6 thoughts on “The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 157”

1. Well done, Raf and Syd! I totally support your call for the ECB to withdraw from the ICC who ought to be deeply ashamed of themselves for, in effect, giving in to a criminal gang of misogynistic thugs.

   LikeLike

2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-65058099

   makes sober reading (except perhaps for the ICC who are clearly immune to such suffering)

   I think the ECB need to realise that Qui tacet consentit (“Silence gives consent”) – in other words the longer the ECB remain silent on the matter the more they are assumed to agree with the squalid ICC (Cricket Australia at least has the moral high ground of having cancelled a men’s Series because of this issue and also making it clear publicly that human rights is not politics)

   In not standing up for the women cricketers of Afghanistan the ICC is as guilty of sex discrimination as the Afghanistan government. As we know from wars, people in authority who merely standby and allow human rights abuses to take without lifting a finger to stop them are guilty of perpetrating human rights abuses themselves.

   It follows from this that the Crickether call for the ECB and Cricket Australia to pull out of the ICC is deserving of support

   Wake up ECB. Say nothing, do nothing means you support sex discrimination in Afghanistan. Now is the time to show some leadership.

   LikeLike

3. Not totally sure I agree with your opinion on the Afghanistan/ICC situation, in terms of the ECB withdrawing from ICC. There are arguments for the other side as well.

   https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/afghanistan-s-status-as-icc-full-member-unlikely-to-be-affected-1362033

   Quote:
   “Cricket Australia is the only board to have publicly acted in response to the Taliban’s policies. They first postponed a one-off Test they were to host Afghanistan in – the first the two countries would have played – and more recently cancelled the ODI series, in response to the education ban imposed on females.

   Most other ICC Full Members have remained silent on the matter so far, though the majority still see the rise of Afghanistan’s men’s team as a fairytale that should be allowed to continue and grow, rather than be curtailed.”

   We’re assuming that Australia are in the right on this but I’m not so sure. The ACB aren’t responsible for the Taliban’s actions. They feel their hands are tied by the current regime and so it falls to the ICC to intervene and help the Afghan women’s players form a team, outside their board’s influence if necessary. The ICC could if they so chose still be the solution to this whole issue and not the problem.

   Cricket of any type is still arguably an anathema to the Taliban, so it wouldn’t help to stop funding ACB. I don’t really see how Australia refusing to play against the Afghan men’s team helps their women’s cricketers either. I don’t think the cricketers, mostly in Australia now, were calling for Afghanistan to be frozen out in this way. They want help to play, not gesture politics.

   I see parallels to the situation in Tennis, where the LTA was punished by the global governing body for banning Russian players from Wimbledon. Could CA be punished by the ICC for the series cancellation against Afghanistan? And if it were, would other national boards be so keen to jump on their bandwagon?

   LikeLike

   • James, you describe the actions of the Cricket Australia as “gesture politics” (which, to give the Australian point of view, they would flatly deny based on Nick Hockley’s statement that “Human rights are not politics”)

     So I can perhaps better understand what you mean by “gesture politics”, would I be correct that you would describe the Australian withdraw from the South Africa test series in 1971/72 because of Apartheid as “gesture politics” ?

     Also, what politics do you think Cricket Australia are playing here – in other words, what was their political motivation behind their cancellation of the series ?

     LikeLike

   • PS: James, these are genuine questions (for my understanding) as opposed to rhetoric.

     LikeLike

4. Oh dear, I wondered if that phrase might draw a few comments. Sorry.

   In fairness I was playing Devil’s Advocate a little there, having been peeved by certain accusations on the last post. I don’t necessarily hold the above views but was trying to put across the other side of the argument. Australia has of course already provided more real support to the Afghan women’s cricketers since they had to leave, than anyone else.

   Some might say the CA were virtue signalling with their men’s series cancellations, which is where that idea of gesture politics come from. But I think the CA was maybe trying to be a bit more strategic than that, to predict the direction the wind might turn. As the current situation is likely to not change quickly enough to satisfy the many people, who are justifiably angered over what’s happening in Afghanistan. Therefore that sense of feeling and injustice will continue to crystallise to a breaking point, where either some sort of compromise is reached or another board may take action against the ACB. If that’s the case, it makes sense to get ahead of the narrative.

   Maybe putting collective pressure on the ICC is a good idea, as long as they get the real sense that the majority of members won’t accept the current state of affairs. So I think any response from the ECB needs to be well co-ordinated and organised.

   LikeLike

Comments are closed.