Drawing a line underneath it

Focussing in on sport this week, with a couple of big matches, a few questionable decisions and a whole lot of implications for our national sporting culture.

The Liverpool-Everton derby yesterday was a memorable one. The first red card for Everton came for a tackle by Tony Hibbert, whose collision with Steven Gerrard brought the Liverpool midfielder tumbling down as he raced clear on goal. The second was given in second half injury time when Phil Neville momentarily seemed to forget he was not the goalkeeper, cynically palming away Lucas' strike from the top right-hand corner of the Everton goal.

Liverpool for their part escaped sendings off, albeit miraculously. Dirk Kuyt's flying two footed kick a la Eric Cantona aimed at Neville in the 64th minute was deemed deserving only of yellow. Even more outrageously, seconds before the final whistle Everton's unfortunate Jolean Lescott seemed to be judo-thrown by Jamie Carragher in the Liverpool box. No foul, no card this time and final whistle, 2-1 to Liverpool.

Premier League football matches now resemble unpleasant dogfights. Cheating as much as possible, accusing opponents of cheating in turn and treating match officials as contemptible is the order of the day. On various occasions in the match yesterday, the referee was pushed and intimidated by players who doubtlessly take their lead from characters such as John Terry. (In the recent Chelsea-Manchester United fixture, the England captain inexplicably avoided a massive post-match fine for grabbing the referee's arm which at the time contained a red card destined for John Obi Mikel.)

But as far away from the idea of 'sport' that football seems to be getting, such antics are not to be blamed for falling values. The real culprits are the football authorities and the sporting press. There seems to be no official willingness to bring footballers and managers to task for their deception, fakery and foul-mouthed intimidation tactics. It is commonplace for players to escape punishment for behaviour which in other sports would result in long bans and considerable financial penalties.

The press for their part largely lack integrity when it comes to constructive criticism on the way the game is conducted. Perhaps fearful of losing their jobs, acquiescent football commentators have been afraid to point out the ruthlessness of modern methods, washing their hands time and again of the frequent unpleasantness. While all of this goes on, the next generation watches, listens and takes note of the lesson: cheating is integral to sporting success.

London trains were packed even more than usual on Saturday night, as people streamed into the capital to watch England defend their title against the dangerous South Africans in the Rugby World Cup final. England, a side beleaguered and struggling with form in the build-up to the competition, had shown confidence, power and incredible intelligence to battle through to the final after initial defeat to their co-finalists in the group stages.

A competition which had shone with excitement, courage and upset sadly ended with defeat for Brian Ashton's men, with South Africa taking a 15-6 victory. The result, however, was controversial in light of some of the decisions made by match officials, and press coverage of the match so far has, in some quarters, fallen short of satisfactory.*

The cool goal kicking from Percy Montgomery, heroics from man-of-the-match Victor Matfield in the line out and unremitting pressure applied by the Springboks were all justly praised in the press. The BBC, Guardian and Sky sites, however, were notable in their thinness of coverage towards the key refereeing decisions which ultimately thwarted brave and brilliant English efforts.

The only try of the match seemed to have come just after the restart, with Matthew Tait picking up a bouncing pass in midfield and slicing through the Springbok defence. Tait, 21, offloaded in the tackle to the man brought in to replace the injured Josh Lewsy, Mark Cueto, who dramatically dived in at the corner flag for the score.

With questions over whether Cueto's foot had been in touch at the time of the try, Irish referee Alain Rolland called on the video referee to take an official second look. As the minutes ticked by in Paris, ITV replays clearly showed the offending foot over the touch line but, crucially, raised from the ground. In a decision hard to believe in a game so huge and so tightly fought, the try was disallowed by Referee Rolland and the Australian video official who had presumably seen footage similar to that broadcast all around the world.

After the match, Mark Cueto spoke about his disallowed effort: "From the front the grounding was fine, from the back you could clearly see my foot lifted up in the air before it went into touch. For me there was no question it was a try."

Cueto also commented on the curious penalties rather generously awarded to South Africa: "There was a couple of times that we got penalised for crossing [obstruction] and there were a couple of times when the South Africans did the same and didn't get penalised."

Sometimes it can be surprisingly different to watch something with your own eyes and then to read about it in the press as written by someone else. But one thing the press did get right was the fact that England can take much pride from their performance in the match, and in the tournament as whole. They have put the ghosts of failure well and truly behind them and risen to conquer some of the finest rugby teams in the world. It remains to be seen what reaction there may be, if any, to Referee Rolland’s performance.

* The Independent proves a notable exception. You can read the excellent match analysis at:

http://sport.independent.co.uk/rugby_union/world_cup_news/article3082034.ece

Moving On

Looking to South America this week, and some brave steps forward on the part of countries still struggling with the past.

The BBC reported on 11 October that a former Colombian justice minister had been sentenced to 24 years in prison for his part in the murder of presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galan in 1989. Alberto Santofimio, formerly a political rival of Galan, had been an associate of infamous narco trafficker and Medellin cartel boss, Pablo Escobar. Arrested previously in 1995 for taking drugs money, Mr Santofimio was accused of ordering the hit squad that publicly assassinated Mr Galan during a public meeting in the town of Soacha, Cundinamarca province.

In a country where speaking out against the cartels and mafia bosses often means death, Mr Galan had courageously campaigned on an anti-drugs, anti-corruption platform, promising extradition to the United States of those involved in the illicit trade. The assassination and the subsequent silence had come to symbolise the repression and fear running through Colombian public life, and the high cost of speaking out against the political underworld.

The trial was watched by Colombians in their millions, and the outcome may yet prove to be an important political milestone in a country where corruption and shady deals still rule the day. A widow and family may now claim some sense of justice, and crucially the state seems ever more willing to address long-buried sins.

The Times of 10 October reported that a Roman Catholic Priest from Argentina had been sentenced to life imprisonment for his part in kidnappings, torture and murder during the so-called ‘Dirty War.’ In the period of brutal military junta rule in the country from 1976 until 1983, it was alleged Christian Von Wernich, 69, had abused his position as chaplain to the Buenos Aires police force by extracting ‘confessions’ from government suspects before handing them over to be tortured and in some cases murdered.

Jorge Rafael Vileda’s military government took power in Argentina after the coup d’etat in 1976, brandishing extreme repression and brutality as a ‘solution’ to perceived political instability. The junta’s fear of militarised left wing and communist groups translated into the widespread and often indiscriminate kidnapping and murder of political activists, professors, students, musicians and their families and friends, with the number of murders estimated to be 30,000.

Long a source of pain for Argentineans, the Dirty War and recent history remains a national burden. Despite some successes in bringing perpetrators to trial, much controversy has surrounded the politicisation of reconciliation and uncertainty over whether to bring the military fully to account. Progress has been made however: in 2006, 24 March (the thirtieth anniversary of the coup) was declared a public holiday, the Day of Memory, Truth and Justice, where people gather to remember the dead and look to the future. And in commenting on the case of Christian Von Wernich, Jorge Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires praised this latest attempt to deal with the past:

“We believe the steps taken by the justice system in clarifying the facts should help renew every citizen’s effort toward reconciliation and serve as a wake-up call to put impunity, hatred and bitterness behind us.”

The Guardian reported this week on new measures proposed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In a move designed to boost the profile of indigenous rights, school textbooks will be changed in order to emphasize opposition to the present view that the Spanish conquest of South America was “doomed but heroic.” This news came as it was reported the president had renamed the cable car system which passes over capital city Caracas as Warairarepano, “which means big mountain in an indigenous coastal tongue.”

The same paper also reported on October 12th that former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz has endorsed President Chavez’s plan to establish a pan-regional bank, designed specifically for the purpose of serving Latin American economies. Mr Chavez argues that such an institution, now equipped with start-up capital from seven nations, would promote more regional independence and signify a move away from the previously costly loans extended by western nations.

Cuba part 4: an air of decay

Cuba. The images abound: sunshine and salsa, Castro and communism and revolution in the heart of the palm-fringed Caribbean. Perhaps more than any other country romantic preconceptions have become fixed for outsiders, and legend has come to surround this island. But it is precisely for this reason that visitors should endeavour to see the place for themselves, in order to gauge the reality and move beyond the myth.

After the breakdown of the Soviet system in 1991, Cuba entered what is known euphemistically as the Periodo Especial (Special Period), with financial support cut and political alliance dissolved. Without the support of its long-term benefactor and still the subject of US embargo, the nation found itself looking for other forms of vital foreign revenue. Opening up to tourism was the solution grudgingly formulated and Cuba, closed for many years to foreigners, once again became a world tourist destination.

Nowadays, those seeking a hassle-free beach holiday can find luxury purpose built resorts in Cuba which cater for the all-inclusive bucket-and-spade crowd. As in other parts of the Caribbean, these places have been kept carefully away from the local population and the grittiness of local life. One such resort, Cayo Coco, is located on an archipelago along the northeast coast of the island, linked to the mainland only by a causeway of some 27 miles. Consisting entirely of high class hotels, facilities and other tourist attractions, the place is totally sterile of Cuban influence, and since 2005 even has its own airport. Outsiders see neither hide nor hair of the culture in places such as these and risk no interaction with the locals. Consequently, they leave their exotic destination somewhat confused about where they have actually been.

More adventurous travellers risk visiting Cuba independently, hoping to catch a taste of a vanishing world and urged by tourist guides to ‘go now before it’s too late.’ Touching down at Jose Marti International airport, and the visitor steps immediately into a time warp. Hardly off the plane, the visitor is confronted by tobacco smoke, stifling humidity and groups of people milling around and socialising against the backdrop of garish red plastic and concrete polytechnic architecture. The airport is a vision from 1970s Africa. The hustling starts immediately as the travellers look for taxis and change dollars and euros into the convertible pesos, the obligatory currency for outsiders only available within Cuba.

People arriving in Havana for the first time may find the experience traumatic and expectations swiftly take a dive. The much touted atmosphere of grandeur, charm and decadence in reality translates into decay, dirt and shabbiness for visitor and resident alike. Buildings which must have been visions of opulence and grandeur in the thirties and forties now threaten to crumble and collapse upon their unfortunate occupants (something which in fact happens with sad regularity). The overall impression of the centro area of the city is that of a bombed-out shell. Many people sit on street corners or mill around aimlessly and only the most insensitive visitors would fail to pick up the lack of dynamism and optimism in this place.

The widespread presence of the hustlers, or jineteros (translated literally as ‘riders’) promote a skewed relationship between Cubans and visitors, with the former as unscrupulous financial opportunists and the latter as prey. The men will try to sell you things and take you places for a hefty fee, and the prostitutes who inhabit the discos and street corners seek to ensnare the foreign men with well-practiced routines.

Public transport is packed, stifling and incredibly outdated in design, yet there is no option for Cubans going about their everyday business. Taxis are prohibitively expensive and wages low, even for such venerable professions as doctors and lawyers. Motorways in the interior are largely devoid of cars and train networks have gone decades without refurbishment. The infrastructure and transport system of this country, much like the nominal leaders, seem a relic of the past, antiquated and obsolete and struggling to cope with the demands placed upon them.

Fidel for his part has never shied away from the social difficulties of his ideological social revolution. He readily admits in his radio addresses and speeches that times are hard and people must be strong. Often he refers to the sacrifices made by Jose Marti and the tyranny of the United States from which Cuba has remained free. In mitigation for hardship he offers citizens a Cuba with free healthcare, universal education and comparatively high levels of literacy, when studied against other Latin American or ‘third world‘ countries.

On the everyday level, each barrio (neighbourhood) has a Comite de la Defensa de la Revolucion (Committee for the Defence of the Revolution) in which citizens’ participation is strongly encouraged. All community affairs come under this political umbrella with the onus on the individual to work on local issues emphasizing unity and social cohesion. But what is trumpeted as grassroots revolutionary activism and the platform for citizens’ political involvement in reality equates to Big Brother. Should people fail to take active and zealous part in these ‘committees’, suspicion can be aroused and life can become much harder in terms of jobs and standing in the community.

Few Cubans will openly admit to it, but boredom and frustration can be felt in this place, particularly among the younger people. Citizens are very restricted in where they can go and need official permission to travel to other provinces if their job does not require it. This factor, coupled with the tourism apartheid in operation, means that those trying to meet outsiders or even just people from other areas of the country can find it difficult. In the face of this system of repression the tendency is to be lazy, and many Cubans in Havana and elsewhere can be seen simply idling day and night, seemingly out of work or unwilling to work.

Education of course is provided by the state and so the visitor comes across many university-trained engineers, architects and doctors. But with movement frozen, wages pitiful and a stifled economy, peoples’ aspirations have been choked of oxygen. Thus a highly trained workforce often forego the practicing of their professions in favour of hustling tourists or working hotels where dollars may be made.

Cuba asks stern questions of the traveller. What price ideology when set against basic standards of infrastructure, economic freedom and personal aspiration? What price freedom from tyranny when freedom means community informers and lack of basic goods? The stagnation and restriction in evidence leads to inevitable meditation upon the suitability of the system, and how well its leadership is serving its people. For the people of Cuba are its greatest resource, strong-willed, good humoured and hard working by nature. Cuba is more than merely a place for morbid tourist fascination, it is a place with tremendous yet latent national potential. At the time of Fidel’s passing we may feel admiration for the ideological stand to which he has devoted his life. But at the same time we must hope the people of Cuba can seize their opportunity and adapt their nation to a more open and forward looking model.

Freedom to Speak

Over the pond this week, and a collection of recent stories which raise questions over freedom of speech and intellectual right to reply.

Hitting the headlines on Monday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who played guest at New York’s Columbia University SIPA-World Leaders Forum. The remarkable reception given to him by University President Lee Bollinger caused great stir among news networks. Mr Bollinger pre-empted his speaker, roundly criticising him with a long list of charges. The 2,136-word prelude cited Mr Ahemedinejad’s denial of the Holocaust and alleged sponsoring of terrorism, proxy war against US troops in Iraq and malevolent nuclear ambitions.

The New York Times provided a sample of the highlights:

“Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator”

…and…

“I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.”

No punches having been pulled by the hosts, Mr Ahmedinejad hit back with an understandably nonplussed yet measured response:

“In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty.”

Before, during and after the address, news networks showed students angrily demonstrating against the speaker’s presence at the top US university. US tabloids also reacted with predictable fury to the visit, coming up with some truly memorable headlines. The New York Daily News’ header was, “The Evil has Landed,” whereas the Daily Post stuck more conservatively to “Madman.”

Little thought seems to have gone into the handling of the Iranian president in New York. Seeking to emphasize the importance of freedom of speech, Columbia shot themselves in the foot. Reports focused overwhelmingly not on the content of the forum, but on the frosty reception given. Certain US academics must have felt regret. Not so Mr Ahmedinejad, who must have been rubbing his hands in glee.

On the receiving end at another US institution, University of Florida student Andrew Meyer. The unfortunate 21-year old was tasered at a recent question and answer session given by former presidential candidate John Kerry.* The Daily Telegraph reported that after questioning Kerry over the controversial 2004 presidential election result, Meyer refused to relinquish the microphone after his allotted question time. He was consequently dragged to the rear of the debating hall and pinned down by several officers, managing to scream, ‘Don’t tase me, bro!’ before being zapped and taken into custody.

News networks showed the incredible scene widely, and the BBC website reported subsequently that an inquiry would be conducted into whether campus police had used the weapon appropriately given the circumstances.

The taser scene itself scene revives memories of a similarly controversial incident filmed in Russia in August 2000. Cameras captured the moment Nadya Tylik, mother of one of the victims of the Kursk submarine disaster, was apparently restrained and subdued by way of an injection in the neck. At the time, she was publicly and vocally attacking the Russian deputy Prime Minister over the slack official response.

Michael Moore, another man never afraid to speak his mind, has been in the news of late with his latest cinematic effort, Sicko, soon to be released in the UK. The documentary aims to provide a critical look at the American healthcare system by comparing it with other countries. Having already run a piece looking at Moore’s treatment of the Cuban healthcare system, Monday’s edition of the Guardian featured interviews with 16 NHS professionals who had seen the film, in order to gauge some British reaction.

Striking in the 16 interviews conducted was the number of people who considered Moore’s depiction of the NHS as one-sided and somewhat “rosy.” This from Karim Ahmed, an Accident and Emergency Registrar:

“…in terms of the health service it is obviously showing just the very best side of our NHS and the very worst parts of the US system.”

And this from Zhaleh Khaleeli, an NHS researcher:

“Moore is bringing a lot of issues to the attention of the American public that they probably would not think about much otherwise. But it doesn't translate that well over here. We're used to a bit more sophistication, we want both sides of the picture. As far as the NHS goes, you can see he is glossing over all sorts of problems.”

Could it seriously be the case that Michael Moore makes biased documentaries in order to push his left wing views? Certainly Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine would say so. Their own soon to be released documentary, Manufacturing Dissent, focuses on the tactics used by Moore, suggesting he misleads and badgers interviewees and manipulates opinion with unbalanced evidence.


*You can see the full article on Andrew Meyer and the video of the taser incident at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wkerry118.xml
And you can get your “Don’t tase me, bro” T-shirts at:
http://threadpit.com/store/product.php?productid=236&item=236