Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Colin Brazier: ‘For a gesture of solidarity to have any power and legitimacy it must be voluntary’" video.

@theolderigetthewrongbitget4746 Should you be told that, if you do not act in a certain manner, even if it was contrary to your beliefs, your livelihood would be taken away, I wonder if you would be quite so critical or dogmatic?
1
He was simply safeguarding his future, and that of his family. Freedom of speech no longer exists. Many non-nazis in Germany from 1933 onwards reluctantly acted in a similar manner.
1
@phairpil5429 I agree. I also wish he had been able to make a stand, but unlike many of the posing hypothetical heroes on here who have condemned him, I can understand his reasoning. No-one in authority seems willing to stand against these vermin, so is it really fair to expect that of Quinton de Kock? Had the South African Board ruled that he must never be allowed to play cricket in South Africa, or for South Africa, again, would world cricket have done anything to back him?
1
His alternative was to lose his source of income and risk the future of his family. It isn't as if freedom of speech exists any more, is it? Welcome to a probable re-run of the Germany of the mid 1930s, on a greater scale. Would you act any differently if placed in a similar position?
1
@DieFlabbergast Actually, The Buddha was a leg break bowler, not a wicket-keeper batsman. Saint Augustine was a moderately secure middle-order batsman, but with a weakness against medium paced deliveries pitched up on off stump and nipping away. Sorry, but sometimes all you can do is laugh as the world goes to hell.
1
Because, presumably just like you, he doesn't want to lose his source of income. When you are given the alternative of doing something you don't agree with, or being declared unemployable if you refuse, then let's see how you act.
1
@SensibleMoniker An immediate resort to insults. How enlightening!
1