KEY POINTS:
Doing something bad is always a lot worse than merely saying it and life is a lot easier if you follow the rules. It's because these two basic tenets have been broken that the test series between Indian and Australia is in turmoil.
It's outrageous that cricket fans could be denied the opportunity to watch Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh ply his talents in the last two tests, if they take place, because he called Andrew Symonds a monkey.
At the same time, Indian officials have no right to be critical of Symonds for not walking when he nicked one through to the keeper while on his way to an unbeaten knock of 160.
No one likes being verbally abused. Racial abuse can be particularly cutting because it is directed at a trait that is defining of an individual's make-up, a characteristic that cannot be changed. Hence, cricket authorities are right to try to stamp it out.
But as with all things in life, perspective and proportionality cannot be ignored. Australia on the basis of its actions is among the most racist countries in the world. We can talk all we like, but when it comes to showing our true blue colours by reference to what we actually do in terms of judging and accepting non-Australians, we are morally deficient.
Australian Government policy dictates that the ease with which people are allowed to grace our opulent shores is principally determined by one criterion - a person's nationality. We give preferential treatment to people that look and behave like us and place often insurmountable barriers for the rest of the world to come and visit our land.
Thus, potential tourists and students from nice Western countries are effectively given an automatic right to come to visit Australia. All that people from places like the US and Western Europe need to do to come to Australia is buy a Qantas ticket.
It's vastly different for people from "povo" or black-skinned countries. All people from these countries are tagged by our migration department as being inherently unlikely to observe the conditions of their visas (especially how long they are allowed to stay).
In order to visit or study in Australia they have to satisfy a number of, often impossible, requirements. These relate to proving that they have amassed wealth or other resources in their miserable country of origin. Thus, a Lebanese national who is socially and economically identical in all respects to a US national will normally be prevented from visiting Australia, while the US national will be welcomed with open arms.
It is not because there is anything wrong with people from Africa, the Middle East or Asia. It is just that the migration department refuses to consider each person on their merits and assumes that a whole race of people are likely to be lying when they state they will not overstay their visas.
The racism got a whole lot uglier recently following the decision to limit refugee numbers from Africa.
Now if you had a choice between being called a monkey on the cricket field or (in the case of refugees) being prevented from travelling to the life-saving shores of Australia because of your skin colour, which would you prefer? None of this justifies what Harbhajan said, but it does put the issue into some perspective. Harbhajan should have been dealt with by way of reprimand, thereby clearing the way for all Australians to watch his intriguing battle with his new bunny Rick Ponting, who for the first time in nearly a decade is having his immense batting skills tested.
And as for the controversy over Symonds not walking, there is a classic case of much ado about nothing. You only need to read the rules of cricket to understand this.
Yes, the rules state that a batsman that is caught is out. But this rule is subordinate to the rule that the final judge of whether or not a batsman is out is the umpire. Hence, Symonds was right to stand his ground and let the umpire make the, albeit factually wrong, decision.
Players like Adam Gilchrist who are perpetual walkers might think they have the moral high ground. But in fact the opposite is the case. Given the human element involved in adjudicating, barring bias, over a period of time statistically all teams will have as many poor decisions go in their favour as against them.
This is the best way to ensure a rough degree of fairness on the cricket field. Walkers distort this equilibrium in a manner that is detrimental to their team and country. Of course there are more important things than worshipping rules. In the end, consequences matter most. Hence in rare cases it is permissible to break even important rules where this will produce a better outcome. That's why it is okay to break the speed limit to rush a heart attack victim to hospital.
But cricket is not an activity where consequences matter much. Grown men running around in white outfits hitting and chasing a small red ball do nothing to shape the world in a way that is better than before they started.
Cricket produces nothing tangible that helps the human condition. No person is left healthier, warmer or more nourished for having watched a cricket match. What watching cricket, as with all sport, does is give the human condition an escape from the hard realities of life. In this regard, the outcome of a match is secondary to the manner in which the game unfolds. None of the magic of the game is lost depending on who wins or loses.
As spectators we want a contest on the field and predictability in the manner in which the game is adjudicated. Thereafter, may the best team win.
The suspension of Harbhajan will diminish the contest. Hence in the short term all cricket fans are impoverished. Still, for an activity which produces nothing functional or tangible, the controversy is no doubt great for the game!
* Dr Mirko Bagaric is a Melbourne cricket junkie who is a lawyer and author between test matches, and a former member of the Refugee and Migration Tribunals.
