Australian opening batter Usman Khawaja has been reprimanded by cricket’s governing body for his armband protest during the first Test against Pakistan, marking a moment of dissent that has captured attention in the cricketing world.
According to the details, Usman Khawaja wore a black armband during Australia’s 360-run victory in Perth as a symbolic gesture, responding to the ICC’s decision to prohibit his planned shoe protest before the Test began.
Last week, Usman Khawaja openly voiced his discontent with the International Cricket Council (ICC), accusing the organization of censorship. Despite the ICC’s warning and the looming threat of sanctions, Khawaja remained steadfast in his dedication to championing support for civilians in Gaza. In a symbolic act of protest, he inscribed the powerful messages “Freedom is a human right” and “All lives are equal” on his footwear.
The ICC responded to Khawaja’s actions by cautioning him, explicitly outlining the potential imposition of sanctions should he choose to wear the politically charged shoes during the match. This stern warning was rooted in the ICC’s stringent regulations, which strictly prohibit the display of personal messages related to politics, religion, or race in international cricket.
According to ICC regulations, players are required to obtain explicit permission from both their home cricket board and the International Cricket Council (ICC) before donning armbands, failure to do so may result in a violation of ICC guidelines.
An ICC spokesperson said, “Usman Khawaja has been charged for breaching Clause F of the Clothing and Equipment Regulations, which can be found on the ICC Playing Conditions page. The sanctions for a breach of the regulations are outlined in Appendix 2.”
The spokesperson concluded the statement by asserting that Usman exhibited a personal message (armband) during the 1st Test Match against Pakistan without obtaining prior approval from Cricket Australia and the ICC, as stipulated in the regulations governing personal messages. This action is deemed a breach falling under the category of an “other offense,” and the prescribed sanction for a first offense is a formal reprimand.
One wonders if the ICC would have shown same stance towards supporters of Israel or LGBT.