From CNN: British Olympic team told silence is golden

jhmartin · Post by **jhmartin** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:51 pm

Just thought we needed a bit of geo-politics to liven the forum ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/02/10/oly ... index.html

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:42 pm

Hopefully the final contract will be more sensibly worded.

ASA · Post by **ASA** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:54 am

In the above referenced article I found this paragraph:

But Campbell [British relay gold medalist at the 2004 Games] recognized: "We are there to represent our country in sporting terms, just as our army do when they go off to war. It is not supposed to be about politics."

When I searched wikipedia for "Olympic Charter" I found:

Article 6: The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries.

which does not seem to mean the same.

Later in the wikipedia article it reads:

August 2007: Edward McMillan-Scott, Vice President of the European Parliament, called for a debate on whether athletes should boycott the Beijing Olympics in response to human rights abuses. The continuing evidence of persecution and human rights abuses in China cannot be reconciled with the Olympic Spirit set out in Article 1 of the Olympic Charter which seeks "respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."

Section 51 of the charter forbids political propaganda and the like. Almost surely, mentioning Tibet or the Dalai Lama by a foreigner would be perceived as propaganda by the Chinese officials - but I would believe that it is covered by the principle of Olympism (that would be article 2 of the charter):

Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles

On the other hand, if one first has to check whether speaking out on something is granted by a paragraph the enemies of liberty and freedom of speech have already won a victory - hopefully just a battle and not the war...

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:56 am

Sort of agree, but there is always a price to freedom, its not free.

If you feel strongly enough, then speak out, and accept the consequences.

Is that fair, no, but no one ever said life was fair. Why haven't athletes, protested through their NGB, which should then be protesting the awarding of the games by there National Olyimpic Comittee delegates.

I've always had a problem with how the world seems to bend over and kiss China's butt. The US rails against Cuba, but trades with China like there is no tomorrow. Personally if put on a scale I think Cuba's record as bad as it is, is still better than that of China's.

jipe · Post by **jipe** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:18 am

Richard H wrote:Sort of agree, but there is always a price to freedom, its not free.

If you feel strongly enough, then speak out, and accept the consequences.

Is that fair, no, but no one ever said life was fair. Why haven't athletes, protested through their NGB, which should then be protesting the awarding of the games by there National Olyimpic Comittee delegates.

Indeed we do not live in a perfect world and there is a risk at protesting against China.

What is difficult to accept in the "contract" that the British Athletes must sign is that a democratic country like UK helps a non-democratic country like China to enforce silence concerning the Chinese human rights violations.

Richard H wrote:I've always had a problem with how the world seems to bend over and kiss China's butt. The US rails against Cuba, but trades with China like there is no tomorrow. Personally if put on a scale I think Cuba's record as bad as it is, is still better than that of China's.

Here I fully agree with Richard: on one side, one non-democratic but small country and actually not a danger for any other country in the world that is banned from everything during an incredibly long period (cannot remember any other country that was banned for so long) on the other side, the biggest country of the planet that violates all rules (democracy, human rights, economics, environmental... and sport+olympics) that represents a major risk for all other countries in the world in the future without any real protest/action taken from any democratic countries. Probably because it is too strong.

Jose Rossy · Post by **Jose Rossy** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:25 pm

jipe wrote:
on the other side, the biggest country of the planet that violates all rules (democracy, human rights, economics, environmental... and sport+olympics) that represents a major risk for all other countries in the world in the future without any real protest/action taken from any democratic countries. Probably because it is too strong.

You are an idiot.

I honestly do not know what else to say when presented with such a stupendously stupid, ignorant, and unsupported statement.

I wonder what would happen if all the billions of dollars the US spends in aid to other countries would dry up overnight?

Fred Mannis · Post by **Fred Mannis** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:41 pm

Jose Rossy wrote:
jipe wrote:
on the other side, the biggest country of the planet that violates all rules (democracy, human rights, economics, environmental... and sport+olympics) that represents a major risk for all other countries in the world in the future without any real protest/action taken from any democratic countries. Probably because it is too strong.
You are an idiot.

I honestly do not know what else to say when presented with such a stupendously stupid, ignorant, and unsupported statement.

I wonder what would happen if all the billions of dollars the US spends in aid to other countries would dry up overnight?

Jose,
I believe Jipe was referring to China

Jose Rossy · Post by **Jose Rossy** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:34 pm

Fred Mannis wrote:
Jose Rossy wrote:
jipe wrote:
on the other side, the biggest country of the planet that violates all rules (democracy, human rights, economics, environmental... and sport+olympics) that represents a major risk for all other countries in the world in the future without any real protest/action taken from any democratic countries. Probably because it is too strong.
You are an idiot.

I honestly do not know what else to say when presented with such a stupendously stupid, ignorant, and unsupported statement.

I wonder what would happen if all the billions of dollars the US spends in aid to other countries would dry up overnight?
Jose,
I believe Jipe was referring to China

If that is the case, my most sincere apology.

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:37 pm

It seems very clear to me he's talking about China.

Thats why you shouldn't call someone an idiot.

Just for reference the US isn't the biggest country in the world.

Shooting Kiwi · Post by **Shooting Kiwi** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:28 pm

Hang on, I'm confused. Can we honestly say any country is blameless?

Oh, of course, I'm living here!

Those who live in glass houses...

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:26 pm

Blameless of what?

Canada has similar relationships with both Cuba and China, so I have no clue what or who you're responding to or about.

Blameless of giving the Olympics to China, I'm sure there are some countries that are blameless for staters the countries who's IOC members voted against China, don't know who they are, but I'm sure there were some.

Steve Swartz · Post by **Steve Swartz** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:59 am

I believe part of the reason for giving the olympics to China was to help them "see the light" of increased trade, democritization, and openness.

This was an unusual and unprecedented move for the IOC, to inject political concerns into the pristine world of olympic sport!

In retrospect though, would anyone argue that it hasn't actually worked to some degree? And may work even more, as thousands of westerners infiltrate the country and leave behind all kinds of prohibited articles, concepts, and friendships? See how well it worked for Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union?

Steve

ASA · Post by **ASA** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:14 pm

Steve Swartz wrote:I believe part of the reason for giving the olympics to China was to help them "see the light" of increased trade, democritization, and openness... See how well it worked for Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union?

Steve

I am not sure how to understand this.
If you refer to the Olympic Games of Berlin 1936, they did not help in the slightest to get rid of the Nazis. Hitler mis-used the games for propaganda and the cost to overthrow the Nazis was tremendous: a huge bloodshed and a body count of some 60,000,000 lifes.

As for the Games of Moscow 1980, there was a boycott from the athletes of the free world: Because of the Soviet occupation of Afhanistan if I remember correctly - one of the finest moments of sport in my opinion.

Steve Swartz · Post by **Steve Swartz** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:12 pm

Asa:

I think we disagree on the nature and result of the boycott.

Are you suggesting we boycott the Beijing olympics?

Steve

ASA · Post by **ASA** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:57 pm

Good evening Steve (from my side of the big pond),

I can speak only for myself and would not want to to speak in OUR name. But for me, myself I do say: Yes, I boycott these Games.

ASA · Post by **ASA** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:10 am

jhmartin wrote:...a bit of geo-politics to liven the forum ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/02/10/oly ... index.html

I found this one on the English version of the German news magazine "Spiegel" (March 12, 2008)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 53,00.html

Freepistol · Post by **Freepistol** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:35 am

My humble opinion is that a boycott would do little to hurt China. I believe more good would come from interaction of athletes---kind of like Hugh of Borg on Star Trek TNG ;>)
It would be a shame to punish our athletes for what the government does. I know several Chinese here in the US and they communicate life here to their countrymen. Change will happen on its own in due time.
Ben

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:49 am

A boycott is really almost impossible, it's easy to boycott a country that you have little to no trade with, but its a whole different story when they supply a lot of your mfg'd. goods. A boycott with China would hurt the US far more than it would hurt China, so I doubt any such move is likely. Walmart's shelves would be empty.

ASA · Post by **ASA** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:05 am

Is it really impossible for an athlete to say "not in my name"?

A line from Donovan's "universal soldier" comes to my mind (you can guess my age from that and my point becomes clear if you replace "killing" with "olympic games"...):

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

When I first read Thoreau's 1849 essay (quite a couple of years ago) on "Civil disobedience" I was extremely impressed. In my humble opinion this was/is a very convincing and responsible civilian behaviour ...

More recently in 1966, Robert Kennedy said:

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest wall of oppression and resistance.

[ found here:http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rfk.htm ]

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:41 am

So again you think western athletes, because those most likely will be tho only ones told to stay home, should pay the price because, the IOC was stupid enough to award the games to China. Even if they did boycott the games what real effect do you think it would have on China? Meanwhile all the western corporation can do trillions of dollars in trade, with China.

I agree on one point the athletes shouldn't be going to China, but only because the games should never have been awarded to them in the first place. I really feel it would be a great disservice to the athletes that have trained and given up lots of personal things to be told to stay home, because someone wants to make a political statement, a statement that should have been made years ago by not awarding the games to China.

It's also easy for people to say "boycott the games" when they aren't going to compete anyways. If an athlete on their own wants to boycott the games, good for them, but none should be forced to. Why not go there an kick China's ass, that would even be better.

TargetTalk

From CNN: British Olympic team told silence is golden

From CNN: British Olympic team told silence is golden

Re: From CNN: British Olympic team told silence is golden