Should the ICC handle serious charges which fall under Civil/Criminal Law?

[bowser]

Yes they do and the moment we start suggesting that things be referred to the courts it stops being a sport. I love the game and have played and watched it for 50 years, lets continue to treat it as a game and leave the legal mumbo jumbo to the business world.

 

[harishankar]

Racism is illegal in many European countries including Germany.

Using any Nazi symbols in Europe can get you a jail term. So there goes your argument about racism not being illegal at all.

 

[BONED!]

Racism is illegal in many European countries including Germany.

Using any Nazi symbols in Europe can get you a jail term. So there goes your argument about racism not being illegal at all.

Being a racist is not illegal. The display of Nazi symbols is a public offense due to the country's history. You can openly hate asian people if you live in Germany. You just can't go and wave "anti-asian" flags in the street without being arrested for disturbing the peace and causing civil unrest. It's not the racism that is illegal. It's the way you go about it.

 

[harishankar]

Being a racist is not illegal you fool. The display of Nazi symbols is a public offense due to the country's history. You can openly hate asian people if you live in Germany. You just can't go and wave "anti-asian" flags in the street without being arrested for disturbing the peace and causing civil unrest. It's not the racism that is illegal. It's the way you go about it.

It's clear that I know more law than you...

You've really made a wonderful point by calling me a fool...

Just try shouting racist remarks in public and see if that doesn't land you in jail...

 

[BONED!]

It's clear that I know more law than you...

You've really made a wonderful point by calling me a fool...

Just try shouting racist remarks and public and see if that doesn't land you in jail...

it doesn't. It's freedom of speech, and a human right to hold whatever belief you choose, including the dislike of any race.

maybe you should have a look at the history of racial aggitation between australians and ethnic immigrants during the 80's-90's. There is no law against not liking or wanting the other race here. There was even a political movement against the foreigners. Even England was swept up in the movement, although the honest intentions of the movement were overshadowed by the poor actions of skinheads and nationalists.

And as for yelling in public, you aren't arrested for yelling racist things, you are arrested for disturbing the peace and causing civil unrest. I could stand in my house and say all the racist things I want to the face of the foreign postman and there is no law against that. (Not that I would, because I do not condone racism). If I yell at him and cause a civil disturbance then yes I can be arrested for that. As I stated, racism itself isn't what's illegal, it's the aggressive public display of racism that is illegal.

 

[harishankar]

See? This is precisely why we're fighting on these forums.

Australians and Indians come from different cultures. You don't understand us as much as we don't understand you.

So let's put an end to this...

 

[BONED!]

See? This is precisely why we're fighting on these forums.

Australians and Indians come from different cultures. You don't understand us as much as we don't understand you.

So let's put an end to this...

I wasn't trying to start a fight. And I don't particularly mean for this to seem like a fight. I am just making my point that holding racist beliefs is not illegal. The KKK is legal (just the group is legal, not the burning crosses and killing people part). Skinheads are legal. Neo-nazism is legal (for the most part, depending on where you live). It's a human right to hold whatever belief you wish.

The above arguing aside: if two soccer players started a brawl on the field, they would be answerable to the heads of the board and face reprimand. The same goes for any sport, including cricket. What if it was a physical fight that broke out between players. They would face a tribunal exactly like what is happening at the moment. (What I am saying also has nothing to do with whether or not anyone said or did not say anything, it is just an example) So yes, if it works for other sports, it should work for cricket too! If you can see what I mean. The ICC board is there for a reason, just like the FIFA board and the international board of any sport!

 

[harishankar]

But what if a soccer player got killed in a fight? Would that fall under the board or become a legal matter?

 

[BONED!]

But what if a soccer player got killed in a fight? Would that fall under the board or become a legal matter?

That is an entirely different situation. That involves Grevious Bodily Harm. Stemming back to the original part of the question, I think the ICC does have the right to intervene in situations such as any claims of racism etc. Murder or manslaughter is obviously a totally different ball park (you can't compare a person dying to hateful words between players).

Obviously there is a level at which things would be turned over to the police, such as Bob Woolmer's death. Things that involve the GBH of people would obviously call for a police investigation. (Especially since cricket is meant to be a non-contact sport) But verbal attacks and small fights should be answerable to the governing board of the sport the players are representing!

 

[smssia0112]

It is the ICC's competition, they must take a firm hand with a code of conduct and they must enforce it regardless of civil or criminal law. It is up to them to govern their players, something that seems lost on certain people who would rather the BCCI do the job for them.

 

[Sureshot]

Nope it's not. Racism falls under the Right to the freedom of speech (at least here in the States). Racists can assemble together under the Right to Assemble. Non Public Insitutions like ICC can hold gatherings where they can outlaw certain behaviors eg. Racism-so racist issues are dealt with within that body. Dealing with Racism as a criminal offense leads to a slippery slope where I feel such a ruling could be unfairly used to abridge the rights of speech and assembly of parties of differing political viewpoint.

Serious things like murder, sexual misconduct, etc. has ramifications in actual society so actual measures are carried out there; additionally, institutions like the ICC can add further punitive measure if they find the behavior under violation of a Law or ruling.

You make the assumption that freedom of speech exists, it doesn't. People have to be held accountable, I don't want people like Abu Hamza spouting his filth.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Then if it's no big deal and Harbhajan's words were so innocent, why the hell has Harbhajan been handed a 3 match suspension? The Australians went crying off to the match referee as though he committed an unpardonable sin.

What about the numerous times that Ricky Ponting has abused the Indian players and over-appealed?

Your double standards appall me... I expected more support for my point of view on this issue.

Both Captains agreed to report ANY racism on the field. And Ponting did, how is that crying?

Plus what has over-appealing got to do with this? I didnt see any over-appealing in the game, i saw both teams appealing for wickets which had the slightest chances of being out.

 

[aussie1st]

ICC should handle it cause racism is not illegal in Australia or NZ so leaving it to the local law would mean you could racially abuse people down under with no worries of being punished.
Bringing this type of thing to court could take months to process in some countries and by then the player has already left the country. Not to mention what sort of punishment could he be given? A court handing out a cricket match ban just doesn't seem right to me.
If the ICC has enough evidence to rule on they should rule, if not find the person not guilty.

 

[valvolux]

Well CA has it's own stance against racism which is outside of the ICCs duristiction - if you are believed to have made racist remarks you are swiftly banned from attending cricket in Australia. I would love it if they would apply this law to Harbhajan - I'm sure there's a pub near the WACA he can watch the test from.

 

[Animator!]

Out of the two situations I'll use Harbahjans because you don't get arrested anywhere in the world for calling someone a *******, and so Hogg's case isn't accountable in this situation.

In England, if Harbahjan had just been a normal bloke, not a pro cricket walking down the streets, saw a black guy and called him a monkey, not only would he have probably been assualted but he probably would have got done for inciting racial hatred.