Wednesday, March 01, 2006



Welcoming Zimbabwe

Having made it clear that the Zimbabwean cricket team were not welcome to visit here last year, the government is now saying that it will welcome them with open arms if we are hosting the 2011 world cup. Can anyone else smell the reek of hypocrisy here, of principles being sacrificed in the name of tourism dollars again?

Of course, 2011 is a long way away, and hopefully by that time Mugabe will have died of old age and we will not need to refuse to have his team in the country. But we certainly shouldn't be making any promises about it. Instead, we should be making it clear that we reserve the right to refuse entry to the official representatives of regimes which grossly abuse human rights, and if this is too uncertain for the ICC, they can take their world cup elsewhere.

7 comments:

Would Labour welcome South Africa if whites only rule still existed.

I don't think they would - would they?

Why is it different if a black leader brutally corrupts the democractic practice and murders his political opponents?

Zimbabwe should be isolated like South Africa was and sporting ties cut.

It seems Labour has recently been willing to cosy up to some of the most undemocratic countries in the world, i.e. China, Zimbabwe, and Middle East nations.

Is this a worring trend? I would say YES.

Posted by Anonymous : 3/01/2006 05:44:00 PM

Of course we now have the opportunity to really make a statement by having protesters follow the team wherever they go with the (cricketing) world's media filming all of it...boycott's are only one way of making a point.

Aside from that how can a Labour government that might not even be in power in 2011 ban them from a tournament we haven't yet been awarded? Is it really sensible to ban them now when Mugabe may have popped his clogs by then?

Mike

Posted by Anonymous : 3/01/2006 09:48:00 PM

Mike: they can't. But they certainly shouldn't commit to welcoming them either.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/01/2006 11:03:00 PM

Yes they can. They can add a clause to the Immigration Act banning "any sports team representing Zimbabwe in a sporting event for payment". If Mugabe goes and is replaced by someone decent, then repeal it.

Or go further and ban "any commercial transaction with a Zimbabwe resident business, person or government entity" - which would cover a commercial sports team.

If the Zimbabwe team wanted to forgo their fees and sponsorships and play for the honour of (realistically) losing, then I'd have no problem with them coming.

Posted by Rich : 3/02/2006 02:17:00 PM

Rich: I was more thinking that any such legislative ban could be subsequently overturned. 2011 is one, maybe two elections away. Anything could happen in that time.

Ghet: actually, I'd quite like to see the US banned from sporting events because of Guantanamo. It would highlight the issue quite nicely.

And remember, we practice indefinite detention. Oh, Zaoui's on bail now, but the same law applies to anyone else who turns up at the airport in his situation...

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/02/2006 06:50:00 PM

I thought this was meant to be a serious cricket tournament. Zim are bad enough, but the USA? Americans can't play cricket. They'll be inviting the Scots next.

Obviously neither being a corrupt fascist dictatorship or having a cricket team that couldn't beat the Little Snoring 4th XII disqualifies a nation from the world cup.

Posted by Rich : 3/03/2006 10:19:00 AM

Actually we practice indefinite detention on NZ citizens.

It's called 'preventive detention'.

People who are a high risk of commiting a criminal offence against the NZ community are locked with no actual end date to the sentence.

They can only be released if the Minister of the Crown grants it (most unlikely until that person is grey, old and sick.

In the US they defintely have concerns about certain individuals wanting to kill and injury US citizens in the past and in the future if they are released.

One of the problems in the US with Guantanamo as to why they have been locked up with no trial is the issue of whether they can be tried in a military tribunal.

This has been winding it's way through the appeals process and will eventually wind up in the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately as with most appeals process this can take several years while various courts hear the arguments for and against, then make there decision.

Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2006 02:36:00 PM