AMONG THE different kinds of people in this world are two kinds - those who are racists and those who are not.

Is Herschelle Gibbs of South Africa a racist? May be so and may be not.

Termed a black or a coloured in South Africa, at least in the days of apartheid, it is difficult to see Gibbs as a racist, and his father and all those South Africans who have been defending him for his behaviour during the first Test against Pakistan at Centurion Park and all those who have been criticising the ICC for banning him for one Test match, one one-day match, and one Twenty/20 match may well be right.

Contravened code

Probably Gibbs meant no harm - or rather no disrespect for the Pakistanis.

The fact of the matter, however, is that by referring to a group of Pakistanis attending the match as "a ....... bunch of animals" and saying that they should "... off back to the zoo", he contravened level 3.3 of the ICC's Code of Conduct that bans the use of "any language or gestures that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the basis of that person's race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethic origin".

And it does not matter that the Pakistanis were jeering the South Africans in the field, nor that, according to Gibbs, he said it for the ears of his fellow cricketers only, that he never aimed it at the Pakistan supporters and that it was heard elsewhere and certainly by match referee Chris Broad because of the stump microphones.

According to South Africa's coach, Mickey Arthur, based on Gibbs' explanation, he should not have been banned - for the simple reason that he did not mean it as a racist remark, that he did not direct it at the Pakistan supporters and that but for the microphone no one but his colleagues would have heard it.

And according to his father, who has accused the ICC's Malcolm Speed of always picking on South Africans, while ignoring what other countries do, Gibbs attended a multi-racial school, he is a nice guy and there is nothing racist about him.

Well, in laying the charge and then finding him guilty, Broad, a former England representative, did not agree - neither with Arthur nor with Gibbs' father and in throwing out Gibbs' appeal, neither did former Australia captain and veteran broadcaster, Richie Benaud.

After hearing the appeal, Benaud supported Broad's findings and the punishment meted out to Gibbs,

I totally agree with him, and I find it difficult to understand that there are people who should know the code, or who should have read the code, who can truthfully say that Gibbs' words were not offensive.

And it does not matter whether he meant it or not.

No one likes to be called an animal. In fact, no one likes to be called anything than what he is. As a boy going to elementary school, I certainly resented being called a 'coolie boy"'or a 'half breed' and, later on, I resented it even more whenever I was called a ' ... little coolie boy' or a '....... half breed'.

On top of that, people live in houses - not in zoos.

He was wrong

No, whether he meant it or not, Gibbs was wrong - so wrong that many believe, based on the punishment, that he got off lightly. And, yes, Broad and then Benaud were right and especially so Benaud when he reminded Gibbs that microphones do not speak, that they cannot speak and that microphones or not, his words would not have been heard had he not said them.

As professional as it has become, as tough as it has become, and as important as winning has become, cricket can do without a remark like that made by Gibbs in Centurion Park.