Garth George: The Black Caps must go in spite of Catch-22

To go or not to go, that is the question - and a vexed question it is, too, at least for some people.

At this stage it appears that the Black Caps' tour of Zimbabwe next month will proceed, and, on balance, I think that's the way it should be.

The Catch-22 nature of the argument surrounding the tour is no better illustrated than by the fact that even sportswriters cannot agree one way or the other.

The Government, holding its nose, has decided that it will not interfere in the tour. And rightly so.

For if human rights abuses in Zimbabwe are given as the reason the tour should be banned, then what about the human rights of the Kiwi cricketers and officials, whose very livelihood depends on it going ahead?

And even more important is that in a democracy one of the principal human rights is that citizens are able to travel where they please and when they please, without any let or hindrance.

A tour ban would, too, amount to restraint of trade since the financial future of New Zealand Cricket would be put seriously at risk, to the tune of millions of dollars.

It seems to have escaped the notice of those who oppose the tour that cricket these days is a business, and that those who administer it and play it are professionals dependent on that business for their incomes.

So if you're going to ban the enterprise that is NZ Cricket from carrying on its trade in Zimbabwe, you're going to have to look carefully at the trade of some other New Zealand businesses with more than a few countries whose human rights records do not bear close scrutiny, either.

It's a pity the Government has seen fit to refuse visas to the Zimbabwean cricketers who were to have toured here later this year. Whether that was done in a fit of pique because it couldn't in all conscience (assuming the Government has a conscience) ban our tour, I don't know, but it amounts to the same thing.

It means that NZ Cricket will not just lose millions of dollars in revenue from the Zimbabwe tour but also lose any chance of hosting an immensely profitable World Cup in 2011 in partnership with Australia, the venue for which will be decided within the next 12 months.

And that constitutes, in my book, a serious attack on my human rights because, given that the Lord spares me until then, it deprives me - and tens of thousands of other cricket fans - of the opportunity of watching World Cup cricket on our home grounds.

It is interesting to note that all those who oppose the tour - led by the Greens, who we all know live in a different world from the rest of us - have no stake in the matter.

Not even Henry Olonga, Zimbabwe's first black test cricketer, who skipped his country with colleague Andy Flower after a protest against the Mugabe regime. He is now happily ensconced in England and his lifestyle is not at risk.

He was, of course, brought here at the expense of the Greens - just another example of their financial imprudence. The money came from their election fund, which is a bit ridiculous since they're going to need every penny of that to try to stay in Parliament.

The bishops of the Anglican and Catholic Churches have added their voices to the opposition, which is not a bit surprising because when it comes to the nitty-gritty of worldly affairs they're always a bit naive.

And there are some who would say it's a bit rich of the Catholic Church to stand on the moral high ground when more than a few of its own church laws could well be interpreted as suppressing the human rights of its members. Think contraception, for instance.

The one person who has astounded me is the veteran sportswriter Paul Lewis, who, in an uncharacteristically emotional and vituperative opinion piece in the Herald on Sunday, insisted that the Government should call off the tour.

His arguments, to borrow the term he used to denigrate those who favour the tour, were specious, and his conclusion, to borrow a second time, was humbug.

In fact, I wasn't going to write about the Zimbabwe controversy, but Lewis' piece on Sunday raised my hackles because I saw it as a thinly veiled attack on this newspaper's pragmatic and immensely capable cricket writer, Richard Boock, who laid out in last Friday's SuperSport 10 simple and unarguable rebuttals of arguments against the tour proceeding.

I know that Boock wouldn't even consider defending himself against Lewis' tirade, so I decided I'd do it for him.

My regard for NZ Cricket CEO Martin Snedden, which I have held since I watched him bowl for New Zealand all those years ago, has only increased in the light of his handling of this matter.

I'm sure it is down to his iron-fist-in-velvet-glove diplomacy that the tour to Zimbabwe has survived.

And while his acceptance of the Government's ill-advised ban on the Zimbabweans coming here must have rankled deeply, he has refused to stoop to recrimination.

We cricket fans are fortunate to have him at the helm of our favourite game.