In Paragraph F(1) of its ‘Clothing and Equipment Regulations’ the ICC states that "Players and team officials shall not be permitted to wear, display or otherwise convey messages through arm bands or other items affixed to clothing or equipment unless approved in advance by the player or team official’s Board. Approval shall not be granted for messages which relate to political, religious or racial activities or causes."
England’s spin bowling all-rounder Moeen Ali sported at least two bracelets on his left wrist on the 2nd Day of the 3rd Test at Southampton with the words “Save Gaza” and “Free Palestine” printed on black and white backgrounds. Each phrase was printed multiple times on a single bracelet, separated by a red triangle turned to look like an arrow head. Together, they alluded to the colors of the Palestinian flag. George Dobell reported that David Boon, ICC’s match referee for the 3rd Test at Southampton, told Moeen Ali that “while individuals are free to make political - or humanitarian - statements in their private lives, they do not enjoy such freedom while playing international cricket.”
The ECB, Moeen Ali’s home Board, defended their player. England (including Moeen Ali) are wearing shirts bearing the logo of the “Help for Heroes” charity. This is a military charity which describes its work as delivering “an enduring national network of support for our wounded and their families. We will inspire and enable those who have made sacrifices on our behalf to achieve their full potential. The war in Afghanistan may be nearly over, but for those who have suffered life-changing injuries, their battles are just beginning. We will not let them fight these battles alone.”
The war waged by the United States, United Kingdom and their few allies in Afghanistan is controversial. It has been variously described as being an illegal war and a war of choice. Thousands of people have demonstrated against the war every year in London, Manchester and other cities in the UK since 2001 and there have been persistent calls for the withdrawal of British troops from that country. So much so that wikipedia’s catalogue of these protests around the world (mainly in the UK, US and Europe) runs into nearly 4500 words. A separate entry on the public encyclopedia catalogues opposition to the war. This public opinion has shaped the conduct of the war. That wars (especially foreign wars of choice which are not waged to defend one’s own territory) are political enterprises should not be controversial. But regardless of where you stand on the war in Afghanistan, helping to raise funds to assist wounded soldiers (who had little say in war policy) is perhaps not political.
It is worth reflecting on this idea of a thing not being “political”. When is a thing political? And why does the ICC’s Match Referee get to decide what is political and what isn’t? A military charity raises money, it takes advantage of incentives to raise this money (tax breaks, for example). Supporting it might influence the public’s opinion of an individual running for political office. Is it simply the case that we say a particular idea isn’t political because we all broadly agree it? Are political things only those about which people might still want to have a debate? If so, shouldn't everything be open to politics?
It would have been one thing if Moeen Ali’s bracelet said “Support Hamas”. Hamas is a political organization. But it didn’t say that. It says “Save Gaza” and “Free Palestine”. Might this not prompt at least some people to spare a moment to think about the misfortune of people trapped in Gaza right now, and perhaps contribute some money to help? Families have been bereaved there. Property has been destroyed.
It is particularly ironic that a private organization based in the tax haven that is Dubai, should tell a player to refrain from wearing a bracelet in a cricket match between two private bodies, one in England, the other in India, which it publicises as an “India v England” game. The ICC profits by being able to refer to it as an inter-national contest. It brings to bear nationalistic sentiment. The “Bharat Army” probably wouldn’t be roused to chant “Jeetega Bhai Jeetega, India Jeetega”, if the games were persistently called “BCCI v ECB” Tests.
Where does the ICC draw the line? Is the patka worn by Harbhajan Singh or Monty Panesar a problem? It is decidedly a religious symbol of the Sikh faith. Is Moeen Ali’s beard a problem? He has spoken of it being symbol of his faith. “It’s a very important part of myself and the community I’m from and I’m very proud. In terms of trying to inspire other people with faith to play and stuff I am very proud of that. I remember seeing Muslim athletes or guys with other faiths performing and still carrying the label of being a religious person and it does inspire people.”
Typically, the ICC will probably say that the beard isn’t an article of clothing. The ICC does explicitly ban “visible tattoos incorporating any Commercial or Manufacturers Logo”. Perhaps Moeen Ali should consider getting the top of his head or arm shaved to depict the phrase “Save Gaza”. The ICC shouldn’t have any objections to that.
The more serious problem lies in the conceit involved in defining what is political and what isn’t. Is an arrangement which permits private profit political? The history of the 20th century would suggest that it is. Is an international cricket match between ‘national’ teams merely a private work place? Or is it a representative game? When Moeen Ali spoke about representing his faith, he was admonished by Michael Henderson in The Telegraph. “You are playing for England, not your religion”. Henderson missed the point. Sport, like any other public enterprise is political in the best sense of the term. Its purpose is to set an example to other people – to provide pleasure, excitement, and the sense that one is part of something larger than oneself. Don’t we hear time and again how cricketers are role models? How one of their public duties is to set an example for youngsters, not just in the technical cricketing sense but also morally and ethically?
Why is Moeen Ali’s support for a beleaguered public on the Mediterranean sea which has suffered loss at a scale unimaginable in any part of the cricketing world considered political, and therefore disallowed? Why is Moeen Ali’s support for assisting soldiers wounded in a controversial war not considered similarly political? Are civilians more political than fighters? The ICC ought to answer to this. To its credit, the ECB has supported Moeen Ali. I agree with the ECB’s position on both counts.
The ICC said little about Henry Olonga and Andrew Flower when the two Zimbabweans used the platform of the 2003 World Cup in South Africa – an ICC event – to draw attention to the dire situation in Zimbabwe. They issued a statement at the start of Zimbabwe’s World Cup match against Namibia on February 10, 2003. It was a moving affirmation of civility. Would today’s ICC have sanctioned the two players for that statement and the black armband they wore during the game?
There is one final point to be tackled. What if, the question has been asked, a player demonstrated support for say a Neo-Nazi group? Or support of Robert Mugabe or the British National Party? Firstly, this is distinct from supporting a civilian population under bombardment. The population of Gaza is not a political party. Moeen isn’t saying he supports only the Muslims in Gaza, or that he supports only Hamas supporters in Gaza. But more importantly, since when is there moral or ethical equivalence between voicing support for peace and safety and welfare of other human beings, and the hatred or killing of other human beings? That being said, would it not be better to know where a person stands on these things? And if a player is willing to reveal this publicly, why get in the way?
Moeen Ali didn’t go as far as Flower and Olonga on the 2nd Day at Southampton. All he did was to sport a couple of bracelets. That the ICC has chosen to shut even this cautious, polite, modest statement down is pathetic and petty. Its claim to be able to define what is political and what is not is dispiriting. It is telling that the ECB and the ICC have seen this issue differently.
Cricket must rise to the occasion in such matters if it wants to claim the mantle of being a public sport played by national teams. In his own understated way, Moeen Ali aspired to that high ideal. On Day 3, he took the field without his bracelets. 50% of his match fee and the ire of cricket’s bosses was enough to dissuade him. Moeen Ali is no radical.
International cricket, which has been the target of politically motivated violence itself, ought to know better than to silence one of its own when he chooses to draw attention to the same type of lethal violence elsewhere. Yet, even when the stakes are so low and the protagonist so calm and polite, the ICC has decided enforce a questionable rule. They are wrong.
