant -- he is being banned for abusing him on the field
> have done so, I need to see hard proof that used to come to this
> conclusion before taking such a serious action. Not that he likely
> abused him, or may have abused him, but that he clearly did. This is
> not a "pick the more likely of the two outcomes" but my sense of
> justice tells me a case of "innocent until proven guilty," where the
> burden of proof on the prosecution is far greater than than on the
> defense.
>
> impartial arbiter ruled against Harbhajan. Let him take his ban. Don't
> be crybabies and call off the tour" whereas the justice-oriented group
> seems to say "how can you find Harbhajan guilty without proof of his
> wrongdoing? How can you assume that because he abused Symonds in India
> 3 months ago, that he did the same here?"
>
> that may be a reason to expect leniency or clemency, but again isn't
> relevant to the basic question of his guilt. On what evidence was
> Harbhajan found guilty.
>
> The Bucknor situation is a microcosm of this same argument. The
> process-oriented folks say "The ICC has appointed Bucknor -- end of
> story" whereas the justice-oriented folks say "You have to be
> kidding. How can you expect India to take the field with that fool at
> the helm" In this one, I have some more acceptance of the process
> oriented view, as again no one's integrity is involved here, but in
> the Harbhajan matter, I find myself fully in the "justice" camp --
> show me why you ruled that way Mr. Referee, or reverse the ban.
>
> And I am very concenred that if such evidence isn't produced, and if
> Harbhajan's ban isn't reversed, that the tour will be called off. It
> will be a pity, but for the "process" folks to dismiss that reaction
> as "a bunch of whiners" would be as incorrect as the "justice" folks
> labeling all the process folks "a bunch of racists."
>
> If wiser heads do not prevail and demand increased transperancy from
> Mike Proctor to satisfactorily show the evidence he used to rule
> against Harbhajan, I suspect we will not see any more India-Australia
> cricket in 2008.
>
> Bharat
Let me put it in a different way Bharat.
Everything else remaining the same, if the incidents are swapped,
these Australian fans will be making the "same arguments" with
the "same spin" to support their team, players and issues.
Which proves my theory of the "fundamental problems" in the
environment and culture they were brought up in.
para...@gmail.com
> "R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_nor...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:6b35fd4a-ec56-436f...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice analogies and comments but the fundamental problem is
> Australians will "never" accept equality.
How Dalits react to your notions. We, Dalits, also know bloody hindus
never accept Dalits as equal. But who care bloody notions of racists?
>
> There is not even a single australian fan on this newsgroup
> with the guts and conscience to accept the truth and facts.
Is there any hindu thinks calling a black monkey is wrong?
>
> Even the moderately reasonable Fran, Ian Galbraith, JPD, Rod and
> a couple of other australian fans on rsc are showing their
> true colors with endless spin of the events and justifying
> Australian behavior and Harbhajans unjustifiable and
> indefensible ban.
Umpires heard and saw everything. They hnow how racist harbhajan
reacted to Mahatma Symonds...
>
> 100% of Australian fans on rsc live in a denial state denying
> racism at every instance and spinning every situation
> and event.
>
> As an example how many of these australian rsc fans
> in Fran, Ian Galbraith, Rod, JPD responded and
> countered Will_S, alvey, wedge, sceptical RACIALLY
> ABUSING Indians in every thread ?
>
> NONE.
>
> As long as these fundamental problems are not resolved,
> these "process oriented' and 'justice oriented"
> theories dont apply.
>
> Look at the justice system in west. The moment
> some one is accused, both the prosecution and
> the defense starts spinning, lying, spreading
> rumours and false stories in the media to
> get manipulate the masses and the media.
>
> Justice system in the western culture is
> turned into ENTERTAINMENT and
> a competition between the PROSECUTION
> and the DEFENSE to find out who is the
> BETTER LIAR and SPINNER.
>
> I do not call Fran, Ian Galbraith, JPD, Rod
> as racists but you can see the effect of this
> fundamental problem in the western culture
> on their opinions and views in crisis
> situations like current one.
Rod
<rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A second factor, that is very important to many of the "justice-
>oriented" group, and I believe, to many Indians, is their reputation.
>To have your reputation besmirched unfairly would be intolerable to
>many. Personally speaking, were I to be accused and condemned of a
>racial slur (and banned) without sufficient evidence, I would use
>every means at my disposal to not only clear my name, and would stop
>at nothing, even if it meant crippling the ICC with long-drawn out
>legal processes.
That's my view summed up right there. It's still not clear what
evidence was presented during Harby's case, but it appears it was
a matter of players vs players word.
If it was any other charge then it wouldn't be that big a deal.
Racism is looked upon as a whole other bugbear and potentially
could discredit Harby in and out of cricket. For that sort of
charge to stick, I certainly would want concrete evidence that
he did infact use a racial slur.
If other evidence was presented, lets see it.
Cheers,
Rod.
Rod
wrote:
>Except its not just Symonds vs Harbhajan. Reportedly 5 Australian players
>(including Symonds) heard the remark, and of course there is Tendulkar on
>the Indian side.
While the camera was pretty narrow during the exhange, I find it
hard to believe that 4 other players heard the slur yet it wasn't
heard by an umpire, the stump mics or Tendulkar (who claims to have
actually heard the conversation without a hint of any racial abuse)
There's just something not quite right with that picture.
Cheers,
Rod.
shineything
For god's sake, don't! That'll simply legitimise this whole precious
nonsense. Nobody other than sociologists and creationists actually
believes that the use of the term 'monkey' is anything to worry about
at all - others claim to do so simply to buttress their PC
credentials.
>
> However, to me the issue is whether he said it.
No, the issue is why the hell anybody should worry - or at least have
the effrontery to complain - about it anyway
[snip]
Madhav
"R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d687caa0-4d64-45a5...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Bharat
As soon as I read the comment that 5 Aussies corroborated
Symonds accusation, the first thing that went through my mind
was exactly the same like you explained logically in a step by
step manner above.
But have you wondered why these Australian fans on rsc
readily used that corroboration of 5 Aussies without
going through the logical thinking I and you did ?
That was the "fundamental problem" I was talking about.
I rest my case.
Madhav
<cricd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:572a1a9b-f514-40d3...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting post, but it, perhaps, draws too firm a line
> between process and justice. The purpose of process is,
> in cases like these, to make sure that justice is done.
> There are times when, as you say, process does not lead
> to justice. The solution is not simply to fix the process
> to prevent future injustices, but also to reverse the
> miscarriage. This is not an eastern or western approach,
> but an universal one. You'll be familiar, I'm sure, of the
> case of the Georgia teen convicted of child molestation
> for having consensual sex with a fellow teenager. After
> the harsh mandatory sentence was handed down, the law was
> changed, *and* (after an unconscionable delay) his sentence
> was commuted.
What a GREAT ANALOGY.
You are a "REAL INTELLECTUAL"
Your master Mike Procter said this to Indian players.
Procter told Anil Kumble, Tendulkar and manager Chetan Chauhan that only
"one group can be honest," and with that he meant that Australians had more
credibility then Anil Kumble and Tendulkar who was batting with Harbhajan
when the alleged comments were directed.
The Indians were left aghast and made to feel like "criminals" is how
someone close to the team put it.
Rod
>Even the moderately reasonable Fran, Ian Galbraith, JPD, Rod and
>a couple of other australian fans on rsc are showing their
>true colors with endless spin of the events and justifying
>Australian behavior and Harbhajans unjustifiable and
>indefensible ban.
I'm against Harbhajan's ban unless evidence other than 4 other
Aussie players is presented.
Am I going to debate other Australian's that don't hold that view?
My time is more precious to me than that.
Cheers,
Rod.
Rod
>That completely strains my credulity. I saw the video of the
>incident, and when Symonds and Harbhajan are talking there seems to be
>no one nearby except Tendulkar who is walking over to talk with him.
>Ponting and Gilchrist are no where near -- Hayden stops by afterwards,
>as if to ask "did you say that?" (maybe hearing it from Symonds) and
>then just lifts his hand up and strides away clearly very angry --
>Tendulkar is smiling through this saying its no big deal.
>
>I just don't believe 4 others heard the comment. They may have
>corroborated what happened in India, which no one is disagreeing with,
>but at Sydney? See below. Note -- I'm not saying that 4 others lied
>to support Symonds, just that my belief is that no one else
>corroborated Symonds.
That's my stance. I cannot understand how so many Australian players
heard the remark without an umpire or stump cam hearing it.
There's something fishy about the whole thing.
I put Tendulkar's integrity over all those that overheard the
alledged slur. I have the utmost respect for Tendulkar, and if he
said there was no slur, I'll take his word for it above Symonds,
Ponting, Clarke or Hayden.
Cheers,
Rod.
Bob Dubery
<snip>
> So in the Denness affair, the "process-oriented" group's stance was:
> "there was a process in place; it was followed -- report by umpires to
> an independent independent arbiter -- the MR -- who ruled. Suck it
> up, and if you don't like it, change the process. But don't try to
> fix this one incident ."
>
> The opposing camp, which I was call the "justice-oriented" camp said:
> "There is an an obvious miscarriage of justice. The injustice needs to
> be fixed -- and we will worry about the process later."
that a miscarriage of justice occured? There should be evidence for
that claim too.
Justice should come about as a result of application of a process.
This is the foundation of many legal systems - a charge must be laid,
evidence produced and tested and then a verdict reached. It is not
always the case that the charge must be proven beyond doubt, in some
cases balance of probability must be the test - which is the more
likely scenario.
You are right to regard justice and reputation seriously, but that
doesn't mean that process isn't important.
Crying about injustice can also be a way of avoiding it or another way
of casting unfounded aspersions. I'm not saying that this is what the
Indian team and/or board are doing here, but it's not that case that
just because somebody says "this is an obvious injustice" that it is.
That assertion too should be tested.
At the moment we don't know what evidence was presented in the
hearing. We have some people saying "see, the process was applied, the
case was heard, everybody had an opportunity to have their say, and so
the outcome is a fair one", and another group blindly asserting that
an injustice has been done.
The ICC's handling of the situation seems not unreasonable. An appeal
has been allowed, the Turbanator can play under appeal, a new hearing
will be held and that will include the reviewing and testing of all
the previous evidence.
This is a process of refining the process. Process is required, but a
good process. That implies that rather than just rejecting the process
that the process be examined and improved, and that allegations of
partiality or incompetence or shortcomings in the process must
themselves be tested rather than accepted at face value.
Rod
<mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>At the moment we don't know what evidence was presented in the
>hearing. We have some people saying "see, the process was applied, the
>case was heard, everybody had an opportunity to have their say, and so
>the outcome is a fair one", and another group blindly asserting that
>an injustice has been done.
>
>The ICC's handling of the situation seems not unreasonable. An appeal
>has been allowed, the Turbanator can play under appeal, a new hearing
>will be held and that will include the reviewing and testing of all
>the previous evidence.
>
>This is a process of refining the process. Process is required, but a
>good process. That implies that rather than just rejecting the process
>that the process be examined and improved, and that allegations of
>partiality or incompetence or shortcomings in the process must
>themselves be tested rather than accepted at face value.
I consider this case an extraordinary case. Given all the infractions
that can be conducted on a cricket field, this is the singular
infraction that transcends the game.
A conviction means the damage has been done, Harbhajan's name has been
forever tarnished. It may well have been justified, he may have said
what he's alledged to have said, but I would hope his conviction is on
evidence that exceeds the word of 5 Aussie cricketers, several of
those I personally find dubious as to their ability to hear the slur.
This is an ugly situation, a situation where there would be no
winners. A piece of me wishes that what happened on the field
stayed on the field. A piece of me adamant that a racist comment
spoken on the field was brought to the attention of the umpires.
As stupid as this may sound, I hope Harbhajan did commit the act. It
would be unfair if he didn't, yet received the penalty he has and the
stigma that he's a racist. If he didn't, a large unjustice has been
served, but, as I said, the damage has already been done.
Cheers,
Rod.
Bob Dubery
> A conviction means the damage has been done, Harbhajan's name has been
> forever tarnished. It may well have been justified, he may have said
> what he's alledged to have said, but I would hope his conviction is on
> evidence that exceeds the word of 5 Aussie cricketers, several of
> those I personally find dubious as to their ability to hear the slur.
Reportedly Ponting and Gilchrist testified that they hadn't heard what
was said between Ponting and Harbhajan.
HVS
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 00:49:32 -0800, "Madhav" <Mad...@Madhav.com>
> wrote:
(Usenet pedant mode)
Just a note -- you've attributed this to Madhav, but what's quoted
was by R. Bharat Rao. (It's not your fault at all -- Madhav failed
to correctly ID what was quoted material.)
(/Usenet pedant mode)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Tweedle Dee
I wish we got to know exactly what transpired at that Harbhajan
hearing. At the moment, we're getting only small added bits of
information every few hours, and some of it may well be rumour and
hearsay.
So as the story stands now, is it that three of the Australians heard
the slur and no one else did?
-TD
Phil.
> On Jan 8, 1:39 am, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > <India is irrelevant -- he is being banned for abusing him on the
> > field
> > <in THIS Test.
>
> > Harbhajan did say it then the defence that 'I didn't know it's an
> > offensive word to a black Australian' goes out the window. Talking
> > about this with some of my Indian friends the consensus was that for
> > someone to use the word Monkey would be unbelievably stupid after the
> > ODI series. It's unfortunate that this occurred on Proctor's watch
> > because I've long thought that he's rather poor and often makes the
> > situation worse.
>
> Yes, the "ignorance" defense, but that not relevant here, because he
> clearly did say it in Indian and was told it was racist.
>
> I just don't see the proof that says he said it this time - you seem
> to assume he did -- but I don't see any proof.
>
> Bharat
No I don't assume that he said it, I've not seen the coverage of the
incident.
Phil.
R. Bharat Rao
> On Jan 8, 3:00 pm, "R.BharatRao" <rao2_nor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The opposing camp, which I was call the "justice-oriented" camp said:
> > "There is an an obvious miscarriage of justice. The injustice needs to
> > be fixed -- and we will worry about the process later."
>
> This will probably come out pretty harsh. I'm not sure I don't mean
> it to. I have a lot of respect for you, but I really, really think
> you have the wrong end of the stick on this one. I suggest, quite
> openly, that your consideration for the reputation of your countrymen
> has clouded your judgment. So here goes.
Fair enough -- I have no issue with a difference in opinions. I am
simply going to try to explain my key point, which I think isn't
clear. Second, in your response, I would prefer it if you restricted
your disagreement to what I wrote -- I don't know who "my lot" are --
its certainly not everyone who disagrees with the verdict, because
many of them use vitriol and illogic that I find bewildering. So,
while I'm fully prepared to defend my position -- and indeed be
convinced that I am wrong, if such arguments are posed in a logical
manner -- I absolute have zero interest in the actions of others on
rsc or in India or wherever. Is that OK?
>
> The difference here, and a real problem among many of the process
> hacks is that, well, "your lot" made the fucking processes. We only
> have these damn things because of the constant whining and complaining
> and incessant going on about how terrible these naughty other players
> are.
>
> And because of all of it over the years, things have changed. And,
> you know, some of the time the changes have been pretty good - even if
> they aren't all the necessary, it still lets people know where they
> are. The only problem, when it starts applying to "your lot," you
> once again go off your damn heads about how unfair it all is.
>
> So yes, suck it up. If you must, we'll once again; for the millionth
> time, we'll change the fucking processes again because "your lot"
> don't like what happens. But for the love of all things, "your lot"
> cannot continue to move the goal posts so that it applies only when
> "your lot" feel like it.
Fair enough, if you will actually see what I'm saying you will see
that I (I will not presume to speak for "my lot" who ever you believe
they are) am not asking for the goal posts to be moved -- at least not
in the sense you believe. Read on.
>
> > A second factor, that is very important to many of the "justice-
> > oriented" group, and I believe, to many Indians, is their reputation.
> > To have your reputation besmirched unfairly would be intolerable to
> > many. Personally speaking, were I to be accused and condemned of a
> > racial slur (and banned) without sufficient evidence, I would use
> > every means at my disposal to not only clear my name, and would stop
> > at nothing, even if it meant crippling the ICC with long-drawn out
> > legal processes. One key point in the Denness episode was that I
> > don't think "process-oriented" group understood just how damaging the
> > accusation of cheating was perceived to be by Indians.
>
> And yet, oh my do "your lot" have no problem dishing out such
> accusations in the other direction. If this is the stance by "your
> lot" how disgracefully hypocritical has the associated accusations
> against the Australian players and umpires, not only now but over the
> years - strangely enough, every single time "your lot" want to come
> out and declare such-and-such a ruling does not apply to "your lot"
> and how the decision must be over=turned and the process changed
> because "your lot" have had their reputation damaged.
First of all, that is irrelevant to the point I am making. My point
simply is that you (or "your lot" if you find that somehow less
personal) may not realize how insulting this particular attack may be
for an Indian. Whether they dish it out is irrelevant (I'm not going
to argue about whether they do or do not) -- just that being accused
of being a racist could be very damaging to Harbhajan -- more so, that
it may be to an Aussie, who may shrug it off with "complete rubbish,
mate." For instance, were Hogg to be banned, I expect his reaction
would be less personal than Harbhajan's.
>
> Stuff the reputations of everyone else, they don't matter. But, by
> Gilly, those reputations of "your lot" are so important that it is
> vital we disregard due process.
>
> One question for you: Doesn't it also damage reputations if "your
> lot" are so stupid they breach the current rules "accidentally" all
> the time?
Now this is a complete red herring. I have not claimed that Harbhajan
used it accidentally. I have not said he used it in error. My
position is simply -- it is not proved that he said it. So, again, I
request you -- please stay on this topic (since you replied to this
thread to me personally) -- which is, did Harbhajan use the "monkey"
word at Sydney. Not at Nagpur, not innocently -- if it is shown he
used the word, I'm fully prepared to throw the book at him -- after
India, he should be under no illusions that Symonds would find the
word very painful and racist.
>
> > And a similar situation seems to be developing here. What aggreives
> > me (and presumably some of my fellow-Indians) is that there seems to
> > be a clear injustice. On what basis can you ban one player based
> > purely on one man's word against the other?
>
> On what basis can you assert that this is what happened? There's
> plenty of other versions of the story (such as the Maa-Kii) version
> that don't require anything of the sort. My money is on the Indian
> evidence concentrating on "Monkey" not being racist or HS attempting
> to take the school-bullies sophistry line.... of course, you might be
> right.
Now this is simply false. The Indian team's line -- not that by
various "fans" on rsc -- has always been "Harbhajan didn't say it.
And there is no evidence to support that he said it." So lets stick
to that, shall be -- i.e., did Harbhajan say the word. That is the
only issue.
- but on what grounds is it ok to suggest that HS reputation is
> damaged by the accusations, but Australian player reputations are not
> equally damaged by suggestions they are lying. Someone's reputation
> deserves to be damaged here.. but that's why we have match referees.
> And the thing about match referees is that its their judgment we have
> to rely on.
Accusations do some damage, but convictions do a lot more. There is a
middle ground -- you do realize the "not guilty" is not the same as
"innocent". And that is the Indian teams (and my) position. If there
is insufficient evidence to convict, a "not guilty" verdict -- even
one which says, not enough evidence to conclude either way would be
fine. I'm not asking for Harbhajan to be exonerated, but simply to be
acquited on lack of evidence.
>
> How about you take the umpire's decision? hmm?
>
> > It is important to me, not only that the process be fair, but that it
> > be demonstrably shown to be fair. So far, all we know for sure is
> > that no umpires heard anything, no stump mikes heard anything,
> > Harbhajan denies racially abusing Symonds, and the only one close to
> > the exchange was Sachin Tendulkar who agrees with that. So at best it
> > appears to be one man's word against another.
>
> Says you. We don't know the content of each person's evidence and,
> while I realise you raise this, you should realise that it affects all
> aspects of it. If you can't get a "guilty" verdict out of it, then
> you also don't get to place a value on the evidence that necessitates
> a "not guilty" verdict.
Absolutely I do. This is the fundamental basis of jurisprudence and
critical to mine (and I believe many Indians) way of thinking. I may
be prepared to believe that it is quite likely Harbhajan did use the m
word. I may even think he probably did so. But, in the absence of
proof, I would expect him to be found "not guilty". And that would
not say "Symonds is a liar" (though many rabid fans might say that),
but simply that it was not possible to distinguish who was telling the
truth with certainty.
>
> > The Proctor statement "This was not a case of just taking the word of
> > an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the
> > process was a fair one." is not enough for me (and I imagine that it
> > isn't enough for most other Indians).
>
> Of course it isn't. But you either have judges that you accept the
> ruling of or you do not. ANd it's clear from this and from previous
> experience that "your lot" are not interested in accepting the ruling
> of judges when it doesn't suit "your lot."
Now you are being rude. I have asked for transperancy. I want to
know what the evidence is against Harbhajan in Sydney -- you do
realize that what he did or didn't do in India is irrelevant to his
actions here.
If it is simply Symonds versus Harbhajan with Tendulkar saying "he
didn't say it", I would expect Harbhajan to be found not guilty.
If, on the other hand, 5 Aussies swore that Harbhajan did use the "m"
word, even though Tendulkar supports Harbhajan, I will reluctantly
conclude that Proctor had to choice but to find Harbhajan guilty. I
may believe Harbhajan is telling the truth and the 5 Aussies lying or
vice versa, but I will be satisfied that the preponderance of evidence
showed that Harbhajan was guilty.
But if the ONLY hard evidence is Symonds word versus Harbhajan's, then
I will be outraged. And you can call that moving the goalposts, and I
would say that is refusing to accept a blatant injustice.
>
> > In my justice-oriented view of
> > the world, I want to know what evidence there was for Proctor ruling
> > the way he did. The fact the Harbhajan did or didn't abuse Symonds in
> > India is irrelevant -- he is being banned for abusing him on the field
> > in THIS Test.
>
> Completely agree, but this isn't part of the evidence released
> either. You're just guessing.
Yes, and I'm demanding transperancy. Why are you objecting to the
actual evidence against Harbhajan being revealed -- isn't a man
allowed to know who his accusers are?
>
> > While I'm fully prepared to believe that Harbhajan may
> > have done so, I need to see hard proof that used to come to this
> > conclusion before taking such a serious action. Not that he likely
> > abused him, or may have abused him, but that he clearly did. This is
> > not a "pick the more likely of the two outcomes" but my sense of
> > justice tells me a case of "innocent until proven guilty," where the
> > burden of proof on the prosecution is far greater than than on the
> > defense.
>
> Mike Proctor appears to have found it the likely outcome. He's the
> match referee.
Based on what??? If he did it because he is drinking buddies with
Symonds and believes a good Christian would never lie, whereas a
heathen Sikh lies al the time -- would you be satisfied? I'm not
saying thats what happenned, or even that its likely -- but "proctor
says so" is not sufficient for me.
I want to know WHY he came to that conclusion beyond "I'm satisfied."
Again, that comes down to accepting the process no matter what, versus
the view of "my lot".
>
> > And, the process-oriented group is again saying that "well, an
> > impartial arbiter ruled against Harbhajan. Let him take his ban. Don't
> > be crybabies and call off the tour" whereas the justice-oriented group
> > seems to say "how can you find Harbhajan guilty without proof of his
> > wrongdoing? How can you assume that because he abused Symonds in India
> > 3 months ago, that he did the same here?"
>
> We can't, but again this isn't part of the (lack of) evidence released
> and you're guessing again.
So release the evidence -- if 5 Aussies swear they heard Harbhajan
abuse Symonds (at Sydney), I will support Proctor. I may believe that
they lied (I'm not saying I will), but I will support Proctor's
decision -- were I ruling, I would have ruled the same way.
What I will not accept, is "Harbhajan is guilty because Proctor says
so." Tell me why Mr. Match Referee, that is what I ask, and if it
simply comes down to Symonds word versus Harbhajan's and Tendulkar's
then be prepared that I will refuse to accept that verdict -- and you
can call that moving the goal posts, and I will call it blatant
injustice.
Bharat
R. Bharat Rao
> On Jan 8, 7:00 am, "R.BharatRao" <rao2_nor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>> So in the Denness affair, the "process-oriented" group's stance was:
> > "there was a process in place; it was followed -- report by umpires to
> > an independent independent arbiter -- the MR -- who ruled. Suck it
> > up, and if you don't like it, change the process. But don't try to
> > fix this one incident ."
>
> > The opposing camp, which I was call the "justice-oriented" camp said:
> > "There is an an obvious miscarriage of justice. The injustice needs to
> > be fixed -- and we will worry about the process later."
>
> There's a problem with that - because what are the grounds for saying
> that a miscarriage of justice occured? There should be evidence for
> that claim too.
I disagree -- there is a middle ground. "Not guilty" does not mean
"innocent". It simply means there wasn't enough evidence to prove who
was telling the truth.
> Justice should come about as a result of application of a process.
> This is the foundation of many legal systems - a charge must be laid,
> evidence produced and tested and then a verdict reached. It is not
> always the case that the charge must be proven beyond doubt, in some
> cases balance of probability must be the test - which is the more
> likely scenario.
This is where I fundamentally disagree. A man's reputation is at
stake here, and simply condemning him based on "I think its more
likely Harbhajan is lying" (if that is what was done) is
unacceptable. That is what I would call an injustice.
> You are right to regard justice and reputation seriously, but that
> doesn't mean that process isn't important.
> Crying about injustice can also be a way of avoiding it or another way
> of casting unfounded aspersions. I'm not saying that this is what the
> Indian team and/or board are doing here, but it's not that case that
> just because somebody says "this is an obvious injustice" that it is.
> That assertion too should be tested.
>
> At the moment we don't know what evidence was presented in the
> hearing. We have some people saying "see, the process was applied, the
> case was heard, everybody had an opportunity to have their say, and so
> the outcome is a fair one", and another group blindly asserting that
> an injustice has been done.
I am simply demanding transperancy. I want to know what the evidence
was that Proctor used to "satisfy himself." Hard evidence, not
innuendo.
IF and this and IF only, the evidence is only Symonds word versus
Harbhajan's, then that is completely unacceptable to condemn
Harbhajan. And this is the fundamental problem I have with the
"process-oriented" folks, who are all to ready to accept the end
result of the process without demanding transperancy.
Let me take an extreme case. Let us say, Proctor says, I believe
Symonds is telling the truth because he is my drinking buddy and a
good Christian, whereas a heathen Hindu and Sikh can't be trusted.
Let us say that was his reasoning, would you accept that the process
had resulted in a fair outcome?
Obviously not...
> The ICC's handling of the situation seems not unreasonable. An appeal
> has been allowed, the Turbanator can play under appeal, a new hearing
> will be held and that will include the reviewing and testing of all
> the previous evidence.
>
> This is a process of refining the process. Process is required, but a
> good process. That implies that rather than just rejecting the process
> that the process be examined and improved, and that allegations of
> partiality or incompetence or shortcomings in the process must
> themselves be tested rather than accepted at face value.
I disagree. I want to know what evidence was used by Proctor in
coming to his reasoning.
If it turns out that the sole evidence against Harbhajan was Symonds
word -- i.e., on one else heard anything -- and Proctor chose to
condemn Harbhajan based on that (his part history is irrelevant) I
will certainly believe an injustice has occured. As will most Indians
-- process be damned. There is a strong sense of justice -- I don't
want Harbhajan exonerated -- I simply want him acquited -- if it comes
down to his word versus Symonds. Because this sort of decision-
making is all to subject to abuse.
If, on the other hand, 5 Aussies swore that Harbhajan used the "m"
word, then I will agree that Mr. Proctor had no alternative but to
find Harbhajan guilty.
All indications are that there was no evidence other than Symonds'
word. If there is more, I want to know, and I will be the first to
accept the verdict.
So let me ask you this question Bob -- if the sole hard evidence from
this Test is Symonds word against Harbhajan's (backed by Tendulkar
mind you) and no one else substantiate's Symonds claim, would you
believe that the process had been just?
The problem is that the process folks seem to be saying the process
has been followed. I'm saying, that all well and good, but I demand
transperancy. And I don't mean a further review by stuffed shirts. For
most things, like dissent etc. I couldn't give a damn (other than
asking that the ruling be applied uniformly), but for such a charge --
I want to know why and how such a decision was reached.
And mind you, as I've said before, this has nothing to do with whether
I believe Harbhajan actually used the "m" word or not -- even if I
believe it is quite likely that Harbhajan used the word, I simply
don't believe that the "more likely of the two" scenarios should be
applied if there is a chance Harbhajan didn't say it. This isn't some
ticky tack administrative matter, or even even loss of earning like
suspension for a few games. This is about one's reputation.
Bharat
vijay...@my-deja.com
I'm not sure where the "5 Australians" idea is coming from.
From what I read, there were 10 people at the hearing -
Bhajji, SRT, Kumble, Chauhan, and presumably MV Sridhar
on the Indian side. Symonds, Ponting, Clarke, Hayden
and maybe Gilchrist on the Aus side. Ponting and
Gilchrist already said they heard nothing. So, who
are the 5 anyway?
Vijay
Bob Dubery
> On Jan 8, 4:49 am, Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's a problem with that - because what are the grounds for saying
> > that a miscarriage of justice occured? There should be evidence for
> > that claim too.
>
> I disagree -- there is a middle ground. "Not guilty" does not mean
> "innocent". It simply means there wasn't enough evidence to prove who
> was telling the truth.
Which is to assume that you know that there wasn't enough evidence.
One of the problems that I am having with this is that there's so
little information as to what testimony was given. But Harbhajan was
there and he has the right to have team management present, so if they
feel that the evidence is not enough to reach a verdict then they can
protest. They are closer to the action than we are.
But are they saying that there was not enough evidence? And, I wonder,
does the process allow the match ref to dismiss the case or defer it
on grounds of insufficent evidence?
>
> > Justice should come about as a result of application of a process.
> > This is the foundation of many legal systems - a charge must be laid,
> > evidence produced and tested and then a verdict reached. It is not
> > always the case that the charge must be proven beyond doubt, in some
> > cases balance of probability must be the test - which is the more
> > likely scenario.
>
> This is where I fundamentally disagree. A man's reputation is at
> stake here, and simply condemning him based on "I think its more
> likely Harbhajan is lying" (if that is what was done) is
> unacceptable. That is what I would call an injustice.
But the reverse applies doesn't it? The other side of the coin is the
implication that Symonds in particular and Australian players in
general have perjured themselves - which is a blot on their
reputations as well.
So what's the MR to do when confronted with two versions of events
that are contradictory?
He, and I note he had a lawyer assisting him, has to decide what is
most likely to have happened. If (IF) there were 7 players present, 3
say that they heard Harbi calling Symonds a monkey, Harbi says he
didn't, and the rest say they can't say what happened, then, it seems
to me, it is most likely the case that Harbi called Symonds a monkey.
Wanting everything proven with absolute surety is a problem because it
means that you can get away with almost anything by just denying the
charge. EG "But those 11 players, both umpires, the man in the TV
control booth and millions of viewers world wide heard you call Gayle
a 'black bastard'..." "No, I never said that, they heard something, I
don't know what, I know what I said."
>
> > You are right to regard justice and reputation seriously, but that
> > doesn't mean that process isn't important.
> > Crying about injustice can also be a way of avoiding it or another way
> > of casting unfounded aspersions. I'm not saying that this is what the
> > Indian team and/or board are doing here, but it's not that case that
> > just because somebody says "this is an obvious injustice" that it is.
> > That assertion too should be tested.
>
> > At the moment we don't know what evidence was presented in the
> > hearing. We have some people saying "see, the process was applied, the
> > case was heard, everybody had an opportunity to have their say, and so
> > the outcome is a fair one", and another group blindly asserting that
> > an injustice has been done.
>
> I am simply demanding transperancy. I want to know what the evidence
> was that Proctor used to "satisfy himself." Hard evidence, not
> innuendo.
>
> IF and this and IF only, the evidence is only Symonds word versus
> Harbhajan's, then that is completely unacceptable to condemn
> Harbhajan. And this is the fundamental problem I have with the
> "process-oriented" folks, who are all to ready to accept the end
> result of the process without demanding transperancy.
But turn the argument around - Symonds is then opened up to
accusations of being a liar. I'd agree (as I said elsewhere) that
transparency would be a good thing, but that doesn't mean that there
should be no process.
The process has to be refined. When it doesn't work it must be
examined to see why it didn't work and then improved.
But if we just ignore the process then a situation is created where
there is no way to apply the process because the ICC (in this case)
has effectively said "well there is a process, but it doesn't have to
be applied."
Which is what they've done in the case of Bucknor. Their regulations
state that neither side may object to the appointment of an umpire.
They said that there would be no change. Now there's been a change.
Message: We're not serious about our regulations, they can be by-
passed if you scream loud enough.
And that's no way to get justice.
>
>
> So let me ask you this question Bob -- if the sole hard evidence from
> this Test is Symonds word against Harbhajan's (backed by Tendulkar
> mind you) and no one else substantiate's Symonds claim, would you
> believe that the process had been just?
I'd want to know if the process had been adhered to. If it had then
I'd suggest that it needs changing. The ICC say that their procedures
are based on "natural justice" as understood in the UK, so that would
mean that the accusing party has to prove the case or at least present
a more probable version of events.
We'd need to know what both sides said. If Harbi is saying that he
didn't do anything and said nothing then that's obviously not going to
wash as we know he said something. In that case then I would think
that MR could reasonably rule that Harbi is an unconvicing witness and
afford what Symonds said more weight.
>
> The problem is that the process folks seem to be saying the process
> has been followed. I'm saying, that all well and good, but I demand
> transperancy. And I don't mean a further review by stuffed shirts. For
> most things, like dissent etc. I couldn't give a damn (other than
> asking that the ruling be applied uniformly), but for such a charge --
> I want to know why and how such a decision was reached.
Do we have that right? Are the ICC required to put the reasoning
behind the verdict in the public domain? Are they even allowed to?
They used to - I know that for a fact - but I don't know if that's
still the case.
It should be noted that at the level at which Harbi is charged there
is a right of appeal - which has been exercised. This allows for a 2nd
hearing and a review of the first. So the process, it seems to me,
makes reasonable provision for ensuring that serious charges are
investigated and heard properly.
What more do you want?
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> I'm not sure where the "5 Australians" idea is coming from.
> From what I read, there were 10 people at the hearing -
> Bhajji, SRT, Kumble, Chauhan, and presumably MV Sridhar
> on the Indian side. Symonds, Ponting, Clarke, Hayden
> and maybe Gilchrist on the Aus side. Ponting and
> Gilchrist already said they heard nothing. So, who
> are the 5 anyway?
There's Lee as well who was in the middle of it.
--
"The world of art and culture is a vast commons, one that is salted
through with zones of utter commerce yet remains gloriously immune to any
overall commodification." - Jonathan Lethem