The Short Sighted Led the Blind Nowhere
arahim
currently stand. It is rather sad that having such a small planet to
begin with man has found ways to restrict himself and his brethren to
still smaller parts of it. We are not going to solve that one anytime
soon so to begin again ...
All countries have the right to refuse entry to anyone. However, when
they start to do so for sporting bodies the sports fraternity as a
whole must object. Tennis did so against UAE. It threatened to remove
Dubai from the calendar for removing Peer. England's recent record is
something that should be of concern. It got Zimbabwe to remove itself
from a world cup and now it has refused entry to a world cup winning
team. In the first case there was no international sporting sanction
and in the second only the border agents seem to have eyes that will
see something. When things get to such a stage it must seriously be
considered whether such xenophobia should lead to being excluded from
hosting international events.
There is something troubling about pre-judging and doing it brazenly.
This pre-emption bit is getting tiresome. It is almost as bad as some
of the aircrew's fondness for their newly acquired powers in putting
down anyone who doesn't show abject subjugation. Nor is it true that
the British government's hands are tied by the recommendations of the
border cops. When they wish a certain outcome all governments have
plenty of tricks in the bag to achieve it ... or not.
But let us leave the governments and their workings aside for the
moment. This was an issue where the self-appointed moral guardians of
cricket, the MCC, could have taken a strong public stance in backing
the blind cricketers for the name of the game is still cricket. This
would have gone much further in making amends for its past rather than
that trip to Afghanistan which was a rather shameful attempt to hog
the limelight after the Afghan's success. Of course the fact that
their players had benefited from playing in Pakistan's domestics and
before embarking on their conquest a series of matches had been
arranged by PCB for them got little coverage to begin with and almost
none afterwards. Before that there were coaches and training that were
provided by different figures in Pakistani cricket.
Also remiss were ICC, as the international cricket body, and ECB, as
England's domestic body, in not raising their voices effectively for
their brothers in the sport of cricket.
Now to return to the border cops. They do not seem to have a problem
with a lot of politicians showing up in England when there is little
doubt that many have come to stay for extremely long periods if not
forever. Not only that they have a very hard time extraditing any of
them. But then may be they have no say there against their
government's wishes. Kick a few innocent students out but let's keep
all the corrupt politicians collected from all over. The thing is that
it is likely that it is the British government pulling the strings for
other political reasons and the border guards are not as independent
as claimed.
Also disturbing were the extent of guarantees asked of the cricketers.
The cricketers may have been blind but it was the border guards who
were short sighted.
http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2009/08/short-sighted-led-blind-nowhere.html
Nirvanam
Border fucks were short sighted????? You are allowing too much benefit
of doubt, Rahim...the whores were drunk of prejudice...nothing else.
On a related, though not cricket-wise, the fact that Wipro's chief
(which is the second largest IT services company in the world) Azim
Premji was detained because of his name "Azim", then our former
president Abdul Kalam, and now SR Khan (I genuinely wish they would've
locked him up coz he is frankly irritating but anyway)..what the fuck
is their problem I don't understand. I think, like one of our
Ministers Ambika Soni said we need to do a tit for tat...you know see
whether any of these fucks has had any connection with the church or
missionary bullshit and ban them from entering as a pre-emptive
measure, or maybe any white with golden hair and blue/green eyes as a
possible nazi whore.
Come on people, rise up and let reason prevail.
alvey
> All countries have the right to refuse entry to anyone, as things
> currently stand.
Eh? When *don't* countries have this right?
> It is rather sad that having such a small planet to
> begin with man has found ways to restrict himself and his brethren to
> still smaller parts of it.
You are one of most nauseating cretins I have ever had the displeasure to
read. Anywhere. Here's a clue as to why things are "rather sad".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
You are a pretentious, pompous bore with no literary talent. Even amongst
your fellow apologist bigots. Fuck off with your spamming and stay in blog
world.
Nirvanam
Alvey, address the point he raised instead of ad hominem attacks
Gerrit
stay and become a burden on the NHS?
Bob Dubery
<snip>
> All countries have the right to refuse entry to anyone. However, when
> they start to do so for sporting bodies the sports fraternity as a
> whole must object.
Really? I'd say that as a general principle it would be nice,
admirable etc, but at a certain point sport and politics do have
something to do with each other.
If there were a soccer world cup in England in 1942 would you honestly
expect that teams from Germany, Italy and Japan would have been
allowed to compete as if nothing had happened? Or
And a better recent example is South Africa. There existed a situation
for a while whereby some cricketing nations would play SA and some
wouldn't. Should we say that India were being blinkered by refusing to
play SA whilst England, Australia and New Zealand did?
And when India decided they would not play cricket with SA who was
restricting the rights of man to participate in sport?
alvey
Been there. Done that. Got the predictable result.
It's a waste of time.
If fanatics could reason then they wouldn't be fanatics would they?
alvey
arahim
> On Aug 17, 9:00 am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>> All countries have the right to refuse entry to anyone. However, when
> > they start to do so for sporting bodies the sports fraternity as a
> > whole must object.
>
> <snip>
>
> Really? I'd say that as a general principle it would be nice,
> admirable etc, but at a certain point sport and politics do have
> something to do with each other.
>
True and it was nothing more than the statement of something to strive
for.
> If there were a soccer world cup in England in 1942 would you honestly
> expect that teams from Germany, Italy and Japan would have been
> allowed to compete as if nothing had happened? Or
>
:)
When Hitler and Nazis enter the conversation as examples for
argumentation that is usually the end of the discussion. One only has
to look at the current healthcare debate in the US. It has been
reduced to name calling (Nazi socialism) rather than the actual issues
at hand. godwin's law in action? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Godwin's_law).
So let me pick a more "reasonable" case. Consider the Falkland's war.
What if the worldcup was held in England? What if the worldcup was
held in Argentina? Though the two countries were at war both had the
right to participate in the worldcup. It maybe is also understandable
that the host may not want the other country showing up or that the
non-host country would not like to show up. In such a case the best
scenario would be to move the cup to somewhere else.
Even in the midst of the cold war both the Soviet Union and the US
regularly had bilateral sports. When they did not participate in
olympics it was by their choice not the host countries.
Now let's return to the case at hand. The analogy is inappropriate.
First there is no war but let us grant that because some insist this
is a war. If so by the British government's own professions Pakistan
and Britain are the allies in this war. Then obviously there is always
the rhetoric of support against terrorism and how this must not affect
life as usual. Now let us even grant that visiting Pakistan is hard
for sporting teams. What is the reason for stopping a team from
visiting?
But even this is not the real cause. The border agents are not worried
that there are hidden terrorists in the blind cricket team. The issue
is more complex and seems to be a negotiating tactic by the British
government for some other unrelated issues.
> And a better recent example is South Africa. There existed a situation
> for a while whereby some cricketing nations would play SA and some
> wouldn't. Should we say that India were being blinkered by refusing to
> play SA whilst England, Australia and New Zealand did?
>
As I mentioned there are no international sanctions against these
teams which was not the case for SA. Britain if it really wanted to
oust Zimbabwe could have brought this up at the UN for a vote and is
in one of the strongest positions to do so as one of the permanent
members of the security council. And Zimbabwe has no veto powers.
> And when India decided they would not play cricket with SA who was
> restricting the rights of man to participate in sport?
I have never said that no country should ever be banned. But there has
to be a consistent standard that has to be met for the weak and the
strong.