The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Recently the English cricket team faced fierce controversy from both the ICC and the English people concerning their one-day international tour of Zimbabwe. It was of strong belief that the team should refuse to play in protest of the country’s extreme dictator, Robert Mugabe.
Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with open discrimination to white people, torturing and killing them as well as forcing them to leave the country. He has done the same with those who oppose him and redistributes their land among his supporters, which then becomes unused and wasted. As such, in his period of power, he has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and ruled not for the people, but himself – what wealth there is being distributed among him and his henchmen.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public questioned whether or not the team should have gone at all. How is it that England can play cricket while innocent people are being tortured in the same country? Especially considering that each match they play will grant money to the tyrant Mugabe. It would not just be overlooking the terrible acts being carried out in Zimbabwe, it would be practically condoning it.
The British government have not made matters any better, presenting no solution to the problem and assuming a submissive laissez-faire stance, relying on the players to decide whether or not they should go. Is it fair to put this amount of responsibility on our national team? The English side want to play cricket, not be burderned with the pressures of complicated political debate.
To make matters worse, the ICC (within whom England as a nation is woefully under-represented) stated that if the English team fail to honour their commitments and play in Zimbabwe, they will face penalties and fines in the region of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it was most likely this and not the moralistic obligations of a team heralding from a country that promotes peace and freedom as human rights that made up the minds of the majority of the players.
Should England have gone? No. We cannot overlook and certainly cannot appear to publically condone such violations of human rights in England itself or the rest of the world. Can the team be forgiven? Definitely. The position they were put in was as unfair as it was unnecessary – there should not have been such irrational pressures from the ICC and the government should have taken control. The problem now is whatever immediate and long term repercussions this visit will have. What, for example, would happen if the team were forced to meet Robert Mugabe? Can we be sure of their safety? Unfortunately it has come to the point where only time will tell.
Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with open discrimination to white people, torturing and killing them as well as forcing them to leave the country. He has done the same with those who oppose him and redistributes their land among his supporters, which then becomes unused and wasted. As such, in his period of power, he has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and ruled not for the people, but himself – what wealth there is being distributed among him and his henchmen.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public questioned whether or not the team should have gone at all. How is it that England can play cricket while innocent people are being tortured in the same country? Especially considering that each match they play will grant money to the tyrant Mugabe. It would not just be overlooking the terrible acts being carried out in Zimbabwe, it would be practically condoning it.
The British government have not made matters any better, presenting no solution to the problem and assuming a submissive laissez-faire stance, relying on the players to decide whether or not they should go. Is it fair to put this amount of responsibility on our national team? The English side want to play cricket, not be burderned with the pressures of complicated political debate.
To make matters worse, the ICC (within whom England as a nation is woefully under-represented) stated that if the English team fail to honour their commitments and play in Zimbabwe, they will face penalties and fines in the region of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it was most likely this and not the moralistic obligations of a team heralding from a country that promotes peace and freedom as human rights that made up the minds of the majority of the players.
Should England have gone? No. We cannot overlook and certainly cannot appear to publically condone such violations of human rights in England itself or the rest of the world. Can the team be forgiven? Definitely. The position they were put in was as unfair as it was unnecessary – there should not have been such irrational pressures from the ICC and the government should have taken control. The problem now is whatever immediate and long term repercussions this visit will have. What, for example, would happen if the team were forced to meet Robert Mugabe? Can we be sure of their safety? Unfortunately it has come to the point where only time will tell.
Page:
Father Crilly wrote:
> And then someone will replace him.
Yes, but we won't have to moan at Mugabe anymore.
> And then someone will replace him.
Yes, but we won't have to moan at Mugabe anymore.
Mugabe's probably right anyway.
He wants everyone to be gangster and ghetto mofo homies.
We're all just "stupid white guys" we're nothing compared to them.
Go the mofo homies!!
Yeah.
[What was that about? I don't evne know myself]
He wants everyone to be gangster and ghetto mofo homies.
We're all just "stupid white guys" we're nothing compared to them.
Go the mofo homies!!
Yeah.
[What was that about? I don't evne know myself]
Page: