Will the Olympics athletes mouth off?
Should Olympic athletes be gagged from commenting on politics during the Beijing Summer Games?
The issue has erupted hard. It started Sunday when the Daily Mail reported that British Olympic chiefs were planning to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China's politics or human rights record. The deal was: Sign, or face a ban on traveling to Beijing.
Well, this naturally sparked a row. Gag the athletes?
The British Olympic Association immediately did a U-turn, saying later Sunday it wouldn’t bar competitors from speaking out during the Aug. 8-24 Summer Games.
The Olympic charter requires athletes to refrain from “any kind of demonstration or engaging in any political, religious or racial propaganda at Olympic sites.”
Before backing down, the British Olympic poobahs were going to require athletes to sign a 32-page agreement that contained a clause preventing athletes from commenting “on any politically sensitive issues.”
Still, the British are sensitive about offending China. The Guardian quoted one unnamed national committee official as saying: “This clause is intended to stop overt statements such as wearing a Free Tibet shirt.”
Free speech groups got their dander up immediately, including Reporters Without Borders, the Paris-based advocacy group, which said: “This affair is indicative of the lack of courage that characterizes some officials in the Olympic movement nowadays.”
The Olympic committees of Canada, the United States, the Netherlands and Belgium have already publicly said they will not restrict their athletes' freedom of expression. The Australian committee, however, has reportedly asked its representatives not to comment on political issues in China.
Agence France Presse carries a story quoting Beijing Olympics committee spokesman Sun Weide urging athletes to obey the Olympic charter.
“I hope that the Olympic spirit will be followed and also the relevant IOC regulations will be followed in every regard,” Sun said when asked about the issue of political protests.
If I were the Chinese government I wouldn't worry too much about it. These foreign athletes most likely will not cause too much damage before and during the Games. What can they do? Wearing "Free Tibet" shirts? The whoe Tibet thing has been beaten to death, how much more "damage" can they do? And these foreign athletes will be speaking mostly to foreign media, or at least domestrating and shouting in their own languages. Most Chinese will have no clue what they are saying.
Posted by: Pffefer | February 11, 2008 at 04:43 PM
How about something real radical like ban promotion of commercial products and services?
Let's see how far the IOC will go to defend the rights of everyone to cash in on the Games.
Posted by: A B | February 11, 2008 at 05:58 PM
The problem with punitive bans on athletes speaking out, especially when they are reiterated at the national team level, is that they could have the unintended consequence of amplifying the message of any athlete that does want to make a point. They do this by adding the timeless ingredient of martyrdom. If an athlete can speak up with little thought of consequence, big deal. But if an athlete sacrifices their medals and perhaps career to make a point? Well, that's a statement with some emotional power.
This is going to sound cynical, but if the teams and IOC want to limit the damage from athletes making political statements they should make sure they don't raise the cost of making those statements so high that they confer automatic heroism on any athlete that dares do so. (But also, don't lower the bar so far that you have groups of athletes protesting on the fields.)
Why does no one notice dissent in the US? Because it's cheap. Why does everyone notice dissent in China? Because it's expensive. Just a thought from your friendly, neighborhood PR man.
Posted by: Will | February 11, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Well spoken, Will.
Having said that, I am sure we will see the Bobby Fischer of Olympics make a big statement one of these days, and a country like the US take exceptional measures to go after him/her no matter where they go.
I do differ with you about the cost of being different in the US --- there is a price, and it is progressively steeper as you become more consequential.
If you don't believe this, have a person of some consequence make a public statement that challenges some sacred cow in the USA (fill-in-the-blank for your pet cause: i.e. gays, etc.) and see what happens.
If 'unbiased' Martians were to land on earth and to rank order the price of dissidence around the world, the USA would come out somewhere around the middle of the pack --- not as bad as many places, but certainly not as free as Americans likes to believe. On the other hand, Chinese are far more free than they believe.
A bit of humility about how we are all, to some degree, intolerant, bigoted, biased, and philistinic would help everyone.
Posted by: A B | February 12, 2008 at 08:09 AM
"If 'unbiased' Martians were to land on earth and to rank order the price of dissidence around the world, the USA would come out somewhere around the middle of the pack"
And who would come out ahead? Europe seems the logical option until you realize how restricted hate speech is, and hate speech is the most powerful form of free expression.
But you make a good point about limiting the ability of corporations to make a profit at the Olympics. The games should be zero profit, with all of the proceeds going towards international relief and economic development funds.
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | February 13, 2008 at 02:24 AM
Just for reference, the two black athelets who protested American apartheid (opps, segregation I mean) during 1968 Olympics were banned for life.
Posted by: Charles Liu | February 14, 2008 at 01:20 PM
BTW, the "no Free Tibet t-shirt" thing has been part of IOC regulation for a long time, and no Western nation had to deal with this when helding Olympics.
Will some foreign government related group climb a wall in Whistler and unfurl a giant "Free First Nation" sign?
This is yet another example the West's animosity towards China.
Posted by: Charles Liu | February 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Olympic Games is an international sporting event. Let's keep it in the best tradition of sports and Olympic spirit, and keep all politics out of it to the best of our abilities.
Posted by: ThinkGlobal | February 17, 2008 at 05:33 PM
"Just for reference, the two black athelets who protested American apartheid (opps, segregation I mean) during 1968 Olympics were banned for life."
@Chuck
In China they'd be in a labor camp. And those two did get their medals back.
China deserves animosity for its consistent bad behavior. Put China back in its box.
@ThinkGlobal
Additionally, the Olympics have always been about politics. The event was a form of truce between the Greek city states.
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | February 20, 2008 at 02:42 AM
@nan
BS. Those Canadian Free Tibet protesters linked to Stephen Harper, who endangered world-class relic, were promptly returned home.
Maybe Hu should hire some First Nation activist, like Harper did with former Tibet Committee leader Tenzin Khangsar.
Posted by: Charles L | February 20, 2008 at 12:35 PM