Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

[Kram81]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Howard would have sustained ICC

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/tragic-cricket-failure-as-howard-sent-to-the-pavilion-20100630-zmpb.html

 

[Ljp86]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

A good thing in my opinion. Howard is a cricketing fanboy, he may have run a country for a decade but he knows little about cricket administration and had no experience in any sort of cricket admin role.

Australia and New Zealand should have nominated the New Zealand candidate as their nominee. I've forgotten his name but he has a lot of experience having been involved in running cricket in New Zealand previously. He would have been a lot better choice than Howard who has done nothing for cricket in this country except attend a few games whilst he was PM.

Australia and New Zealand made the decision to back Howard. How well everyone from those two countries likes the idea does not matter. In the end they have agreed on that decision, and when put forth to the other countries, they should accept it as is the custom.

Actually, NZ put forward their own candidate who's cricketing resume was far, far superior to Howard's but Australia bullied (or to be politically correct, "persuaded") NZ into going along with their own candidate.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

A good thing in my opinion. Howard is a cricketing fanboy, he may have run a country for a decade but he knows little about cricket administration and had no experience in any sort of cricket admin role.

Cricket administration, is no different to administration. This hack about never being involved with cricket is a fallacy and to continue to purport it, particularly in this day and age and from a business mindset, it makes no sense.

Australia and New Zealand should have nominated the New Zealand candidate as their nominee. I've forgotten his name but he has a lot of experience having been involved in running cricket in New Zealand previously. He would have been a lot better choice than Howard who has done nothing for cricket in this country except attend a few games whilst he was PM.

What has any other ICC president/Prime Minister done for cricket in Australia? Nothing, we run the game on the home front extremely well.

Actually, NZ put forward their own candidate who's cricketing resume was far, far superior to Howard's but Australia bullied (or to be politically correct, "persuaded") NZ into going along with their own candidate.

Where was NZ bullied?

 

[Ljp86]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Cricket administration, is no different to administration. This hack about never being involved with cricket is a fallacy and to continue to purport it, particularly in this day and age and from a business mindset, it makes no sense.

How can Howard preside over a committe that runs cricket around the world when he has no prior experience in doing such things within the confines of Australia?

What has any other ICC president/Prime Minister done for cricket in Australia? Nothing, we run the game on the home front extremely well.

And it's done well by people who have an idea about what they're doing. All the people involved with running Cricket Australia have had some sort of involvement with cricket before their current roles so these people know what they're doing.

Where was NZ bullied?

NZ put forward their own candidate but Australia insisted that NZ join them and nominate Howard as their choice even though the NZ candidate had far better credentials. Australia didn't rest until Howard was the selected candidate.

 

[Babies Arm]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

i say give it back to india..... we all know they will whinge til they get there own way.
then just put in another toothless tiger like performance in the icc where india will just run it anyway!!!!
its all getting to be a bit of yawn with the indians now

P.S just a shout out to waurn ponds cc. (good luck this year)

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

How can Howard preside over a committe that runs cricket around the world when he has no prior experience in doing such things within the confines of Australia?

The same way he presided over a country.

And it's done well by people who have an idea about what they're doing. All the people involved with running Cricket Australia have had some sort of involvement with cricket before their current roles so these people know what they're doing.

So where does Malcolm Speed fall?

NZ put forward their own candidate but Australia insisted that NZ join them and nominate Howard as their choice even though the NZ candidate had far better credentials. Australia didn't rest until Howard was the selected candidate.

Citation needed.

 

[Kram81]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

How can Howard preside over a committe that runs cricket around the world when he has no prior experience in doing such things within the confines of Australia?

Who cares it's an administrative job and he's been in charge of an entire country FFS.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

'we decide who assumes the presidency and the manner in which they assume it'
-ICC member nations

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Got a copy of the ICC constitution lying around?

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

'No one country should dominate' - John Howard | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

The right man for the job.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Got a copy of the ICC constitution lying around?

The joke was:

"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come"
-John Howard, stoking the flames of xenophobia and forgetting that he too is, in fact, of migrant heritage.


The right decision (No to Howard) was made for the wrong reasons (Indian hegemony)

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

The joke was:

"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come"
-John Howard, stoking the flames of xenophobia and forgetting that he too is, in fact, of migrant heritage.

The right decision (No to Howard) was made for the wrong reasons (Indian hegemony)

Which country in the world does not say the exact same thing?

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Just because the use of racism and xenophobia as a wedge issue in is widespread, that doesn't mean it is acceptable, or that a person as adept at the art of dog-whistling as John Howard would be a suitable candidate to run an organisation which counts India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, West Indies, South Africa and Zimbabwe amongst its constituents.

Last time I checked, Sir John Anderson has never been in charge of the only developed country in the world to be declared 'racist' by the UN (citing Howard's efforts to strip Indigenous Australians of the rights and privileges afforded to other Australians).

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/465991.html

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Just because the use of racism and xenophobia as a wedge issue in is widespread, that doesn't mean it is acceptable, or that a person as adept at the art of dog-whistling as John Howard would be a suitable candidate to run an organisation which counts India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, West Indies, South Africa and Zimbabwe amongst its constituents.

Well therein lies the fallacy because it is not racism nor xenophobia.

Last time I checked, Sir John Anderson has never been in charge of the only developed country in the world to be declared 'racist' by the UN (citing Howard's efforts to strip Indigenous Australians of the rights and privileges afforded to other Australians).

Sambit Bal: Stop canonising Howard | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Sambit Bal, you are quoting Sambit Bal. That article is full of so much disinformation, propaganda and bias to protect the Indian view point that it brings his role into question as the Editor of Cricinfo.

All I can gather from your view point, is that you are racist towards Australians.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Haha yeah it must be me who is the real racist. After all, it was I who refused to apologize for the state-sanctioned attempted genocide of an entire race of people, who took away the human rights of indigenous Australians because I didn't think they were civilised enough to live their own lives in our glorious society, who treated legitimate asylum seekers as pawns for the purpose of winning votes, who turned a blind eye towards the white-supremacist Apartheid regime in South Africa but decided to crack down when the colours were reversed in Zimbabwe, whose administration concocted stories about asylum seekers throwing their children overboard in order to stir up fear of these barbarian invaders, and who unilaterally declared that Australia's culture was to be one of white Europeanism, and that Australia has no place for multiculturalism.

It must be me.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

It obviously is. It is the easy option for people like you to use the race card.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

I'm not sure that accusing me of playing the 'race card' in any way detracts from the examples I just gave.

I'm finished in this thread.

 

[Kram81]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Haha yeah it must be me who is the real racist. After all, it was I who refused to apologize for the state-sanctioned attempted genocide of an entire race of people, who took away the human rights of indigenous Australians because I didn't think they were civilised enough to live their own lives in our glorious society, who treated legitimate asylum seekers as pawns for the purpose of winning votes, who turned a blind eye towards the white-supremacist Apartheid regime in South Africa but decided to crack down when the colours were reversed in Zimbabwe, whose administration concocted stories about asylum seekers throwing their children overboard in order to stir up fear of these barbarian invaders, and who unilaterally declared that Australia's culture was to be one of white Europeanism, and that Australia has no place for multiculturalism.

It must be me.

Mate, you are a complete lunatic.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

I'm not sure that accusing me of playing the 'race card' in any way detracts from the examples I just gave.

I'm finished in this thread.

What you are saying has no context, is biased, factually wrong and derisive of foreign politics and events that have occurred abroad. You are saying that we must accept any culture regardless of what that culture is and you are saying that Australia can have no stance on it's direction as a country or the people that it allows in.

After all, it was I who refused to apologize

Well have you apologised?

for the state-sanctioned attempted genocide of an entire race of people, who took away the human rights of indigenous Australians because I didn't think they were civilised enough to live their own lives in our glorious society

So you are blaming Howard for an act that was enabled in 1915?

who treated legitimate asylum seekers as pawns for the purpose of winning votes,

Both parties agree on a tough stance on illegal immigrants. You don't complain about the media being a willing contributor but are willing to cite Sambit Bal article as a reference.

who turned a blind eye towards the white-supremacist Apartheid regime in South Africa

Citation needed

but decided to crack down when the colours were reversed in Zimbabwe

So you are against racism, but you are for it when reversed.

whose administration concocted stories about asylum seekers throwing their children overboard

The evidence for and against is inconclusive.

in order to stir up fear of these barbarian invaders

Dribble.

and who unilaterally declared that Australia's culture was to be one of white Europeanism

Citation needed.

and that Australia has no place for multiculturalism.

Citation needed.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

What you are saying has no context, is biased, factually wrong and derisive of foreign politics and events that have occurred abroad. You are saying that we must accept any culture regardless of what that culture is and you are saying that Australia can have no stance on it's direction as a country or the people that it allows in.

Strawman, I didn't say any of those things.

Well have you apologised?

No, I have never been the representative of the nation-state of Australia.

So you are blaming Howard for an act that was enabled in 1915?

No, I am condemning his steadfast refusal to apologize on behalf of the nation he was leading. Say what you want about Rudd, at least he had the guts to apologize for the most heinous crime in Australian history.

Both parties agree on a tough stance on illegal immigrants. You don't complain about the media being a willing contributor but are willing to cite Sambit Bal article as a reference.

I'm not sure what Labor's position on the issue has to do with anything. I'm also unsure about how the media's complicity somehow absolves Howard of any wrongdoing.

Citation needed

Howard's political past caught up with him. His opposition to sanctions against apartheid South Africa, believing they would do more harm than good, and support for selected sanctions and travel bans against Zimbabwe's Mugabe regime, which included Zimbabwe Cricket president Peter Chingoka, were held against him.

So you are against racism, but you are for it when reversed.

As far as strawmen go, this one is particularly pathetic. Howard should have attacked both regimes equally hard, not picked and chosen which ones were worth fighting against.

The evidence for and against is inconclusive.

Actually, it isn't.

Children Overboard Affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Australian Senate Select Committee for an inquiry into a certain maritime incident later found that no children had been thrown overboard and that the government had known this prior to the election. The government was criticised for misleading the public and cynically "(exploiting) voters' fears of a wave of illegal immigrants by demonising asylum-seekers"

Dribble.

See above quote

Citation needed.

One Australia policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation needed.

One Australia policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia