‘‘When Archer was racially abused by a New Zealander, it was a huge problem for New Zealand Cricket. They had their own sordid history and this was international news.’’
Grant Robertson, the minister for sport and recreation, said that he hoped that New Zealand Cricket would ‘‘throw the book’’ at the person who racially abused Jofra Archer. But Robertson failed to tell us how big this book was or how heavy. In fact this book doesn’t even exist, because no New Zealand government has legislated against racist abuse.
So when New Zealand cricket did identify the person who called Archer a ‘‘bbc’’ and a ‘‘bc’’ (the actual words were never used, only the abbreviation) they had a problem. So too did the police when they spoke to him. What exactly was the charge? There are no specific laws around hate initials in this country.
This has turned out to be a most curious case. Initially it was reported that the 24-year-old Archer had ‘‘alleged’’ he was a victim of racist abuse.
That is understandable given the wretched libel laws in this country which bend over backwards to protect the perpetrators rather than the victims.
But then there was a stampede to suggest that the abuser was not a Kiwi at all, but an Englishman having a go at his own team.
Well, England has a long history of racists and almost every other weekend someone is being banned from an English soccer stadium for life. But I thought at the time that this was a case of the kid putting his hands over his ears in the playground because he didn’t want to hear the truth.
Two brothers said they had contacted New Zealand Cricket and told them the man, of an English accent, was ‘‘cheering or jeering his own team ... He was an English supporter. He definitely wasn’t a New Zealand supporter, he never once mentioned a New Zealand player.’’
To their credit New Zealand Cricket was not taken in by this hogwash. They were suspicious because the people who claimed that the abuser was English, declined to give their names. As the internet tells us every day, anonymity is a good cloak for talking garbage.
NZC now know that the person who abused Archer is a New Zealander. He went to school here, lives in Auckland and is of Indian origin. In fact when he was confronted with the charge by the police, the man said he couldn’t be racist because he was Indian. Yes, I know, laughable, but this is not an uncommon defence.
Then again, the gentleman in question is perhaps not the sharpest tool in the box. He was easily identified because he had subsequently sent an Instagram post to Archer with his name on it. These words are not verbatim, but they are the gist of the message; ‘‘Hey, mate, I’m the dick who called you a bc. looking forward to catching up in Hamilton. think you’re a great player.’’
The man changed his name on the instagram post and then changed it back again. He identified himself which was very helpful, because New Zealand Cricket might otherwise have had a problem finding him. When NZR interviewed one old couple who had overheard the racist insults, they charmingly said that they thought the man was talking about the British Broadcasting Corporation when he called Archer a ‘‘bbc.’’
So what should New Zealand Cricket do now they had found the man. They talked to him and he was apologetic and remorseful. But CEO David White had said that in his opinion the man should be banned from New Zealand cricket grounds for life.
I empathise with that view. I think many of us reacted the same way when we first heard of the incident. New Zealand is a country that does not have the greatest race relations history. The current cricket authorities own that in the past it was a white man’s sport and was generally hostile to other ethnic groups.
They have taken steps to change a history that was ‘‘unwelcoming and too expensive’’. They have made the game easier to access at junior levels with smaller teams and smaller pitches which means that there are more boundaries hit and that a kid who gets out early doesn’t spend the rest of his day mooching about.
There has been a gradual increase in participation, although it is largely Indian kids who are coming through. Forty per cent of competitive cricketers in Auckland are now subcontinental in background.
There have also been well publicised problems at the top of the game. When the New Zealand captaincy became a contest between Ross Taylor and Brendon McCullum, much of the team sided with McCullum. Maybe it wasn’t racist. Maybe. But it was typical of the exclusionary habits that had dogged New Zealand cricket for years.
That racist separation extended across the whole of New Zealand society. When the young Luteru Taylor first went to school, the principal couldn’t pronounce his name, so eventually said, ‘‘Just call him Ross.’’ This was the modern equivalent of the white man giving the slave an anglicised name.
So when Taylor was ousted from the captaincy by a cabal of white men knocking on his hotel door, I’m afraid it looked to be a decision partly motivated by racism. Taylor had a decent record as a captain by New Zealand standards and his own batting had improved markedly with the extra responsibility. But he was banished. As Dylan Cleaver wrote, ‘‘in many ways Taylor’s is a story of belonging’’ or not belonging. The longing hangs on the end of the word.
So when Archer, who was born in Barbados, was racially abused by a New Zealander, it was a huge problem for New Zealand Cricket. They had their own sordid history and this was international news. NZC needed to do something. And they wanted to do something. But it was not straightforward.
For a start there was a lack of precedent in this country. When NZC looked into it, they could find no example of a spectator being banned from a stadium. Well, maybe one. Lisa Lewis was fined $200 for disorderly conduct after streaking at Hamilton’s stadium. A passing phase. Last year she stood for mayor.
NZC were unsure how to act. If you murder someone, you don’t now go to prison for life. So it seemed disproportionate to ban Archer’s abuser for life. Their head of security recommended a ban of two years. That was the advice they followed.
Some people believe that the man should have been named and shamed. If he was prepared to call out Archer in so vile a way, then he should also be called out. NZC were not even sure that they were legally entitled to do such a thing. And if they did, the man would likely lose his job. How would that affect him mentally?
These aren’t bleeding hearts, these are people thinking like Archer’s own father. Frank Archer said, ‘‘At the moment there is a trend for people to be less than generous in their critiques of other people and, unfortunately, for somebody to go down to the lowest common denominator to cause discomfort to another person, it is more reflective on the person themselves.
‘‘My heart goes out, firstly to the person that feels they have to behave that way – it must be coming from a place of pain. I would just hope that somewhere along the line that someone will show him the love that they need, so that they can embrace all of humanity. I would say rather than judge a person you don’t actually know, if it were possible, I would like him to actually meet him, get to know him.’’
New Zealand Cricket has now at least talked to the man and the police have met him. NZC did not throw the book at him, but a couple of pages. Whether he will respect that two-year ban and whether it can be enforced when the Indian cricket team arrives, is open to doubt.
But New Zealand Cricket acted appropriately. Because this is only the start as this country becomes increasingly multicultural, the question is, what now? Does NZC now issue a warning that the next incident of racial abuse will be dealt with more severely, with a ban of perhaps five years? And is it time for the government to introduce law that deals specifically with racism, a sin that comes in many colours in today’s New Zealand?
Because if we now look the other way, then we are all compliant. This problem is not going to disappear. If we do nothing, like so many did at the Bay Oval, then this canker will creep deep into the pores of our society.
If we now look the other way, then we are all compliant. This problem is not going to disappear.