Firstly, as professional to professional, Gayle as sportsman and Mel McLaughlin as journalist, Gayle’s personalising of the interview in the way he did amounts to a trespass. But if the one on the receiving end takes the comments in the spirit in which they were made, light and frivolous with no malicious intent as Gayle claims, then the idea of trespass does not arise.
In this instance, however, Ms McLaughlin’s tone and body language were far from accommodating which should have been a signal for Gayle to desist which he did not. In any event Gayle should have realised that making such comments on national television gives a different dimension to the issue which may have contributed to the journalist’s response in the first place and, the furore that followed in the public domain.
But of course Gayle is Gayle, just hitting a 41 like a gale storm, overwhelming all Australia, including the journalist who may have been there for that very reason, and as icon, claiming the privileges of his status to indulge himself.
Which may have been okay in the WI, for it’s often seen as the West Indian way , but when cultures cross, sensitivities often arise, and what is permissible in the WI may not be permissible elsewhere, more so as in this instance when the issue of a white Australian female being subjected to such an “indignity” by a black man comes into play.
Make no mistake about it, latent prejudices of this kind run deep despite the pleasantries at the top, and if a white woman objects as with Ms McLaughlin that is fuel enough for the fire, and the hard line that an Australian cricketing icon would have taken against Gayle despite the punishment meted out to him, gives a sense that there is much more involved than mere cricket.
Another dimension to the issue is the accusation of Gayle’s sexist behaviour treating women with such disrespect, which perhaps is unacceptable depending on where you are looking from, but what of the reverse reaction of women literally throwing themselves at the feet of icons like Gayle, and as to the idea of media personnel being allowed to do their jobs? The point is well taken, but should an error in judgment by Gayle for which he has apologised and paid handsomely for, precipitate such concerns about the media and its work ethic to the extent it may have?
Finally, given that the incident warrants criticism as above, is there merit to the argument that the now unfolding consequences of Gayle’s action to the point where he may be banned from the Big Bash, and internationally, mark the often bizarre psychological delight many of us have in watching the mighty fallen? I leave that to your better judgement.
Dr Errol Benjamin