Unless you have been living under a rock over the past week,you would have been aware of the social media firestorm that has erupted over Jamaican and West Indian cricketer Christopher Henry Gayle’s on-air effort at propositioning — some say complimenting — female reporter Mel McLaughlin, who had attempted to interview him at the end of his innings in an Australian Big Bash League T/20 match.

It is reported that during the post-innings on-air interview Gayle told McLaughlin that she had beautiful eyes and asked her out for a drink before saying, “Don’t blush, baby.” The comments have since been picked up by media across the globe with commentators in almost every jurisdiction decrying the on-air comments as suggestive, misogynistic, and downright disrespectful to the journalist.

Gayle, for his part, has brushed the incident off as being blown out of proportion as it was never meant to be taken seriously and was intended as a joke. The problem with the comment, though, is that as bull frog said “what is joke to you is death to me”. And, in a cruel, reverse way, the joke may turn out to be the death of Gayle…at least as far as his cricket-playing days in Australia are concerned.

Not only has his club team slapped him with a US $7,000-fine, they are apparently considering withdrawing his contract for the next as well as future Australian Twenty20 seasons. To add fuel to this fire, Australian cricket great Ian Chappell has reportedly proposed a complete ban from not only Australian cricket, but has suggested that he would support the sport’s governing body, the International Cricket Council, placing a complete ban on Gayle, ultimately ending his cricket-playing days. All of this because of what most of Jamaican men regards as a poorly timed comment.

In following the social media discussions, most Jamaicans believe that the initial punishment is far too excessive considering the infraction. Others feel that Gayle is being singled out because he is black and that the action is being driven by racist bigots whose desire is to not only dictate, but also foist their rules on some players while others are assessed using different standards.

Most of these arguments may not be without merit, but beyond that, is there room for the application of professional standards and the consideration of workplace ethics? The question arises as to whether or not Gayle’s behaviour equates to or approaches the workplace definition of “harassment”.

It would appear that Gayle’s behaviour is being treated as “sexual harassment”, as he did make the comment while at work, and to a reporter who was on the job. At the same time, it appears that the judgement is being based on a possible interpretation of the comment as sexual harassment and that, in the circumstances, the behaviour sends a wrong signal to other players, fans, and the world at large as the telecast had a global audience.

In the circumstances, could he ever be afforded a fair opportunity or defence in the court of public opinion?

Then there is the sociological argument as it relates to the Jamaican male, which sociologist Dr Obika Gray, in his book

Demeaned but Empowered, refers to under the heading ‘Morals, Manners and Social Power: Slackness versus Civility’.

According to Gray, the Jamaica of the 1970s to 1990s saw the emergence of a Jamaica shaped by a desire to embrace the character of the lumpenproletariat, and in the process descended into the acceptance of a slackness culture as opposed to the 1940s Jamaica shaped by colonialism’s conservatism and the rigid family values that existed at that time. The resultant dancehall culture, which developed during the 1980-1990s, combines a kind of “badness honour” mentality with the accommodation to varying levels of public lewdness/slackness. If the person caught in such behavioural display has monetary wealth, this provides them with a ‘bligh’ or a pass at these levels, leading to a kind of deliberate greying of the interpretations in the subject case.

It may not be popular to remind my readers that this is not the first time that Gayle has placed himself in this position. In 2014, there was a similar instance regarding a female reporter in Antigua, and since this particular case has received the heightened level of coverage, there are other reports of Gayle allegedly exposing himself to female support staff in a players’ dressing room, among other reports of unacceptable pseudo-sexual behaviour.

Maybe Dr Gray’s assessment has reached too far home, as too many of us have failed to appreciate that there is need to temper the desire for this kind of expression. There is, after all, a time and place for everything, and that was neither the time nor the place for such a remark.

That aside, it would certainly be overkill if we allow this misplaced comment to bring about the untimely end to a blustering career.