Tag: cricket

England’s Cricket Controversy: Taliban and Women’s Rights


Minister supports England playing Afghanistan despite Taliban’s actions against women
January 2025

In a recent post, we criticised the International Cricket Council’s decision to carry on with games involving Afghanistan. This decision was made despite the multiple and atrocious actions by the Taliban against women. A large number of MPs have argued that games should be banned in view of the dire nature of women’s rights in that county.

Lisa Nandy MP, the culture and sports minister disagrees and thinks the games should go ahead. She said in an interview the following:

  • It will deny sports fans the opportunity that they love,
  • She was instinctively against boycotts in sports, partly because they are counterproductive,
  • ‘I think they deny sports fans the opportunity they love, and they penalise the athletes and sports people who work very, very hard to reach the top of their game’,
  • They will not be rolling out the ‘red carpet’ she said and instanced the Winter Olympics, where she was vocal saying ‘we did not give the Chinese the PR coup that they were looking for’,
  • Keir Starmer added that he welcomed the England and Wales Cricket Board making strong representations to the ICC on Afghanistan’s Women’s cricket team. Rather missing the point that the team no longer exists.

It is likely that women in Afghanistan will be unimpressed by these arguments. Sports people being denied the ‘opportunity they love’ has to be set against the fact that women in Afghanistan do not have thls or any other opportunity. Not education, going out unescorted, being seen at a window or work are ‘opportunities’ unavailable to them. They cannot walk the street without being clad head to toe with a grill across their eyes.

And who is the ‘we’ in the statement ‘we will not be rolling out the red carpet’? It has nothing to do with Ms Nandy how much publicity, attention and coverage these games get. As for the prime minister expecting the ICC to make ‘strong representations’ to the Taliban about a non-existant women’s cricket team who have had to flee the country, it is almost laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

The essential question is: will playing cricket with an Afghani men’s team make an iota of difference to the wretched lives being lived by women and girls in that country? It is unlikely. Will playing cricket with an Afghani men’s team make matters worse? Probably. It will send a message to the Taliban that women can be treated abominably yet a British minister – and a female British minister – seems to care more for ‘not denying sports fans the sport they love’ than for women in their country. She is anxious ‘not to penalise the sports people who work so hard to reach the top of their game’. Does not the word ‘people’ include women? They won’t be working hard or working at all to reach the top of their game. Because they are banned.

To pretend that the ICC or any of these sporting bodies will make strong – or indeed any kind of representation – to the Taliban is a fantasy. Sport at this level is about money. And the Taliban will correctly assume that the ICC is more concerned about money than it is about women being allowed to play cricket. Or women being allowed to marry whom they wish. Or girls not being forced into marriage with much older men. Or women being able to acquire an education. Or women being allowed to walk the streets without being totally covered over. Or women not being allowed to get a job. Or women not receiving help and support as a result of domestic violence.

The irony is that cricket was an important element of the British Empire. The game was introduced into more or less all the colonies. But with it came a culture, the idea of gentlemanly conduct, and fair play. It was more than just a game for the colonialists. It was seen as a civilising force. It was a key showpiece for civility. We no longer have an empire but the concepts of the game live on. Yet here we have a situation where cricket is being used by a monstrous regime to promote itself on the world stage supported by a British minister.

Sources include: Portico Magazine, Kent Messenger; The Guardian

1

Cricket and Afghanistan women


Do cricketing authorities have any moral compass at all?

January 2025

For women, life under the Taliban is like living in a prison. Even prisons have windows but the latest edict from the Taliban is that no new buildings can have a window through which a woman can be seen. Existing buildings must have such windows blocked up or screened off. The reason is “seeing women working in kitchens, in courtyards or collecting water from wells can lead to obscene acts”. Thus spoke Hibatullah Akhundzada, leader of the Taliban.

This is just the latest draconian measure. Women have no rights to free movement, education or work. Outside they must be completely covered over. Protections for girls and women subject to domestic abuse have been demolished. There has been a surge of forced marriages for girls and women. A full report, published by Amnesty called Death in Slow Motion reveals the full horrific nature of life for women, if ‘life’ be the correct word to use, in Afghanistan.

Enter cricket and the question of whether England should play Afghanistan: men, of course, because women are not allowed to play cricket or anything else, and members of the nascent women’s cricket team fled the country. This brings up the familiar question of whether we should engage in sporting activities with countries that have little concept of, or adherence to, human rights. We have discussed Saudi Arabia’s huge investment in sport and the recent disgraceful decision to award them the football (soccer, US) World Cup.

Bizarrely the Guardian reports (7 January) the England and Wales Cricket Board are refusing to schedule games against Afghanistan out of concern for a deterioration of basic human rights for women in the country. They are however, along with Australia, happy to play them in next month’s Champions Trophy. They are quoted as saying that they do not think a ban would make much difference to the ruling party there and that a unilateral decision would be less effective than a unified one by the International Cricket Council.

What should be the response for sporting bodies to taking part in sports with regimes who do not observe human rights for all or part of their citizenry? Does playing sport offer hope as the ECB argue? Or does continuing to play sport bolster the regimes and enables them to bask in the publicity while doing nothing to improve rights? Indeed, does sport actually make matters worse? During the communist era, East Germany and USSR for example, used sport to promote the idea of a healthy and successful society. The Saudi regime is investing billions in its sporting activities simply to promote the country to the world. We call it ‘sportswashing’. This enables regimes to sanitise their image knowing that the excitement of sport will give them massive uncritical coverage.

Will playing cricket against Afghanistan offer hope in the country? It might provide some amusement to Afghan men to watch their team, but the women? On the one hand it might put a spotlight on the country and its appalling treatment of women (good). On the other, it offers some favourable publicity to the regime and demonstrates to Afghanis that when money is on offer, the West very quickly loses its moral scruples (bad).

Meanwhile, a group of politicians led by Tonia Antiniazzi (Lab), has written to the ECB expressing their deep concern. The ECB’s responses can be seen in this BBC Sport report. Neither local MPs, John Glen nor Danny Kruger have signed the letter.

Sources: ECB, The Guardian, Amnesty International, BBC

Peter Curbishley

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑