Opinion: Why Shannon Gabriel's ban is unjustified

Where do you draw the line?

ICC taking a stand on contested political and social issues is the thin end of a wedge

Once we go down the route of imposing punishments on players for their views on social and political issues, there is bound to be a lot of trouble.

In England, the majority of people believe in LGBT rights. But the majority in India also believe in not consuming beef. What would be the world’s reaction if BCCI says that anyone who mentions eating beef during the IPL would be banned?

Let’s go one step further. England considers Winston Churchill one of their great Prime Ministers and a wartime hero. But he is also the man who was chiefly responsible for condemning 3 million people in Bengal to death because of a man-made famine.

His callousness and insensitivity is well-documented. How would England react if India demanded that English cricketers publicly criticize Churchill in order to play cricket in India? Would it be considered fair?

If gay rights is an issue on which there can be no compromise, then is the death of 3 million people an issue that can be looked over easily?

If one talks about the present, the policies of Pakistan in giving haven to terror groups operating against India is well-known. As is the discrimination faced in that country by minority groups as well as Islamic communities like Ahmediyas. Would ICC ban Pakistan from the cricket world?

The same ICC allowed Michael Clarke to get away without any punishment when he told James Anderson, during the 2013/14 Ashes to be ready for a “f***ing broken arm.” This statement, if taken to court, would have been a punishable act of threatening someone. Yet, the ICC remained quiet.

The amount of vile and personal abuse that was ignored by the ICC and its match officials over the years is huge. Many of the comments made by players from western countries like Australia and England would be considered intolerably vulgar by eastern standards. But the cricket’s governing body remained quiet. But now they have decided to teach a lesson to Gabriel on this issue.

So, once you open the Pandora’s Box, there is no end to the controversies that may arise. It is, therefore, important for the ICC to show some tolerance towards diverse views and different cultural backgrounds.

The decision to ban Gabriel is a step which is both foolish and dangerous. From the very act to its interpretation as well as the principle applied in handing out the ban are all questionable. It is a massive mistake.