I find it hard to follow to your "lead" as a result.
Irony: homophobia on a figure skating forum
What I question is if situations like the threatening of boycotts mean anything in the minds of the IOC and the members of the General Assembly. Of course, the decision to grant the rights to host in Russia was done well before the passage of the infamous anti-LGBT Propaganda law.
What I wonder is if moving forward the IOC will make efforts to not select a state where a possibility of this situation occurring exists. Yes, you can argue that the IOC did not know that this specific law would come into existence, but doing quick research between 2006 and 2013 ten regions of Russia passed anti-homosexual laws and so I think it is safe to say that one could be concerned that this issue would reach the national level.
I am sure if this law was passed before the decision the bid would definitely have had a harder time being successful as this would frame the nation as not following by Olympic Values of inclusion and unity across social strata. While I do not advocate the stripping of the Games from a state unless there is a security issue at hand, I wonder if there will be any such agreement made with countries in the future regarding the passage of legislation that goes against Olympic values. This would be highly problematic as one could say that this would allow the Olympic movement great political power, one could also argue that it would be a component of the business agreement between the hosting nation and the IOC.
Last edited by pista04; 12-11-2013 at 09:18 PM. Reason: Edited to clarify how my post pertains to the thread topic
This is hardly a country known for its human rights. If this is the worst they can do, it's still shows a massive improvement since, say, Stalin's time when people were being starved or murdered left and right. I wonder if this law wasn't created partially to discourage certain athletes from coming to Sochi. I would be shocked if anyone really was arrested, though. I don't think Russia is that stupid.
There is a more serious problem at hand though. Should certain countries not be allowed to bid for Olympics based on the bad behavior of their governments? Until that question is settled by the IOC or politicians, I don't think boycotting is a good idea. It's unfair to the athletes. They can't win. If they boycott, their careers are ruined; if they don't, they appear to approve of the human rights violation. If Jesse Owens could put up with Hitler, I suppose athletes can put up with anything.
There are endless and countless differences and conflicts to each other and in everyone of the 195 countries in the world. The Olympic movement, for my understanding, is that all the countries get together, forget all the differences and conflicts for a moment, and have an international reunion through friendly competing each other in the form of sports. Sports event is not going to solve the differences and the conflicts. Hopefully it could provide an opportunity for the countries to get to know each other a little bit more.
People should not use their own country's standard to measure another country and determine wether that country is qualified or not. It is a decision of the whole governing body of the sports which is not formed and controlled by one or two powerful countries in the world. The up roar from some people in a few western countries on taking away hosting rights from China, or from Russia, or from Qatar can only show one thing - these people are arrogant. It is not your country, not your call. Try to learn a little bit how to get along with other countries!
Except, how would you define what should prevent a country from hosting the games and who would get to make that decision? If you dig into each country you could find laws, practices, etc that should exclude them from hosting the games. I think the IOC should ask countries to let the individual athlete decide what they want to do if a host country has laws or practices they disagree with. That way if an athlete forgoes their dream of competing in the Olympics, its their decision, it's not being ripped away from them by some politician.What I wonder is if moving forward the IOC will make efforts to not select a state where a possibility of this situation occurring exists.
You know what arrogance is? Inviting the world into your backyard, and expecting them not to speak out against human rights issues, and instead expect them to show practically deference and turn a blind eye towards your country's willful persecution and discrimination -- towards your own citizens, no less.
not even the US with its atrocious murdering drones and large rape. prison popualtion and domestic violence cases in the developed world
nor Canada, Japan never apologizing for victims of comfort women , nanjing massacre etc. we could go on on with every countries gross human rights violations
Every country has its issues but there are many countries that do not discriminate against their own citizens resulting in criminal persecution. You're comparing apples with oranges if you're going to suggest that Russia somehow has a comparable human rights record than less extreme nations. You're as likely to convince me that Hitler and Obama are one and the same because their decisions resulted in deaths of people.
Our perception of what is right and wrong does evolve over time, sometimes faster than we realize. Looking at the countries that have hosted Winter Olympics since 1984 - Canada, France, Norway, Japan, USA, Italy and note that Winter Games has fewer participating countries from Africa/Middle East and South & SE Asia - it's not difficult to understand why this law has caused some uproar. The participating countries of Winter Games tend to European, from the Americas, East Asia and Oceania. In those places, gay rights have made very significant stride in the last 10 years - several European countries have pretty much eliminated any form of discriminations against gays and the EU has made it a requirement for any new prospective members. In Americas - Canada, some U.S. States + several Latin American cities such as Mexico City and Buenos Aires have legalized same-sex marriage. New Zealand has joined the club as well, even Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) has recently joined the fray. It is illegal to discriminate against gays in Tokyo for the purpose of employment and Japan is generally fairly safe to gay travellers while Taiwan is talking about legalization of same-sex marriage. China adopts a fairly laisser-faire attitude. So when you do a tour of most of the Winter Games countries, Russia really feels like an odd one out.
The bottom line is : What does the modern Olympic movement stand for? Differences between countries will always happen, that's a given. However, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Would it be acceptable to give the Olympics to a country where women showing their legs in public is condemned and/or forbidden? Should we respect that as well? Would that be consistent with the Olympic charter?
Looking at the IOC's charter, they seem to interpret the Charter's respect of human diversity to include sexual and cultural minorities. I recall when this law was first passed, Denmark quickly issued an official protest to Russia by citing violation of the IOC Charter, EU Standards and UN conventions. While Russia isn't part of the EU, it is a member of the UN and Russia has a moral obligation to respect those standards in which it is part of even if it may not a signatory to every concerned resolution. Furthermore, EU has been clear that respect of human rights is a pre-condition of any long-term EU-Russia partnership or any relationships between EU and another country or super-national organization for that matter.
Simply put, if a given social issue has reached a point where the collectivity of the international community as a whole perceives as a concern, then it may legitimately become a criterion in which a prospective host country may be asked to fulfil and respect. I am confident that the IOC will make that clearer going forward which they probably weren't expecting given the recency of this topic.