Race Storm Hits Zim Cricket

[hhm]

Huuuh, I lost all respect for the Hon Minister when he took the fight public. What really does astound me is that members of ZCF have chosen to be silent and not criticise Coltart despite how everything havs panned out. maybe they can't see that something is amiss. Anyway I have come to expect this. Even if all this info came from a signed affidavit from Coltart admitting to being biased and have ulterior motives, most of ZCF would not believe it.

The couple of years I've spent here have taught me that there are some die-hard sectarian fellows who will never criticise some of these folk.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that former mafia Grant preferred to sulk and stay in his hotel room because he was overruled by his superior, but none of those fellows found anything wrong with that?

To this day, they see nothing with Coltart instructing that suspended Jarvis play for the Eagles!

I tell you if it was Mangongo who sulked, or say Mutizwa was suspended but one of the other Ministers intervened, the ZCF would've gone mad with damning posts!

Even revelations that Coltart's directive was fraudulent, did not move them one bit!

Some of these guys are simply too much. I wouldn't be surprised to still read one of them say ZC must spend money to rehabilitate Querl. We need him at all costs!

[Jemisi]

Perhaps there would be more space for measured criticism of Coltart if so much of ZCF's airtime wasn't taken by wild hate language.

I am just not prepared to give even tacit approval for all of Hhm's bile.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the minister's judgment vs Makoni's position, Bayhaus, cool.

If we all have to jump on the crazy wagon with Hhm, no thanks.

[hhm]

Perhaps there would be more space for measured criticism of Coltart if so much of ZCF's airtime wasn't taken by wild hate language. If we all have to jump on the crazy wagon with Hhm, no thanks.

i.e. "I will not justifiably direct negative criticism towards the only white minister just to spite certain people here!"

All of Zim's government and independent media is awash with Coltaet critics right now. not to mention the countless journalists responsible for the arguments. Even former cricketers have made him a subject of criticism in their blogs. politicians and civil society organisations have had plenty to say. All of them made up of educated and respectable figures. If it's a wagon, and you term it crazy, then what are you? level headed?

Desmond Tutu - "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality".

[Jemisi]

My comment about your practices H is not limited to the Coltart issue.

I said measured, not neutral. You don't seem to put much value in measure or balance, I know, but they are decent values.

I have criticised Querl, regardless of your position on the subject. I can criticise Coltart, but as I said there is a big distance between where you are at on this forum and reasonable discussion of pretty much any subject. If so much time wasn't taken up with your hate language we might have more space to explore said minister's actions.

Making assumptions based on silence and throwing around accusations at whites is bad form. We can discuss behaviour without being forced to attend a pungwe.

[hhm]

My comment about your practices H is not limited to the Coltart issue.

I said measured, not neutral. You don't seem to put much value in measure or balance, I know, but they are decent values.

Your opinion.

[Jemisi]

Yes, it is my opinion that balance and measured speech are good values.

[bayhaus]

Perhaps there would be more space for measured criticism of Coltart if so much of ZCF's airtime wasn't taken by wild hate language.
I am just not prepared to give even tacit approval for all of Hhm's bile.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the minister's judgment vs Makoni's position, Bayhaus, cool.

The problem is you looking at it as taking sides with HHM which is wrong. I don't take take HHM's side. Regardless of how hard he may come at Coltart or any subject for that matter, I will still weigh what he says. HHM is one of the only people in here who is willing to flip the coin and see whats on the other side, as uncomfortable as it may be.

What ZANU has taught me is too look beyond the rhetoric and hate speech and find the substance there, if there is any. And if there is any and I agree with it, it doesn't mean I am on ZANU's side but it means I agree with the substance of their arguement. I am totally for the idea of the the land being given back to the people, But I certainly do not condone the way it was done - funny enough when this issue is also discussed focus is only placed on the way it was done and not how Britain played a part which lead to that.

One thing is for sure though ZCF forumites are better to discuss with the than the FB peeps on Cricket Zimbabwe Group

[Jemisi]

Mostly yes, my point was not that there is a problem with sifting Hhm's vitriol for an occassional accuracy. Even those addicted to lying occassionally muck it up and tell the truth.

It was that if extreme positions have already, and prematurely been taken, there is little to contribute that does not tacitly approve of that extremity. Silence then should not necessarily be misconstrued for agreement or disagreement.

I know what H has said about something, but just because say the Doc hasn't commented, doesn't mean I can make a judgment of his position one way or the other. I just have no idea, it would be unfair of me to attribute anything to him.

The land issue is a great example, yes. New Labour were ill-considered and full of themselves without thinking about the consequences. ZANU cronies then capitalised for their own enrichment and wrecked stuff up. My problem with that is less for the whites than all the orphans of farm workers that we have to care for because of ZANU wickedness.

[Ming]

Kudos to you Bayhaus, for trying to keep a cool head and staying lucid enough to look for the substance. I have trouble doing that.

Another issue to throw into the pot is that the timing of such things are never innocent. March the 16th, anyone? Then choosing a new big boss later on in the year?

[bayhaus]

It was that if extreme positions have already, and prematurely been taken, there is little to contribute that does not tacitly approve of that extremity. Silence then should not necessarily be misconstrued for agreement or disagreement.

Making assumptions based on silence

I agree. I was putting silence into a camp.