Fawad Ahmed, a recent arrival from Pakistan and recently picked to represent Australia on the ''VB Tour of England'' refuses to wear the VB logo on “religious grounds.”

He will however take the money for his efforts put towards the ''VB Tour of England.”
It is an Australian sports TEAM sponsored by an Australian brand icon, but he is not part of it by his own calculated actions. Kick this zealot out of the team. He is hypocritical and attempting to bring religion into Australian sport is despicable.

Caveat:
New Zealand “christian” test cricketer Bruce Murray would not play cricket on Sundays for religious reasons. I would have kicked him off the team as well.

You are too late.

<HAVING succeeded in convincing the AFL to introduce prayer rooms at all venues, Bachar Houli was unfazed last night by a stinging backlash sparked by former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett, who called the idea "stupid" and "political correctness gone mad".

Football fans took to websites to condemn and ridicule the move, but at his home in Melbourne the AFL's first Muslim player told The Australian: "The main thing is we've got what we want, and you can't change that.

"At the end of the day, people want to go and enjoy the footy as well as continue with their beliefs, and if it means they have to pray once a day at the footy, we're not asking for much."

Mr Kennett said the move was "ridiculous" and complained that political correctness had replaced "the great days" of football

...........

Describing Australia as "a Christian society of many faiths", the former Liberal premier and former Hawthorn club president said communities should not have to change their "very fibre" to accommodate multiculturalism.

"To put prayer rooms into sporting venues is not part of the Australian lexicon, it's not the way in which we've behaved," he said.

"I think it's an overreaction, I think it's political correctness, I think it's absolute rubbish. It's not practical, it's stupid, it's political correctness gone mad."

Houli, who plays at Richmond, where he prays before and after games, pressed for prayer rooms to be introduced at grounds in his capacity as the league's multicultural ambassador>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/jeff-kennett-decries-prayer-rooms-at-footy/story-e6frg6nf-1226333759496

It is nonsense that prayer rooms would appreciably increase crowd attendance through the religious 'sensitivity' enacted.

Just some of the ways government spends taxpayers money - in funding special groups to have a direct line to the minister. One wonders how many changes are quietly made that do not receive publicity.

The question here is, How far do we go to accommodate other cultures?

If a sportsman is not prepared to wear the team sponsors logo, should he be allowed on the team? Where do we draw the line.

We do not allow bullfighting or cockfighting and certain foods are not allowed, e.g. consumption of dog meat. Other foods may not be illegal but would not be acceptable, e.g. human placenta, whale meat or dolphin meat. Horse meat was available at a butcher in Perth.

On the other hand, we turn a blind eye to FGM and forced marriages as there have been no prosecutions as yet.

Should we allow more cultural practices that we currently shun.

Carrying a knife is against the law unless you are a Sikh and you may also be exempt from a cycle helmet if you wear a turban.

Every time we bend to accommodate some other cultural practice, we compromise our own culture.

and yet in Britian the secularist froth at the mouth if a nurse wears a cross. no doubt double standards.

There are many instances where our secular State and laws are being compromised through concessions to multiculturalism, or when other activist groups prevail.

Bigamy is illegal, but not only can some be recognised by government for their several wives (multiculturalism at work), but the same 'Progressives' who allowed that to occur also re-jigged family law to make bigamy legal in practice by recognising 'de facto' claims against a person who is already married. The unfortunate wife and dependents of a husband who has affairs could suffer claims against the husband's (and family's) assets and income to the detriment of the marriage and family.

The problem isn't so much that ethnic activists and others make demand on government to accommodate their culture and traditions and hopefully to win taxpayer-funded benefits, but that the culturally cringing political 'Progressives' are encouraging, facilitating and funding it to occur.

Election day 2013: time to put out the rubbish in Canberra.

runner,

You are right to criticise. However it is probably more down to the left 'Progressives' than secularists.

Although there are many vocal Progressives among secularists who seem to hate Christianity with a passion, while remaining singularly silent and forgiving where Islam is concerned.

Yes, one would have to ask how anybody, for whatever reason, could resist having the logo of a booze company splashed all over his sports attire.

After all, as sonofgloin pints out:

"....He is hypocritical and attempting to bring religion into Australian sport is despicable."

While paid endorsement by booze companies in sport is just good old ocker common sense.

Globalised world, guys.....guess what? If the bloke has talent, then he'll be employed.

Funny old world : )

Poirot>> Yes, one would have to ask how anybody, for whatever reason, could resist having the logo of a booze company splashed all over his sports attire.<<

P the point is he will take the cash from the self same "booze" company, but he won't wear the logo, then makes a political statement out of it....and that is what his actions are....a political statement. If a double standard in that lot escapes you Poirot, so does reality my dear interlocutor.

Surely, you have this entirely back-to-front, sonofgloin.

>>...the point is he will take the cash from the self same "booze" company, but he won't wear the logo<<

In the world of commerce, it is the piper who calls the tune. If the sponsors had a problem with his decision, a quiet word in the ear of Cricket Australia would have been quickly transmitted to the selection committee, and would have solved the problem immediately. As it turned out, far from being remotely concerned, Carlton & United Breweries were quite happy to pay the cash to a logo-free player.

Quite possibly, you may ponder, because the inclusion of a Moslem player in the team would deliver their VB brand welcome additional media coverage. And as you are proving here on this thread, his presence in the team was a publicity gift that keeps on giving, despite the fact that Fahwad Ahmed himself was almost invisible on the cricket pitch itself.

Starting this thread says far more about your visceral intolerance of other cultures than about one cricketer's alleged "hypocrisy".

PERICLES>> Quite possibly, you may ponder, because the inclusion of a Moslem player in the team would deliver their VB brand welcome additional media coverage.
As it turned out, far from being remotely concerned, Carlton & United Breweries were quite happy to pay the cash to a logo-free player<<

As if the brewery had any other option Pericles, to stand by the right to brand the uniforms regarding this muslim provocateur would be commercial and perhaps personal fatwah territory, not to mention the lefty press.

If we take your incredibly immediate evaluation further, how do you think they would react if all their branding was removed from the series? Not sponsoring I would proffer, and that is the extension of your ridiculous assertion that the brewery is as pleased as punch at the prospect.

Pericles>> Starting this thread says far more about your visceral intolerance of other cultures than about one cricketer's alleged "hypocrisy".<<

This statement embodies the passive aggressive deception of civility ……Why don’t you just call me racist Pericles…

Did you note the theme being about a double standard rather than a religious or political issue. Did you peruse where I mentioned the christian New Zealand cricketer and my assertion that he should have been dismissed from their national team….nah….racist….that will do. Thanks P……..

More bluster, sonofgloin.

>>As if the brewery had any other option Pericles, to stand by the right to brand the uniforms regarding this muslim provocateur would be commercial and perhaps personal fatwah territory, not to mention the lefty press<<

Do you imagine for one moment that the views of the sponsor would not be sought well before any selection was made?

The government, who rushed through his citizenship, could not possibly have overlooked the fact that he was Muslim.

It surely cannot have escaped anyone - even folk as dense as the Australian selectors - that Muslims don't drink.

And even a body as impenetrably incompetent as Cricket Australia would have been aware that VB is a brand of beer, and would have managed - possibly, I grant you, after a great deal of head-scratching and gurgling noises - to join the dots between the key facts.

All this was already widely known, even before parliament made him a gratuitous exception to the normal naturalization process.

Your idea that this was an individual's cynical act of religious exploitation is therefore both illogical and untenable.

Incidentally, Bruce Murray was one of three New Zealand cricketers who refused to play on a Sunday, Bryan Yuile and Vic Pollard being the others.

>>Did you note the theme being about a double standard rather than a religious or political issue.<<

Actually, I did.

Which is why I highlighted the double standards of the sponsors, who on the one hand insisted that the team should carry their logo, but on the other were quite happy to allow Fawad Ahmed to play, sans logo, so they could milk that extra bit of publicity from their actions.

>>Did you peruse where I mentioned the christian New Zealand cricketer and my assertion that he should have been dismissed from their national team….nah….racist….that will do.<<

As I said, you can't "dismiss" someone who was unavailable for selection. Which rather exposes this rider of yours as a somewhat pathetically smelly red herring, with which to to distract us from your blatantly anti-Muslim stance.

What would you call it?

The idea of continuing to use an alcohol company as a sponsor of a cricket team, but yet get upset about how alcohol plays a part in causing violence and bad behaviour amongst cricket fans at the grounds, is pure hypocrisy in itself.

I have no problem with anyone refusing to wear a brewery logo on a sporting team.
It is this sort of sponsorship, and the dark shadows of racism that continues to show that a now very secular Australia is still living in the past ...

Banjo wrote;

“Carrying a knife is against the law unless you are a Sikh and you may also be exempt from a cycle helmet if you wear a turban.”

“Every time we bend to accommodate some other cultural practice, we compromise our own culture.”

That put a smile on my face.

This is Banjo who I distinctly remember flapping his chops about gun laws and regaling us about the good old days before the 'anti-gun lobby' butted in and who certainly would not have worn a cycling helmet as a kid now trying to claim these as assaults on our culture?

Oh please!

Bit by bit by bit.
This just what Geert Wilder warned about.

csteele,
You do have a vivid imagination, but it is not accurate. I have no recollection of ever discussing gun laws on this forum. But you are right in that it is my opinion that all the gun laws achieved was to make the workplace safer for criminals. That is they know far fewer homes now have guns in them and I did not notice queues of crims handing in their guns when the laws came into force.

But of course you missed the point of my post. The point is that their should be one law and rule for everyone. No one should get exemption because of culture and our polys should not 'turn a blind eye' to cultural practices that are either unlawful or not in keeping with our societies standards.

After this election I hope to see the ideology of multiculturalism officially dropped.

I cannot see why an athlete should wear any advertisement at all on her or his uniform. Why should an athlete be compelled to be an advertising space even though the advertiser may support the team?

A professional athlete is hired to play a sport. Any endorsement of a commercial product should be the decision of the athlete.

Dear SOG,

Is it in their contract that they must take part in
advertising? If it's not - then I agree with David F.,
the decision should be left up to the athlete.
Although I must admit I don't get it - how can he
take the cash - if he doesn't wear the logo?

Fair point.

>>...our polys should not 'turn a blind eye' to cultural practices that are either unlawful or not in keeping with our societies [sic] standards<<

There is of course a reasonably clear definition of what is lawful. And at this point it is worth noting that nothing in the actions of the player, Cricket Australia or Carlton & United was unlawful.

So that leaves "society's standards".

A broad enough concept, I would have thought. How many times, just on this Forum, has the question of "Australian values" been approached, and failed to achieve any kind of consensus? It tends to crystallize as a slanging match between those who believe that such values have been arbitrarily frozen in time, usually somewhere in the 'fifties, and those who accept that even the 'fifties had changed from, say, the Australia of 1914. And who are relatively comfortable with the concept that they will change in the future.

Personally, I believe that anyone who thinks that Australia can keep itself aloof from what is happening in the rest of the world is living in a fool's paradise.

Just because you might not like what is happening, you cannot pretend that is is not.

Dear Banjo,

“the anti-gun lobby” is a direct quote from one of your posts. I am sure you were involved in a discussion we had on guns so will do some research. If not then I will concede the inaccuracy.

What I am not prepared to concede is the that point of your post was “that their should be one law and rule for everyone.”

Rather than the above this was your direct message; “Every time we bend to accommodate some other cultural practice, we compromise our own culture.”

Pure revisionism my friend.

And what an inane thread to try and hang this argument on. I will tell you what our cricketing culture was for so many years, that the test whites were never adorned with advertising of any kind. Now look at them. If you want to complain about the cultural damage to the game wrought by moneyed interests then you certainly have a case. But that is not your agenda is it? Rather you want to take a the actions of a young man sticking to his convictions to stir up more anti-multiculturalism rantings.

Who can forget the story of Eric Liddel's refusal to run in a race at the Olympics on a Sunday because of his beliefs so well portrayed in the film Chariots of Fire. “Liddell did however face immense pressure to run on that Sunday and to compete in the 100 metres, getting called before a grilling by the British Olympic Committee, the Prince of Wales, and other grandees; and his refusal to run made headlines around the world."
Wikipedia

Most of us would have applauded his decision and courage not to go against his convictions. Here though, in a mean spirited and spiteful manner, the actions of Fawad Ahmed are derided and used to fear monger.

Poisoners!

This could have opened the door to a discussion about advertising in sport, particularly that of alcohol whose over consumption is such a socially damaging issue, instead we have this thread.

Shame.

csteele,
You can look all you like at my history. I don't think you will find me contributing to a discussion on guns and I do not recall making any reference to 'the anti gun lobby'. However, like you , I will concede if you happen to find I am wrong.

The point is that if a person wants to belong to a club, team or organization but does not want to wear the uniform or abide by all the rules, he should not attempt to join or expect a special exemption. I don't follow much sport so am not familiar with Eric Liddel, but if he did not run on a Sunday because it was against his beliefs then good on him. He stuck to his principle. Similarly if a cricketer or footballer does not want to wear the approved club uniform he should not play.

This is not the first time persons have used their culture to get what they want or gain some advantage in some manner. Also it is not the first time officialdom has bent the rules to suit a player of ability. Officials then compromise their principles.

We are a multi-racial society but not multicultural. The word multicultural is a misnomer. We accept some aspects of some other cultures as long as they do not contravene our laws and standards.

We have the 'Qantas Wallabies'. Their games never make any mention of the fact that the team is representing Australia.

I say we currently have no Australian Rugby Union Team. Just a bunch of blokes who play for Qantas.

No national side should be allowed to bear any logo except the Australian coat of arms, or Australian flag.

I love a drink, not a fan of VB I must admit but I believe getting drunk is a legitimate ingredient of a national culture. I just think if you're going to have a national team, they should represent the nation.

I find it curious though this Muslim thing. What of the Commonwealth bank series?

Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever (Al-Baqarah 2:275)

Dear Banjo,

This is where I remembered your gun stance from.

'Media beat up about guns'. A thread started by you that can be found here;
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5190&page=0#140223

“Well the media and the gun control lobby copped a blasting today about the two Olympic swimmers having their pic taken, holding guns, in a US gunshop.”

“The anti gun lobby used the pic to push their barrow. and it was blown up by sensational media.”
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 10:53:55 PM

A quick scan for 'banjo' and 'workplace safer for criminals' returned a quote from you from 5 years ago which mimics your post from above.

“I was really upset about the implementation of the gun laws because they were imposed purely for short term political gain, nothing else. The only acheivement being that the workplace is now safer for criminals.”
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 8:06:20 AM

There are more than likely others but I have satisfied myself that I was not unjustly inaccurate in my claim.

Back to the topic.

You said “We accept some aspects of some other cultures as long as they do not contravene our laws and standards.”

Now I would like you to explain to the rest of us why refusing to wear the logo of a beer on one's sporting apparel has contravened our laws or our standards?

Come on mate. I tend to slot you in a notch or two above the first two posters here but you continue to speak rubbish. Cogent arguments please.

csteele, "Cogent arguments please"

Advice you could follow yourself.

BTT

I've just read a bit more on this issue on
the web and it appears that Carlton United
Breweries are respectful of Fawad's personal
beliefs and have agreed with his request to
wear an unbranded shirt because of his faith's
ban on alcohol. They respect the fact that the
man's religious beliefs don't allow him to be seen
in promoting alcohol.

Carlton United Breweries have been a long-standing
partner with Cricket Australia for 17 years.
And as Fawad has stated - he's thankful for
CUB's understanding of his personal situation.

Perhaps this issue is a bit of a storm in a teacup?

Carlton United Breweries and Cricket Australia are too smart to volunteer as targets for the activism of the politically correct.

Imagine the *bleep* stirring and online petitions of the serially upset if they had done otherwise. Especially in an election year where protest parties are desperate to find grievances for headlines.

Cricketers come and go and very soon too.

Houellebecq>> No national side should be allowed to bear any logo except the Australian coat of arms, or Australian flag<<

Houelly, possibly the most valid comment on this thread to date....but the thread is about a political/religious statement of hypocritical proportions given he will take the cash but not wear the logo.

Foxy>> it appears that Carlton United
Breweries are respectful of Fawad's personal
beliefs .
They respect the fact that the
man's religious beliefs don't allow him to be seen
in promoting alcohol.
Perhaps this issue is a bit of a storm in a teacup?<<

Foxy this is how I addressed a similar assumption that Pericles raised.

>> If we take your incredibly immediate evaluation further, how do you think they would react if all their branding was removed from the series? Not sponsoring I would proffer, and that is the extension of your assertion that the brewery is as pleased as punch at the prospect.<<

Bazz>> Bit by bit by bit.
This just what Geert Wilder warned about.<<

Bazz the thread has a different theme….but if the shoe fits wear it….insightful comment….thanks.

Carlton United Breweries and Cricket Australia
are indeed quite savvy. They recognise a winning
sportsman when they see one, who's worthy of
promotion and getting excellent results for them.
A win/win situation all round

csteele>>Come on mate (Banjo). I tend to slot you in a notch or two above the first two posters here but you continue to speak rubbish. Cogent arguments please.<<

Me next csteele please....rate me next....I wanna go...who am I better or worse than? hahahahahaha

Dear SOG,

Actually I do feel that both CUB and Cricket Australia
are "pleased as punch," by the situation. Think of the
money that will be made, and the prestige, for their
brand if this guy keeps winning for them? The brand
name will be advertised by the rest of the team,
and they'd rather win than get rid of a top player.
Look at it from their point of view. If they were losing
on this deal - they wouldn't agree to it. But they have.
And that speaks volumes.

Well it certainly spiked the guns of the serially upset. Imagine what the Greens Protest Party would have made of it in an election year. A: headlines. Tough luck, Greens and 'Progressives', the administrators must have seen you coming.

Cripes, what if it had gone the other way with OLO's Lexi about? Her first ball would be a wide, labeling Australians as 'racists' and 'xenophobes'. It wouldn't get any better from there. Lexi would be so beside herself with self-righteous anger on behalf of Islam it would seem as though there were two of her.

Speaking of which, just how many Lexis are posting? Or is it a game of 'Find the Lexis?

Foxy>> Actually I do feel that both CUB and Cricket Australia
are "pleased as punch," by the situation. Think of the
money that will be made, and the prestige, for their
brand if this guy keeps winning for them? The brand
name will be advertised by the rest of the team,
and they'd rather win than get rid of a top player.
Look at it from their point of view. If they were losing
on this deal - they wouldn't agree to it. But they have.
And that speaks volumes.<<

HAPPY….sure they are Foxy. They are probably planning to recruit muslims exclusively so they don’t get any brand recognition for their buck.

csteele,
Well done! Of course now you remind me that I made those comments. You do indeed have a good memory. I relation to the first comment, it was relative to the swimmers that were unfairly victimised over some pictures taken that thousands of tourists get done whilst in the USA.

The views expressed in the second are exactly as I indicated today and have been that way since the gun laws were implemented.

Now back to subject. It does not matter what the logo is, it is part of the official team uniform and all players should abide by that or not play on that team. They can find another team to play with. Like the UK bloke not running on a Sunday, if that does not suit the team he should not be part of it.

From other posts, it seems the sponsor is willing to give the player special benefits. Another example of compromising to suit an alien cultural demand. Not good enough in my opinion. Just the same as turning a blind eye to FGM and forced marriages. No wonder the illegals see us as soft and weak.

Dear SOG,

Your last response to me is not worthy of you.
I expect more from you.
Try again.

Dear Banjo,

It seems to me that athletes who allow their uniforms to become advertising posters are soft and weak in allowing it. I am sure that many athletes have not thought one way or another about the advertisements on their uniforms. They are not used to questioning and doing what they are told. That is great while playing, but ads on the uniform have nothing to do with their play.

Fawad Ahmed and Bruce Murray are willing to protest. Hurray for both of them whether they are kicked off the team or not. I think it reasonable for athletes to wear the club logo on their clothing, but I think it unreasonable to expect them to wear other logos on their clothing.

Football, baseball, hockey and basketball clubs in the US and Canada don't require athletes to wear any club sponsor's logo on their uniform. Why should they do it in Australia?

Foxy>> Dear SOG,
Your last response to me is not worthy of you.
I expect more from you.
Try again.<<

Fellowette Foxy, I asked csteele to grade me, but thanks for your input, it is appreciated.

Worthy.....give me a break…..The only contributors who have acknowledged the theme of this post are partisan with my thoughts.

All the detractors of the premise have not addressed the theme but tangentially woven another theme into their responses. Spin in other words.

Nah Foxy, my post was appropriately responsive to your deflection of the theme. Anyway that’s the way I see it

I see news today that Sweden has granted blanket asylum to all Syrian refugees who apply.

“All Syrian asylum seekers who apply for asylum in Sweden will get it,” Annie Hoernblad, the spokesperson for Sweden’s migration agency, told AFP.
“The agency made this decision now because it believes the violence in Syria will not end in the near future.”
http://tribune.com.pk/story/599235/sweden-grants-blanket-asylum-to-syrian-refugees/

It has already taken about the same number of Syrian refugees as all the asylum seekers who have arrived in Australia this year. This is a country less than half our size.

All this from a relatively conservative government.

I have memories of an Australia doing the same for Vietnamese refugees. Made one proud to be an Aussie.

That's some imagination you have there, onthebeach.

>>Carlton United Breweries and Cricket Australia are too smart to volunteer as targets for the activism of the politically correct. Imagine the *bleep* stirring and online petitions of the serially upset if they had done otherwise. Especially in an election year where protest parties are desperate to find grievances for headlines.<<

There is no way that CUB would have been forced into a situation where they would have to insist on the player's de-selection. Business simply does not work that way, as anyone associated with club sponsorship can explain to you.

Nor would they withdraw sponsorship from the team, simply because one player declined, for personal reasons, to sport their logo. Take for example the situation with Hashim Amla of South Africa, currently top of the ICC batting rankings in both Tests and ODI, who asked Castle Brewery if he could be exempted from precisely the same logo-wearing requirement.

"He is a man who stands up for what he believes in and as a believer in the Muslim faith, he proved this when he appealed against having a team sponsor, an alcohol brand, embroidered on his kit. However, there was no big hoo-hah or toys thrown when Amla opposed it, no fireworks or arguments, just pure grounded class. Castle Lager accepted his request and Amla does not carry the logo on any of his South African apparel."

http://clearcricket.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/hashim-amla-and-the-south-african-race-conundrum/

No fuss. No bother. And that was back in 2010.

I would wager that it was exactly the same at CUB. All parties concerned come out as winners.

Pericles,

Humility and fact require me to giver any credit for "imagination" as you say to you because it is your invention not mine that puts words in my mouth.

Show me where I ever wrote or inferred this, "CUB would have been forced into a situation where they would have to insist on the player's de-selection" or that CUB would withdraw sponsorship.

I reckon it is you yourself who doesn't understand how risk management works and what treatments senior management might rely on first and foremost. Simply put, the risk where activists are concerned is embarrassment and its effect on the public's perception of the company. Management is required to waste valuable hours on the media circus.

That happens regardless of the rights or more usually the wrongs and misstatements of activists. Activists know this, which is why the usual modus operandi of the usual suspects is to use media hacks to build a storm fast. Sensationalism that gives a headline, whereas later as it becomes very obvious that their case was flaky in the extreme, there is no retraction from the activists (Retraction? Say what?) and the real facts are relegated to page six, a tiny column.

In this case it was far more effective and easier for CUB management to give the likely media sensationalism the big swerve from the start, a side-step, by not taking a ticket for the game (and it is a game) in the first place. Why give attention-seeking activists a leg in?

Well done senior management, step up fast and deny the publicity seekers, the professional activists and protest party, a foothold. The activists who constantly whinge about 'corporate media'/'MSM', but are adept at manipulating the media. For the hacks and current affairs shows, it is all about making the news. Again, the activists take advantage of that.

Just as well Fawad Ahmed wasn't a member of the Independent Order of Rechabites and had made the same request... there's no knowing what the Brotherhood (that's the International Temperance Brotherhood, BTW) might have done if it had been refused.

Regards, Certificate of Abstinance, IOR Victorian Branch Recipient, 1965, WmTrevor

WmTrevor,

That rather depends on whether the IOR is recognised by the ratbag political correctness of the 'Progressives' wouldn't you think?

Political correctness, 'Winning the Culture War'

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm

It would appear that we are only discussing motivation here, onthebeach.

>>In this case it was far more effective and easier for CUB management to give the likely media sensationalism the big swerve from the start, a side-step, by not taking a ticket for the game (and it is a game) in the first place. Why give attention-seeking activists a leg in?<<

You say they avoided the problem out of fear of adverse publicity.

I say they accepted the request with good grace, and acted accordingly.

I'd be interested to hear whether you have any basis for your assessment - or is it merely a reflection of how you would react in their position?

"I say they accepted the request with good grace..."

Would that be WG Grace?

WmTrevor,

"Would that be WG Grace?"

Very good : )

(But my favourite will always be that classic commentary gaffe : "The batsman's Holding. The bowler's Willy:)

Pericles,

I am saying that CUB management didn't take the bait.

Speaking of which, I will not be taking your bait(ing) either. LOL

An appropriately nonsensical response, onthebeach.

>>Pericles, I am saying that CUB management didn't take the bait.<<

Which assumes, of course, that there was "bait" in the first place.

So you have set up your very own straw man - "a trap was set" - which you then demolished with "but they managed to avoid it".

So you win your very own argument! Congratulations.

Have a great day.

Pericles,

For someone who put words in others' mouths your whinge is bollocks, pot/kettle.

You are disappointed that CUB management didn't take the bait and give you a podium.

Tough luck! Well done CUB.

On the contrary, onthebeach.

>>You are disappointed that CUB management didn't take the bait and give you a podium.<<

I am delighted that such a minor issue was handled so competently and professionally by intelligent people.

Incidentally...

>>For someone who put words in others' mouths ...<<

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

Just sayin'

Umm very good opposing points of view and it behooves me to be causiously scepticall about all matters without full information from all reliable sources. I sermise it would be advantageous to have F.U.N on the rear portion of my vehicle which of course would be in reference to the gentleman in question. I think those of you who are accustomed to such logos will be fully conversant as to what it truely represents in this instance. :)

Just goes to show that even our government will fast track a Muslim for citizenship to enable him to play for Australia.

It's too late now to change the rules, whether we wish to or not.

It's the price we pay for being so competitive that even our government will join in to do whatever it takes to get the best players in any Aussie sport on our teams.

Ahmed can thank our political leaders for his good fortune. Maybe he should think of this when he gets on his high horse, and remember we are a multiracial nation rather than a multicultural one.
Reading the polls indicates that a large majority of Aussies quite rightly want it to remain this way. As Australian citizens our country and way of life should be both accepted and respected by all those wishing to live here. If they can't accept that they shouldn't come here. Like all other countries, we have a certain way of life that we expect migrants to embrace, and don't want this changed to their way because of religion. We keep religion and politics separate, and so should all prospective newcomers.

Cultural customs in the privacy of our homes should also be respected, but when a high profile sportsman displays his demands for his religion to be accepted in sport it demonstrates that this is obviously acceptable if his demands are met. The wedge is now in. What comes next I wonder?

He however, has the choice not to play the game at all if he has such strong feelings about what he can or can't do or wear. Maybe this should be the solution?

worldwatcher,

"Like all other countries, we have a certain way of life that we expect migrants to embrace, and don't want this changed to their way because of religion."

What a joke.

Does that include adorning oneself with booze logos.

Yeah, we're a people of considerable depth.....Lol!

Worldwatcher,
Are you sure the government is fast tracking this persons for citizenship or has done so?

To me that would be a greater abuse than him not wanting to wear the sponsors logo.

Like Doug Walters said, if he won't wear the official uniform, he should not be on the team. Similarly if he does not really qualify for citizenship he should not be on the team.

I don't care who he is or what he is.

Poirot, "Does that include adorning oneself with booze logos"

The Australian government proudly wears wine labels. You are obviously unaware that the federal and all State governments put taxpayers' money into supporting the wine industry. Or what is more likely, you flip and flop to suit your prejudices. Here, from the Wine Australia website,

<Welcome to the Wine Australia website. As the Australian Government agency responsible for providing strategic support to the wine industry, Wine Australia offers a range of services and insights to help the wine industry make informed business decisions, protect the reputation of Australian wine, remove market access barriers and grow demand for Australian wine globally>

http://www.wineaustralia.com/

Maybe as a 'Progressive' you figure yourself to be a cut above the beer drinking herd and buy $20+ bottle tipple instead.

Then again, maybe you would might demand a 'multiculturally sensitive' federal government that doesn't recognise grape growers and wine producers. All towards that diversity-we-have-to-have, eh what?

There many of different faiths and non-faith groupswho do not support the promotion of alcohol. It seems quite reasonable to me for a cricketer to be able to play the sport without having to wear a beer company logo. For some time Google did not accept advertising promoting "hard liquor". It would seem reasonable to have limties on the advertising of alcohol, particularly when children are viewing: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2011/12/converging-media-and-internet-rules.html

It depends on what the player's contract says. Presuming that no-one would sign up without advising the club and negotiating a change up-front where the terms of the contract are not to his liking.

cricket is itself a religion....