Thursday, January 28, 2010

Deport Beast from South Africa?

Journalist, Haru Mutasa, raises some very valid questions. If the beast had been a goal scroing demon for Bafana Bafana, would the ANC want to deport him? I think not.

Tendai Mtawarira is the BEAST.

His unfortunate nickname is because of the aggressive way he plays rugby – not his looks.

He’s 24 years old, Zimbabwean and a fantastic rugby player (in my opinion).

His crime seems to be playing for the South African Springboks. Some politicians have serious problems with that.

In fact they want him dropped from the Springboks because he is a “kwerekwere” – a foreigner.

Some like Butana Komphela, chairman of the South African national assembly sports committee, want him thrown out of South Africa and deported to Zimbabwe.

Is this fair?

Emmanuel Adebayor is from Togo, plays for Manchester City in the United Kingdom BUT he does not play for England national team.

Michael Essien is Ghanaian, plays for Chelsea in the United Kingdom and he does not play for the English national side.

So why should Beast be treated differently?

That’s what South African Sports minister Makhenkesi Stofile wants to know. He says Beast does not have permission to play for South Africa.

Officially he only has a work permit that allows him to play for a club called the Sharks, so technically he is not a South African citizen.

Beast excelled at rugby as a high school student in Zimbabwe. While representing his country, talent scouts spotted him and organised for him to play for a South African club.

His talent caught the eye of the SA rugby fraternity who asked him to play for the South African Springboks. He has already earned more than 15 caps. There is no denying the man is good at his game.

...or is it xenophobia?

So are those against Beast playing for South Africa right, or is this just another kind of xenophobia - an intense dislike and sometimes hatred of foreigners?

In recent years African foreigners, mainly from neighbouring Zimbabwe, have been forced out of their homes by angry poor South Africans who accuse foreigners of flooding the country and taking their jobs.

Could the sports minister's sentiments be because he feels a South African should be playing in the squad?

But if Beast is better than South Africans out there, shouldn’t he get the chance to play for the Springboks?

Home is not an option

To my knowledge Zimbabwe doesn't have a particularly great rugby side. Maybe playing for Zimbabwe is not an option for Beast.

Playing for the Springboks gives him great international exposure and the chance to make a better life for him in South Africa – and the money is good.

That’s probably why he’s engineering a defence to stay put in South Africa – trying to find a legal loophole to let him play for the Springboks.

It seems as far as Beast is concerned he is South African.

"I am a South African at heart, I love this country. It has become my home,” he told a South African newspaper.

Beast’s experience is certainly not unique.

Former Springboks skipper Gary Teichmann was born in Zimbabwe in the small town of Gweru in 1967. He went on to represent South Africa between 1995 to1999.

So given the fact that this is not the first time this issue has come up in South Africa, should Beast be allowed to represent them internationally? What do you think?

If Beast were a football player and he scored numerous goals for the under-performing Bafana Bafana - would politicians be so keen to kick him out then? What do you think?

3 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Being black is not enough for the government, it has to be a black South African.

How hypocritical when you look at Eskom and the black engineers they are importing from overseas, rather than give the work to unemployed, qualified whites.

Anonymous said...


The international treaties governing rugby state that a player may represent any country on earth whether or not he is a citizen of that country or not. He may however NEVER represent another country. He may play in another country as a member of a club, province or other team, but may never represent another country. Invitation (Barbarian's) teams are excluded as they are of short duration and usually for a specific purpose - fund raising etc.

By representing South Africa (BRILLIANTLY) the BEAST has given up his right to represent Zimbabwe ever again.

Now... If the local garden variety black was as good a rugby player as beastie in the same position as beastie - kick beast out. The black in south africa generally do not play rugby and that lack of player pool is reflected in the dismal "representative-ness" of them in our national and other teams.

The same thing is done all over the country in BEE moves - stealing the "cream", such that it is, of africa to deny whites jobs and fulfill racial quotas - that would be considered genocide if whites were doing it to the liberals beautiful blacks.

BUT Beast is somehow a "pro-o-o-blehm".


When south africa wakes up to the fact that pure race and gender based quotas are a complete FUCKUP we will all be a lot better off.

Half of the women in this country are stay at home mothers - by the laws of nature and common sense that means their representation in the work force should reflect that reality and NOT their share of the population.

These useless ANC fuckwads are driving this country to the abyss of ruin and civil war. When it happens they must not be too suprised to be put up against the wall for their crimes of commission and omission.

FreeThinker said...

Beast is indeed a very good player.

I cannot believe the crap they are wasting their time with while the whole country is going down the drain...