I think a critical difference with the South African anti-apartheid sporting boycott was that the South African power brokers (government and business etc.) cared about their international sporting status where as the Taliban in Afghanistan do not i.e. the Cricket Australia boycott is and will remain ineffective.
In a complex world, terms like hypocrisy and virtue signaling and 'wokeness' are not helpful. The issues here would test any ethics academic let alone student; basically it comes down to deontology (right and wrong, usually based on religion or some other set of values) vs. utilitarianism (getting the best overall outcome for all). Looks like the ICC is (pretending to be, but never could realistically be) deontological and CA is decidedly utilitarian (probably a more relevant approach in a complex world, but they then need to establish a bottom deontological line below which they would cease playing altogether).
This seems straightforward. If CA won’t play Afghanistan then we don’t play them. And that’s it. Even in a World Cup. Principle costs that’s why it’s a principle. That said, the recent performance of CA from Sandpapergate onwards bears all the hallmarks of the worst type of expediency.
A really difficult issue without an easy answer, despite everyone wanting one or thinking they have the correct approach. I’m all for a boycott of Afghanistan (but really the Taliban) until women’s cricket is reinstated, though I appreciate this also punishes the innocent too. But the boycott has to be total, not just when it suits us. At the same time, maybe other nations should boycott us for our war crimes and flagrant human rights violations. That list goes back a long way…
Virtue signalling, we better steer clear of that one. Hypocrisy. Well, I think it is reasonably safe to say that CA indulges in hypocrisy when we can play against Afghanistan in an ICC tournament
(including in Australia) but not when we just want to have a one on one competition with them.
If our Government really says we can't play against Afghanistan then why do they issue visas for that team to come to Australia ? The ICC isn't a higher authority than the Australian Government, or is it that our Government thinks this ICC is a sub-section of the United Nations ?
What happens in Afghanistan is dimly known to us. In the last week or so there have been reports of a radio/TV media outlet, with women staff / announcers, still operating there. The chap in charge of it has an Australian connection I believe. As far as the various wars over just the period of our lifetimes go we know little except that inevitably the Taliban have triumphed. Faith in what we do see or hear might have been shaken recently by the disclosure that a leading local media outlet accidentally altered some of their film which had been taken in the field in Afghanistan.
We play and trade freely with other countries that have dubious human rights records, but these nations are less often in the spotlight. Is that because the money involved is too much to shy away from in some cases, while others are of little perceived importance in "our" world ?
Nabi and Rashid show a fair bit of bravery to issue their statements. They presumably have relatives and friends there, even if they are currently living away from their homeland.
My feeling is that the door should be kept open until all hope is extinguished. That means Governments staying in contact, if possible, and endeavouring to keep open other "normal" activities where possible.
Did South Africa or Israel, a couple of examples, wither away quickly when they were boycotted all those years ago ? No, and in South Africa it took a long time and they actually purchased foreign cricket teams to help keep their game going . Other factors entered the equation before the combined weight caused the South African regime to collapse .
Gees it’s actually refreshing to be able to see a civil, considered and respectful interchange of ideas and feelings on an internet forum. Turns out Twitter and the Murdoch comments section aren’t actually a representation of wider humanity
I understand your dilemma, Peter. But the fact that the men's team is able to base itself outside Afghanistan points a way forward: CA, with active ICC support, should foster the development of the women exiles, with a clear plan to take them from their current playing level, at least to women's T20Is, e.g. against teams like Vanuatu and PNG. That would be a much more practical policy than boycotting the men, especially with Rashid and Nabi coming out on the side of the angels.
It's a conflated issue, and I reckon there's not a right or wrong answer. However, I do think we owe it to the Afghanistan players to ask them how they think we should approach this. They are going to be closer to the people on the ground than we are here.
CA definitely hypocritical and Barclay is right about their stance. Though I'm for playing Afghanistan anyway, even bilaterally. In a society such as Afghanistan is becoming for women defiance of the government, even if its a small thing like women cheering on the men's cricket team or listening to music shouldn't be underestimated. Nothing will change from boycotts and nothing is likely to change from playing, but a sliver of enjoyment or hope can be got from playing.
Apartheid I think is slightly different in that the National Party tried to give Christian justifications for the irrationality of their policies and wanted world opinion to understand them to a degree. Their sporting teams were also deliberately chosen to reflect the white population against the makeup of the country, isolating them did something. Stone age Islamic fundamentalism is nowhere near as malleable.
Yep, l can just see the Taliban trembling at CA’s failure to play bilateral series with the Afghanistan men’s team. I’m no expert on the subject but l believe nothing CA does is going to change the Taliban’s stance on women’s cricket in Afghanistan. But what it will do is deny the Afghanistan men’s team a chance of playing cricket at the top level. I really feel for the Afghani women’s cricketers and CA should be doing everything to support the locally based Afghani women but Barclay is right to be calling out CA’s hypocrisy. The cynical side of me thinks CA’s moral stance only extends to where its financial stance starts. If CA believes in its position it should be clearly explaining why it is so.
If CA's position is a matter of principle, and surely it must be, it can't be conditional on whether or not it's at an ICC tournament. It therefore is hypocrisy and is essentially nothing more than virtue signaling. It's also difficult (nigh on impossible) to see how this position will force change from the Taliban, which must be its sole purpose?
On balance (...I think), continue to play them, whilst certainly expressing your views. Ultimately, where do we draw the line? ...I mean what's going on in Pakistan is pretty bad, and you might object to the Indian leader too... Over the years, there have been some pretty unpalatable leaders and regimes (and that's just UK...😎....Just kidding) . If we "stopped play" every time, there would hardly have been much cricket.
BUGGER. somehow I wrote norm smith not norm MacDonald. Currently flogging myself.
https://youtu.be/ljaP2etvDc4?feature=shared It is a great bit though
I did wonder about that one.
I think a critical difference with the South African anti-apartheid sporting boycott was that the South African power brokers (government and business etc.) cared about their international sporting status where as the Taliban in Afghanistan do not i.e. the Cricket Australia boycott is and will remain ineffective.
I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop this terrorist cricket nation. Thank you. Now watch this cover drive.
In a complex world, terms like hypocrisy and virtue signaling and 'wokeness' are not helpful. The issues here would test any ethics academic let alone student; basically it comes down to deontology (right and wrong, usually based on religion or some other set of values) vs. utilitarianism (getting the best overall outcome for all). Looks like the ICC is (pretending to be, but never could realistically be) deontological and CA is decidedly utilitarian (probably a more relevant approach in a complex world, but they then need to establish a bottom deontological line below which they would cease playing altogether).
This seems straightforward. If CA won’t play Afghanistan then we don’t play them. And that’s it. Even in a World Cup. Principle costs that’s why it’s a principle. That said, the recent performance of CA from Sandpapergate onwards bears all the hallmarks of the worst type of expediency.
A really difficult issue without an easy answer, despite everyone wanting one or thinking they have the correct approach. I’m all for a boycott of Afghanistan (but really the Taliban) until women’s cricket is reinstated, though I appreciate this also punishes the innocent too. But the boycott has to be total, not just when it suits us. At the same time, maybe other nations should boycott us for our war crimes and flagrant human rights violations. That list goes back a long way…
I think it would be nice to hear/platform a few more female voices in the debate offering their thoughts.
Or even some female Afghan voices perhaps?
Virtue signalling, we better steer clear of that one. Hypocrisy. Well, I think it is reasonably safe to say that CA indulges in hypocrisy when we can play against Afghanistan in an ICC tournament
(including in Australia) but not when we just want to have a one on one competition with them.
If our Government really says we can't play against Afghanistan then why do they issue visas for that team to come to Australia ? The ICC isn't a higher authority than the Australian Government, or is it that our Government thinks this ICC is a sub-section of the United Nations ?
What happens in Afghanistan is dimly known to us. In the last week or so there have been reports of a radio/TV media outlet, with women staff / announcers, still operating there. The chap in charge of it has an Australian connection I believe. As far as the various wars over just the period of our lifetimes go we know little except that inevitably the Taliban have triumphed. Faith in what we do see or hear might have been shaken recently by the disclosure that a leading local media outlet accidentally altered some of their film which had been taken in the field in Afghanistan.
We play and trade freely with other countries that have dubious human rights records, but these nations are less often in the spotlight. Is that because the money involved is too much to shy away from in some cases, while others are of little perceived importance in "our" world ?
Nabi and Rashid show a fair bit of bravery to issue their statements. They presumably have relatives and friends there, even if they are currently living away from their homeland.
My feeling is that the door should be kept open until all hope is extinguished. That means Governments staying in contact, if possible, and endeavouring to keep open other "normal" activities where possible.
Did South Africa or Israel, a couple of examples, wither away quickly when they were boycotted all those years ago ? No, and in South Africa it took a long time and they actually purchased foreign cricket teams to help keep their game going . Other factors entered the equation before the combined weight caused the South African regime to collapse .
Gees it’s actually refreshing to be able to see a civil, considered and respectful interchange of ideas and feelings on an internet forum. Turns out Twitter and the Murdoch comments section aren’t actually a representation of wider humanity
I understand your dilemma, Peter. But the fact that the men's team is able to base itself outside Afghanistan points a way forward: CA, with active ICC support, should foster the development of the women exiles, with a clear plan to take them from their current playing level, at least to women's T20Is, e.g. against teams like Vanuatu and PNG. That would be a much more practical policy than boycotting the men, especially with Rashid and Nabi coming out on the side of the angels.
It's a conflated issue, and I reckon there's not a right or wrong answer. However, I do think we owe it to the Afghanistan players to ask them how they think we should approach this. They are going to be closer to the people on the ground than we are here.
Now there’s a good suggestion! Centre the people for whom this matters most!
CA definitely hypocritical and Barclay is right about their stance. Though I'm for playing Afghanistan anyway, even bilaterally. In a society such as Afghanistan is becoming for women defiance of the government, even if its a small thing like women cheering on the men's cricket team or listening to music shouldn't be underestimated. Nothing will change from boycotts and nothing is likely to change from playing, but a sliver of enjoyment or hope can be got from playing.
Apartheid I think is slightly different in that the National Party tried to give Christian justifications for the irrationality of their policies and wanted world opinion to understand them to a degree. Their sporting teams were also deliberately chosen to reflect the white population against the makeup of the country, isolating them did something. Stone age Islamic fundamentalism is nowhere near as malleable.
Play them. Build the bridge. Be better than the Taliban
Yep, l can just see the Taliban trembling at CA’s failure to play bilateral series with the Afghanistan men’s team. I’m no expert on the subject but l believe nothing CA does is going to change the Taliban’s stance on women’s cricket in Afghanistan. But what it will do is deny the Afghanistan men’s team a chance of playing cricket at the top level. I really feel for the Afghani women’s cricketers and CA should be doing everything to support the locally based Afghani women but Barclay is right to be calling out CA’s hypocrisy. The cynical side of me thinks CA’s moral stance only extends to where its financial stance starts. If CA believes in its position it should be clearly explaining why it is so.
If CA's position is a matter of principle, and surely it must be, it can't be conditional on whether or not it's at an ICC tournament. It therefore is hypocrisy and is essentially nothing more than virtue signaling. It's also difficult (nigh on impossible) to see how this position will force change from the Taliban, which must be its sole purpose?
On balance (...I think), continue to play them, whilst certainly expressing your views. Ultimately, where do we draw the line? ...I mean what's going on in Pakistan is pretty bad, and you might object to the Indian leader too... Over the years, there have been some pretty unpalatable leaders and regimes (and that's just UK...😎....Just kidding) . If we "stopped play" every time, there would hardly have been much cricket.