Ship of Fools: 2014 Winter Olympics

Thread: 2014 Winter Olympics - boycott or not? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030698

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

The Dead Horses thread about the Russian laws stopping people even talking positively about homosexuality, "Russian anti-gay bill passes, protesters detained" is here - this thread's more about what the IOC should do, what it can do, and what we think it actually will do.

Stephen Fry, in this open letter to the IOC & David Cameron, writes far more articulately and cleverly than I could, and from the other side of the Atlantic, George Takei writes, urging his many followers to sign a petition.

Both Fry and Takei argue that the 2014 Winter Olympics should not be held in Sochi, for the safety of both atheletes and supporters ( cf HuffPost UK article here ), but is that actually a possibility?

Are they likely to move it, maybe to Vancouver, maybe somewhere else? Is even fair to ask another city to spend all the money and endure all the hassle that the Olympics seem to need? They're not likely to skip a year, it'd miss out on a big money-making event, so if they didn't hold it in Russia, where would they put it?
The IOC seem to be content with vague statements saying that they're committed to everything being fine. I suppose all they're really bothered about is the money - so maybe it's down to the sponsors to complain, and are they really going to bother?

What other options are there? Athletes not turning up? (unlikely, because their sponsors would probably be disgruntled) Boycotting Russian products? ( most covered online is Vodka ) Going ahead and ignoring it all?

I may be cynical - I mean, I've signed a couple of petitions about it, but I don't really think they'll make much difference. There's too much money invested in the big Sports Day, and it's too huge and unwieldy a thing to be manipulable. Am I being defeatist? Is there a way that the publicity that the sport will bring can be used to influence Russian law? Can a precedent of the Olympics influencing Human Rights improvements in its host countries be set? Or is the Sochi Winter Olympics simply going to grind along past with everyone looking the other way, maybe stopping to wring their hands and say something vague and slightly worthy sounding occasionally?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

China is rife with human rights abuses and we did not boycott their Olympics. It would also cause much more hurt to the athletes and national Olympic committees who have trained and practiced to reach 2014, than it would to Russia itself.

One of the most powerful images from Olympics past are the two African-American athletes who did the black power salute on the medal podium. Sochi could be the gay communities moment to take the world stage and stand up for themselves. It would be a shame to give up that global platform at such an important moment.

At the very least the IOC should get assurances from Russia that the Olympics events will be safe for LGBT participants and spectators. If Russia will not do that then boycott may be necessary for the protection of gay people involved.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
China is rife with human rights abuses and we did not boycott their Olympics.

But their civil rights abuses did not threaten the athletes themselves.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I have mixed feelings about this one. I think with the US boycotted the last Olympic games in Russia due to their invasion of Afghanistan the US athletes were the ones who were hurt.

However Russia needs to be forced to enter the 21st century when it comes to sexual orientation.

If the gay community wants to stage protests in Russia I would be very supportive, but I do not think the US or other countries should refuse to participate because the only ones who suffer are the athletes.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I rather think top LGBT athletes should be the ones to decide.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
One of the most powerful images from Olympics past are the two African-American athletes who did the black power salute on the medal podium. Sochi could be the gay communities moment to take the world stage and stand up for themselves. It would be a shame to give up that global platform at such an important moment.

Except it was a lot easier/safer to make a statement about U.S. segregation in Mexico City than it was in (for example) Alabama. A better metaphor for protesting oppression by a host country would be something along the lines of "[the 1936 Berlin games] could be the [Jewish] communities moment to take the world stage and stand up for themselves". I'm not convinced that would have been either a safe or a workable strategy.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the very least the IOC should get assurances from Russia that the Olympics events will be safe for LGBT participants and spectators. If Russia will not do that then boycott may be necessary for the protection of gay people involved.

How credible are assurances that essentially say "we will selectively refuse to enforce our laws during the Games, and our skinheads will only target domestic gays for the duration"?

An opinion piece along the same lines:

quote:
Had Putin reignited Russia's abuse of its Jewish citizens, it would have been unthinkable for the IOC to issue a statement suggesting that non-Russian Jewish athletes, pundits, and spectators could go have a blast in Sochi because we'd be spared the anti-Semitic violence sweeping the rest of the country. There's just no way. The American Jewish community and the Obama administration would have (rightly) enacted trade sanctions instantly. There would have been no statement from the State Department like the one issued the same day as the IOC announcement saying that it does not support a boycott of the games.

So how does a pogrom against LGBT people and our allies pass muster in 2013?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, it's hard to compete in the giant slalom if you've had the shit beaten out of you by a bunch of homophobic thugs. "The only ones who suffer are the athletes" rings kinda hollow when that suffering could be loss of limb or life.

[x-post with Crœsos)

[ 07. August 2013, 15:57: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
but I do not think the US or other countries should refuse to participate because the only ones who suffer are the athletes.

So what about those pressing for the IOC to decide to move the event to another country? I think it's highly unlikely unless there's actual financial incentive to the IOC to do so, but if it were to happen it could put a lot of pressure on Putin's government and on that particular law specifically, having spent all the money on getting ready to host, then for it to be found to be a waste.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
China is rife with human rights abuses and we did not boycott their Olympics.
But their civil rights abuses did not threaten the athletes themselves.

Did you read my last paragraph?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
One of the most powerful images from Olympics past are the two African-American athletes who did the black power salute on the medal podium. Sochi could be the gay communities moment to take the world stage and stand up for themselves. It would be a shame to give up that global platform at such an important moment.
Except it was a lot easier/safer to make a statement about U.S. segregation in Mexico City than it was in (for example) Alabama. A better metaphor for protesting oppression by a host country would be something along the lines of "[the 1936 Berlin games] could be the [Jewish] communities moment to take the world stage and stand up for themselves". I'm not convinced that would have been either a safe or a workable strategy.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the very least the IOC should get assurances from Russia that the Olympics events will be safe for LGBT participants and spectators. If Russia will not do that then boycott may be necessary for the protection of gay people involved.
How credible are assurances that essentially say "we will selectively refuse to enforce our laws during the Games, and our skinheads will only target domestic gays for the duration"?

An opinion piece along the same lines:

quote:
Had Putin reignited Russia's abuse of its Jewish citizens, it would have been unthinkable for the IOC to issue a statement suggesting that non-Russian Jewish athletes, pundits, and spectators could go have a blast in Sochi because we'd be spared the anti-Semitic violence sweeping the rest of the country. There's just no way. The American Jewish community and the Obama administration would have (rightly) enacted trade sanctions instantly. There would have been no statement from the State Department like the one issued the same day as the IOC announcement saying that it does not support a boycott of the games.

So how does a pogrom against LGBT people and our allies pass muster in 2013?

I wouldn't speak for gay athletes myself. I imagine that if I'd trained my entire life for something, and it turned out to be hosted in a homophobic country, I'd be pretty conflicted. Johnny Weir, a gay figure skater with a Russian husband, has said he will attend no matter what.

However if Russia will not agree to protection for gay athletes and spectators during the event, then I think a boycott is reasonable.

It's also worth noting that the World Athletics Championships take place in Russia starting this week. This will be a good litmus test to see how safe Russia is for foreign LGBT athletes.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Croesos:

quote:
A better metaphor for protesting oppression by a host country would be something along the lines of "[the 1936 Berlin games] could be the [Jewish] communities moment to take the world stage and stand up for themselves". I'm not convinced that would have been either a safe or a workable strategy.

Several Jewish groups advocated a boycott, although there were Jewish athletes on the 1936 U.S. Olympic team. Most notably Sam Stoller and Marty Glickman, two Jewish sprinters who were replaced on the 4x100 relay team at the last moment by Ralph Metcalfe and Jesse Owens. (It is widely speculated that it was an anti-Semitic move on the part of the coach.) Owens, for his part, thought that the substitution was unfair, as he had already won three medals. Owens has gone down in history as the guy who went to the Nazi's track and kicked their asses. It is likely that the team without the substitutions would have still won the gold, giving Stoller and Glickman a chance to do the same thing. Too bad that didn't happen.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Are they likely to move it, maybe to Vancouver, maybe somewhere else? Is even fair to ask another city to spend all the money and endure all the hassle that the Olympics seem to need? They're not likely to skip a year, it'd miss out on a big money-making event, so if they didn't hold it in Russia, where would they put it?

Probably nowhere. An Olympic Games takes years of preparation and I think it would be almost impossible to relocate it with around six months to go.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

For anyone interested, here is a link to a fascinating online exhibit from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, about the 1936 Olympics, the proposed boycott, and participation by black and Jewish athletes.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Chez Mon Ewe will be boycotting the Sochi Olympics. As well as the major sponsors. And they've been sent letters informing them of this.

Why? Because people like me are being attacked by gangs of men and raped to 'fix' their sexuality in Russia.

Now, this may not be important to you. You might not care. You might just really enjoy ice dancing. That is your right as a human being. Always remember the words of Anita Sarkeesian, "It is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

If the Winter Olympics go ahead, I can't decide whether it would be better to have a complete boycott, or if all the straight athletes withdrew themselves from consideration for the team, leaving several major Western countries represented by teams entirely consisting of gay men and lesbians.

As seekingsister points out, the Olympics don't come round very often, so any individual athlete doesn't get many chances at winning. It is a lot to ask them to give up perhaps their only realistic chance of a medal.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
China is rife with human rights abuses and we did not boycott their Olympics.
But their civil rights abuses did not threaten the athletes themselves.
Did you read my last paragraph?

Does the example of how we responded to China matter, or not? If it does, then it contradicts directly with your last paragraph. If it does not, then why mention it?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
or if all the straight athletes withdrew themselves from consideration for the team, leaving several major Western countries represented by teams entirely consisting of gay men and lesbians.

I was thinking along these lines.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

In my opinion, the best course would be for all the national committees invited to attend the games, but to support any competitors who choose to personally boycott the games (regardless of whether they are gay or straight) by refusing to name replacements for them. In my opinion this would preserve the sporting integrity (by still restricting the competitors to those who qualified on merit) and be more effective at drawing attention to the grievances than a top-down political gesture, as viewers at home would have TV commentators drag the situation into view every time an event is contested without a notable competitor present.

I recognise that this approach isn't completely worked out, roughly a quarter of the events are contested by pairs or teams where it wouldn't be so simple as that. The decision on whether to withdraw the whole entry or call up the squad's first reserve player would best be handled by a vote of the squad members.

For entire national committees to boycott would be a very awkward situation, because it would lead to subsequent questions around which other countries hosting major sporting events should be boycotted. Should sports in the USA be boycotted over the Obama regime's continued policy of torture at Guantanamo Bay and putting hits out on whistleblowers? Should the Australian cricket team fly home from England now over dehumanising workfare schemes and racist police actions? Should England come here for the second leg of the series so long as refugees are being held on Manus Island?

[ 07. August 2013, 23:39: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

I'd suggest for maximum pr impact -- given that the games won't be moved and the IOC won't stand up for gay athlete but that Russia is likely to protect the village -- all participating nations quicly revamp their uniforms to feature rainbow colours.

Even moving the games out won't help the situation in Russia, and could well make life even worse for Russian gays who will not only be perverts but anti-Russian perverts.

Seeing an endless stream of rainbows on the podium might make a point.

John

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I'd suggest for maximum pr impact -- given that the games won't be moved and the IOC won't stand up for gay athlete but that Russia is likely to protect the village -- all participating nations quicly revamp their uniforms to feature rainbow colours.

Even moving the games out won't help the situation in Russia, and could well make life even worse for Russian gays who will not only be perverts but anti-Russian perverts.

Seeing an endless stream of rainbows on the podium might make a point.

John

Or maybe rainbow arm bands, pins, hats, etc. Then they can add them to what they're wearing. (The uniforms may already be designed, even made, by now.) Plus the on-site audience and the folks back home could also wear those.

What happens, though, if a competitor (of any country) doesn't want to wear one? (E.g., they're anti-LGBT; or they're from a country where such a display could have severe consequences, LGBT or not; or they're LGBT and not publicly out; or they're LGBT and afraid it would make it *more* likely for them to be arrested and/or beaten; or they just want to focus on competing.)

Should they be forced to wear a rainbow??

(Just thinking of practical difficulties.)

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
China is rife with human rights abuses and we did not boycott their Olympics.
But their civil rights abuses did not threaten the athletes themselves.
Did you read my last paragraph?
Does the example of how we responded to China matter, or not? If it does, then it contradicts directly with your last paragraph. If it does not, then why mention it?

First of all, the Chinese atheletes were subject to China's human rights regime. There were many stories of children taken from their homes to train, with no access to their families, etc. There were also many residents of Beijing forced out of the city to present a "clean" image to the world. I don't understand why we are sweeping this under the rug because the other athletes who attended weren't directly affected. The Chinese Olympics were no great victory for human rights.

I do not think the athletes should put themselves into danger. I only used China as a precedent for a recent Olympics in which there was controversy over human rights, but that the IOC and national committees chose not to boycott.

The people who lose out in a boycott are the athletes, gay and straight, who have trained for their entire lives to make an Olympics. It should not be gone into lightly. If we want to make Russia change its LGBT policy I do not see why the Olympics is the method for doing so.

As I've already said the Athletics World Championship is taking place in Moscow this week. Why not use that as a test of the country's tolerance? Do we really think they will arrest a gay figure skater who wears a rainbow flag on a podium, in front of the whole world? I don't. But let's see.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Even moving the games out won't help the situation in Russia, and could well make life even worse for Russian gays who will not only be perverts but anti-Russian perverts.

Yes, exactly. The problem is the Russian law, not the Olympics. We need to see the bigger picture.

Obama refusing to meet Putin is much more effective than an Olympic boycott.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Or maybe rainbow arm bands, pins, hats, etc. Then they can add them to what they're wearing. (The uniforms may already be designed, even made, by now.) Plus the on-site audience and the folks back home could also wear those.

They're not allowed to wear symbols I think - only their uniforms. There's a rule about it that the IOC has, even covering little badges and stuff. It gets in the way of the money-making, which is what the Olympics and Big Sport is all about.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The Chinese Olympics were no great victory for human rights.

I do not think the athletes should put themselves into danger. I only used China as a precedent for a recent Olympics in which there was controversy over human rights, but that the IOC and national committees chose not to boycott.

The Olympics should probably not have been given to China, given its human rights record, but the IOC did so, and it's in the past now, so there's nothing that can be done to change that it was there. There were those who tried before the event, but it didn't work. Doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong or that people shouldn't try again.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

As I've already said the Athletics World Championship is taking place in Moscow this week. Why not use that as a test of the country's tolerance?

Might be useful as a test - but it's not had the attention of the Olympics because it's not as big and commercial an event. There's less money. As much as the athletes work hard and pursue excellence in their sport, it's all about the money. I'd be very surprised if any country actually enacted a boycott after all the money they've spent on funding training for their teams.

In the OP I wondered what should happen and what would happen.
What I think should happen would be them moving the Olympics to another country - it would hit Russia economically and politically, and would make a stand.
This is, however, unlikely given the massive financial burden and inconvenience any city that hosts the Olympics has to endure - nobody'd want to do it twice in a generation.
What I think will happen is nothing at all - everyone will just look the other way, like they did about China's human rights record. They'll wring their hands if people get arrested or attacked, and make vague statements or sound cross, but if they're still making money they'll carry on. There's currently nothing that would affect the IOC or the Sponsors making money, and the national teams won't want to pull their teams out and waste the money they've spent training them, and individuals withdrawing for conscience reasons will be seen as wasting the money spent on them, so are likely to have a negative taint on them in the future.

Maybe that's cynical - but I can't see what else Big Sport is about if it's not ultimately about money.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Double post- sorry. It's just that this blog post and the articles it links to suggests that the likely action is indeed going to be doing nothing.

[code]--k.a

[ 08. August 2013, 20:48: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Sorry, poked "add reply" instead of "preview post", Safari crashed, but appears to have managed to post before it did, and I missed the edit window in force-quitting and restarting. I am a bad person. [Frown]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Or maybe rainbow arm bands, pins, hats, etc. Then they can add them to what they're wearing. (The uniforms may already be designed, even made, by now.) Plus the on-site audience and the folks back home could also wear those.
They're not allowed to wear symbols I think - only their uniforms. There's a rule about it that the IOC has, even covering little badges and stuff. It gets in the way of the money-making, which is what the Olympics and Big Sport is all about.

This is correct in that there are strict rules about what an athlete can and cannot wear on the podium, but I wouldn't take such a cynical view. I think one of the reasons for the ban is to prevent political statements (of whatever hue) being made on the podium, which I think is a reasonable position to take.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

No, it really is commercial. Olympic rule 40 bars symbols of non-Olympic sponsors on athletes. So if you are a skier and sponsored by Red Bull, you can't put on a Red Bull cap on the podium when you win a medal, or even (apparently) send out a tweet of you drinking a Red Bull while participating in the Olympics. Although I would not be surprised if the IOC would step in if it thought that athletes were deliberately trying to embarrass the host country- this is supposed to be two weeks of goodwill, no matter what else is going on in the world.

The thing about the Olympics or similar events is that they are carefully run to allow both the organizing body and the host country a chance to shine and hide their warts as best as possible. Which is why I think the chances of an athlete actually being beaten by an anti-gay gang are very slim- it's a PR nightmare that Russia isn't going to let happen. A boycott would be less about athlete and visitor safety, which Russia will be careful to protect. It would be about preventing Russia from getting two weeks to show the world how wonderful it is, without shining a light on its human rights abuses.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

And now there's this:

quote:
Russia will enforce a new law cracking down on gay rights activism when it hosts international athletes and fans during the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, the country's sports minister said Thursday, appearing to contradict assurances to the contrary from the International Olympic Committee.

<snip>

"An athlete of nontraditional sexual orientation isn't banned from coming to Sochi," Vitaly Mutko said in an interview with R-Sport, the sports newswire of state news agency RIA Novosti. "But if he goes out into the streets and starts to propagandize, then of course he will be held accountable."

Mutko emphasized that the law wasn't designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law.

So aside from any punishment that could be meted out by the IOC for pro-gay statements or endorsements from the winner's podium, the Russian state will (may? there are contradictory statements.) also be imposing criminal penalties. As OKoB points out this will likely be more problematic for Olympic visitors than for athletes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

"I want to call on people to get a healthy perspective of this disgrace. Our district needs a law that would give troops the right to grab gays on the street and drag them to the city square, where Cossacks would whip them," said Mikhailov, Deputy of the Trans-Baikal provincial assembly, according to local website Chita.ru.

Yeah, our athletes will be perfectly safe.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Are they running a 5000 kilometer cross country ski race as an exhibition event this Olympics? finish line right before you hit Manchuria? Because that is the only way an athlete could end up in the district where that comment was made. Next time someone I know from out of the country is thinking about visiting Seattle, I will warn them to stay clear because of something someone in a rural Florida town hall meeting said.

Putin isn't an idiot. Someone gets hurt when the world's media is there, there is going to be international outrage. I think he will find a way to keep things under tabs for a two weeks. (In fact, that is the whole point of the boycott: they don't want to give Putin two weeks to pretend that everything is OK.)

[ 08. August 2013, 20:54: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"I want to call on people to get a healthy perspective of this disgrace. Our district needs a law that would give troops the right to grab gays on the street and drag them to the city square, where Cossacks would whip them," said Mikhailov, Deputy of the Trans-Baikal provincial assembly, according to local website Chita.ru.

Yeah, our athletes will be perfectly safe.

I've just had to look up where the Trans-Baikal region is. It's in Siberia. As that article goes on to say:

quote:
Alexander Mikhailov is Deputy of the Fair Russia party in the Bail Lake province and no one has ever heard of him, but now he will spark a worldwide discussion," LGBT activist Nikolai Alekseev told Gay Star News.

Is it worth listening to the views of this Mikhailov fellow? He doesn't seem to be a major player.

EDIT: While Googling for Trans-Baikal, Og appears to have expressed my thoughts a touch more eloquently.

[ 08. August 2013, 20:58: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is it worth listening to the views of this Mikhailov fellow? He doesn't seem to be a major player.

It doesn't matter how major he is*, but how representative. I'm having a hard time seeing any officials in Russia right now distancing themselves from this (or any) level of fanaticism.

____
*or where he's located. As if (say) Republican fuckwits in Texas or Florida don't matter to someone voting Republican in Minnesota because they're in Texas or Florida

[ 08. August 2013, 21:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

In 1936, the Nazis used the Olympics as a chance to disguise their antisemitism and to present Germany as a peaceful, tolerant country. Why you think Putin won't be that savvy is beyond me.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Thank you for sorting my bollocksed code, Kelly. I don't know why I didn't post a properly coded link in my apology.
Sorry.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
For entire national committees to boycott would be a very awkward situation, because it would lead to subsequent questions around which other countries hosting major sporting events should be boycotted. Should sports in the USA be boycotted over the Obama regime's continued policy of torture at Guantanamo Bay and putting hits out on whistleblowers? Should the Australian cricket team fly home from England now over dehumanising workfare schemes and racist police actions? Should England come here for the second leg of the series so long as refugees are being held on Manus Island?

Any more awkward than all the boycotts before? When the western countries wouldn't go to Moscow, and then the eastern bloc countries wouldn't go to Los Angeles?

It's not as if boycotts haven't happened before. And Wikipedia tells me that 22 countries refused to go to the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.

So I don't find the sort of 'if we do it now, it might happen again' arguments terribly enlightening. It's happened before, it still happens in various contexts.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

China hosted the Olympics more recently still and no-one boycotted the Games then. To my mind, boycotting Russia but not China would say in part 'oppressing gay people is wrong but oppressing an entire population isn't so bad'.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

What a shame we have never boycotted sporting events in communist countries for their treatment of Christians, yes, even entire churches.

I wonder what you'll all be saying when the world cup goes to Quatar where Christianity is severely restricted and conversion to faith in Christ is considered a criminal offence that carries the death penalty.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

http://markreckons.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/whataboutery.html

And look, I'm quoting a Lib-Dem criticising Labour politicians!

[ 09. August 2013, 09:55: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
China hosted the Olympics more recently still and no-one boycotted the Games then. To my mind, boycotting Russia but not China would say in part 'oppressing gay people is wrong but oppressing an entire population isn't so bad'.

This seems rather like the common Ship fallacy that you're not allowed to comment on/care about a given topic unless you also comment on/care about whichever other topic someone decides is also of merit.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
China hosted the Olympics more recently still and no-one boycotted the Games then. To my mind, boycotting Russia but not China would say in part 'oppressing gay people is wrong but oppressing an entire population isn't so bad'.
This seems rather like the common Ship fallacy that you're not allowed to comment on/care about a given topic unless you also comment on/care about whichever other topic someone decides is also of merit.

To be fair, I've heard "you're not involved/you've not been there so how can you know anything about it" argument trotted out so often about places (eg, Israel, South Africa, Ireland) and issues (eg, homosexuality, business, education and medicine) to make me wonder if murderers are the only people entitled to decide on the rights and wrongs of capital punishment.

[ 09. August 2013, 13:08: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think that we should not boycott, but everyone should attend in fuscia Ecce Homo t-shirts. If challenged by Russian enforcers, look innocent and babble about pontius pilate.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What a shame we have never boycotted sporting events in communist countries for their treatment of Christians, yes, even entire churches.

I wonder what you'll all be saying when the world cup goes to Quatar where Christianity is severely restricted and conversion to faith in Christ is considered a criminal offence that carries the death penalty.

Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.

So its all right to torture evangelicals because its our fault?

Bollocks to that.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.
So its all right to torture evangelicals because its our fault?

Bollocks to that.

I read leo not as saying it's all right to torture evangelicals because it's their fault, but because they CHOOSE to be evangelicals. It's okay to commit human rights abuses against a minority as long as it's a self-chosen minority, rather than one you're born into.

That is how your post reads, leo.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Some people did protest about the Olympics going to China because of its human rights record - I know I signed a couple of petitions (yeah, I know, big deal. It's something though, I guess, however ineffectual and lazy it might be), and I think having the World Cup in Quatar is similarly wrong, given their human rights record. (I think my signing a petition about the World Cup would, however, be partly motivated by not wanting there to be endless wall-to-wall coverage of fucking football on every channel everywhere, where the news programme think that who won a game is actually "news", but that's another story).

Anyway, people did protest, and nothing happened. No moving of the Games, no cancelling of it, no teams withdrawing, no protests on the podium. Nothing.
People are protesting again, and probably again nothing will happen - but still, maybe it's better to've said something, even if it is just signing a pointless petition online (I know it's lazy, but what the bloody hell else can I do? I have no influence and no money, so I trundle myself onto Amnesty's links and sign petitions about various things on their website. Probably nothing more than making me feel like I'm not being totally apathetic and appalling, but I'm not sure what else to do. Anyway.

quote:

China hosted the Olympics more recently still and no-one boycotted the Games then. To my mind, boycotting Russia but not China would say in part 'oppressing gay people is wrong but oppressing an entire population isn't so bad'.

quote:

What a shame we have never boycotted sporting events in communist countries for their treatment of Christians, yes, even entire churches.

I wonder what you'll all be saying when the world cup goes to Quatar where Christianity is severely restricted and conversion to faith in Christ is considered a criminal offence that carries the death penalty.

Saying something is wrong, even if it was ineffectual to do so last time you said it was wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't say anything at all.
It probably won't make any difference - it's all about money, the athletes are just convenient pegs to hang the money-generators on, but maybe, however unlikely it is, something might eventually come out of people saying it. It's still worth a try.
(hoping this might be cross-posted with someone who'll have said what I'm trying to say with some degree of articulacy, which seems to be utterly eluding me today...)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.

1. I don't think this matters. I don't think it's important whether someone is gay by nature or by choice.

2. I'm not sure that being Christian is exactly a choice either. I can certainly choose to "act Christian" - whether or not I go to church, own Christian imagery, talk about Jesus etc. are actions within my control, but I don't think that I can decide to have a belief.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.
So its all right to torture evangelicals because its our fault?

Bollocks to that.
I read leo not as saying it's all right to torture evangelicals because it's their fault, but because they CHOOSE to be evangelicals. It's okay to commit human rights abuses against a minority as long as it's a self-chosen minority, rather than one you're born into.

That is how your post reads, leo.

Absolute total and complete bollocks!! They'll kill Catholics too!

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I think having the World Cup in Quatar is similarly wrong, given their human rights record.

Don't get too ahead of yourself- that is 9 years away. If the situation in Russia hasn't changed in 4 years, we may have to talk about a World Cup boycott, as the World Cup is going to Russia in 2018. I don't know how the proposed Olympic boycott is being handled in the English press, but something tells me a proposed World Cup boycott might face some push-back.

FIFA and the IOC have a problem. They want to reach emerging markets, and have decided that their best bet is to stage their events in emerging markets. But many of these emerging markets continue to exist under fairly repressive governments, and in the more liberated ones (speaking about Brazil here,) people are starting to wonder why so much money is being spent on stadiums and hotels when the same amount of money could have a greater benefit if invested in poorer regions of the country.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.
1. I don't think this matters. I don't think it's important whether someone is gay by nature or by choice.

2. I'm not sure that being Christian is exactly a choice either. I can certainly choose to "act Christian" - whether or not I go to church, own Christian imagery, talk about Jesus etc. are actions within my control, but I don't think that I can decide to have a belief.

The difference is:

Large numbers might support a boycott where people of a certain ethnic group is persecuted - because you can't change the colour of your skin.

Ditto on sexual orientation.

Christianity is not in the same category. Becoming a Christian, you sign up to possible martyrdom and persecution. The gospels and epistles are full of it.

AND Christians persecute LGBT people; even supporting the death sentence for them - so a boycott on grounds of religion would not get as much support.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

Don't get too ahead of yourself- that is 9 years away. If the situation in Russia hasn't changed in 4 years, we may have to talk about a World Cup boycott, as the World Cup is going to Russia in 2018.

I'd not really twigged that, sorry.
Football's probably even less likely to respond to the Russian propaganda law - I mean, as a sport it's pretty homophobic, enough that there are either 1) no gay footballers or 2) no footballer who is gay wants to come out (three exceptions named on this thread , one of whom was driven to suicide.
It's hardly likely that FIFA will respond to any sort of pressure if the IOC doesn't, and highly unlikely that football teams would boycott about this issue if Olympic teams don't. And they'd all lose out on lots of money. Of course.

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

I don't know how the proposed Olympic boycott is being handled in the English press, but something tells me a proposed World Cup boycott might face some push-back.

The UK press is, er, reporting that Stephen Fry has sent an open letter, and that's pretty much it, mostly, but there's no evident will to do anything like boycott or rock the boat - too much money invested in training and sponsors and stuff, especially after all the money spent on the previous Olympics [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

people are starting to wonder why so much money is being spent on stadiums and hotels when the same amount of money could have a greater benefit if invested in poorer regions of the country.

We bloody wondered that in London, while the press dribbled on about how wovewy it all was. There are as many different ways of accounting the financial worth-it-ness as there are agendas. Most of the more reliable ones suggest not though, and we've got some fugly stadia knocking around East London now. Lucky us.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I read an essay in a book called "Soccernomics" a few years ago. The book essentially uses examples from association football to explain how economists think. It addressed the benefit of hosting an Olympics or World Cup. Despite what people say, you don't make much (if any) money off of the event. The benefit is less tangible; it tends to increase the number of people in the host country who report that they are happy. The problem is, in a developing country, you can improve happiness more by spending the same amount of money on developing poor neighborhoods.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

More news on this today:
ICO may ban gay athletes who stand up to homophobia.

The article linked above is to a blog, but it's quoting a New York Times paywalled article.

I have other things to say about the IOC that are best left to Hell.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

You'll be happy to know that the IOC's policy is consistent and also extends to any athletes making making political statements of any other kind.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's a very broad definition of 'political', though. I mean, a rainbow pin or flag? Is that any different to wearing a cross?

It only becomes a political statement because Russia is a place where having a rainbow on you would be viewed as 'propaganda'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a very broad definition of 'political', though. I mean, a rainbow pin or flag? Is that any different to wearing a cross?

It only becomes a political statement because Russia is a place where having a rainbow on you would be viewed as 'propaganda'.

Well, yes, but that's where the Olympics will be. I'm not sure the point you're making. All politics is local, as they say.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It's actually a shame that anyone has to go to an event as 1) a gay athlete, 2) a Christian athlete, 3) a black athlete, etc, etc.

These are sporting events - and one goes as an athlete. Period.
These are international events and so one's only identity should be the nation you compete for.

To be honest I couldn't care less what personal identity an athlete has and most people don't either. Mo Faffer is a Muslim but who cares? He's a great athlete. Other athletes are gay. So? There are athletes who are Christians - good - but if he's a rubbish athlete he's a rubbish athlete and that's all that counts when the starting pistol goes off.

Anyway, when was the last time the pompous twit Stephen Fry ever ran any kind of race! Oh the irony!!

[ 10. August 2013, 07:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

Just to say my two-pence worth:

1. Boycotts have happened in the past, however if we start boycotting over the rights of LGBT peoples in Russia we need to start boycotting plenty of other countries over a variety of human rights abuses (and we probably shouldn't have gone to China really) not least the football World Cup (which IMO is no bad thing really!).

2. The decision of the Duma to enact this legislation was a democratic decision, we don't have to like the democratic will of the people but we do have to respect it, so maybe we should actually just shut up and let Russia get on with governing itself, because for sure we wouldn't be appreciative if Russians decided to start lecturing on the democratic decisions of other countries in this way.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I think you all know that my fat fingers and stupid brain should have typed Mo Farah [Confused]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.

Sorry, Leo, that really is an invalid argument.

People choose to be politically dissident. Enlightened world opinion criticised, threatened to boycott etc unenlightened states that oppressed their political dissidents long before anyone had ever thought of gay rights, yet alone argued that people should not be prosecuted for doing gay things.

Furthermore, many of those Christians who are persecuted or discriminated against, are born into Christian minority communities. On your argument, we should not identify with them, but should tell them to shut up and become Moslems like everyone else around them.

Or would you say that political dissidents are worthy of support, but religious ones are not?

Nor, for that matter, do we automatically accept something just because some people are born with a greater predilection towards it. We don't accept that those with double Y chromosomes are entitled to be more violent and antisocial than everyone else and are somehow let off abiding by the rules that govern the rest of society.

There are strong and weak arguments for criticising Russia, but that is a weak one.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's actually a shame that anyone has to go to an event as 1) a gay athlete, 2) a Christian athlete, 3) a black athlete, etc, etc.

These are sporting events - and one goes as an athlete. Period.
These are international events and so one's only identity should be the nation you compete for.

Horseshit. These are commercialised, showbiz circuses and the athletes are the performers. I suppose you wouldn't interview circus performers (and certainly not seals and dolphins) but athletes are sentient beings of the same kind that make the allegedly democratic decisions at, say, the Duma and the IOC.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
many of those Christians who are persecuted or discriminated against, are born into Christian minority communities. On your argument, we should not identify with them, but should tell them to shut up and become Moslems like everyone else around them.

That gets into a discussion, most likely a tangent' on what a 'Christian' is.

There's a phrase 'God has no grandchildren.'

Is one a 'Christian' by virtue of being born into a culture? by baptism? by conversion?

[ 10. August 2013, 11:36: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
many of those Christians who are persecuted or discriminated against, are born into Christian minority communities. On your argument, we should not identify with them, but should tell them to shut up and become Moslems like everyone else around them.
That gets into a discussion, most likely a tangent' on what a 'Christian' is.

There's a phrase 'God has no grandchildren.'

Is one a 'Christian' by virtue of being born into a culture? by baptism? by conversion?

That's irrelevent to a Muslim. If you stop being a Muslim in one of those countries and become anything else then not only will you never work again it's likely you'll be hanging from a crane.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
many of those Christians who are persecuted or discriminated against, are born into Christian minority communities. On your argument, we should not identify with them, but should tell them to shut up and become Moslems like everyone else around them.
That gets into a discussion, most likely a tangent' on what a 'Christian' is.

There's a phrase 'God has no grandchildren.'

Is one a 'Christian' by virtue of being born into a culture? by baptism? by conversion?

There are a number of societies (e.g. Egypt) where being born into a Xn family makes one, as far as people living there are concerned, a Christian, and liable to the disabilities and limitations involved-- theological opinions or personal beliefs are not particularly relevant in such situations (leading occasionally to the martyrdom of a nonbeliever for their religion-- one must be forgiven for speculating on the confusion this causes at the Gates of Heaven reception desk). We might not think that identities should be imposed, but that is not how everyone lives.

As far as the Olympics is concerned, they have been for some years part of the sports entertainment industry, but with a political overlay. Boycotting such events has a more limited impact than one might think: I had a conversation with two local gay activists (one of whom was well-read and generally quite knowledgeable) last night who had not heard of the boycott of the 1980 Olympics. Wondering if this was an outlier, I enquired of several other people (a journalist, two academics, a human rights officer, and a lawyer) at the event and the only one who knew of the 1980 boycott was one of the academics-- a microbiologist by trade, and that was because of her Afghan ancestry.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

The Olympics are an advertising event, not an athletic event. The IOC will do whatever the sponsors tell it to do.

The most powerful leverage can come from consumers outside Russia challenging those corporate sponsors' association with the Russian regime. Put it right out there: all those corporate sponsors, through their Olympic sponsorships and advertising, are effectively supporting Russian homophobia. Switch to Pepsi and MasterCard and tell Coke and Visa why.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
many of those Christians who are persecuted or discriminated against, are born into Christian minority communities. On your argument, we should not identify with them, but should tell them to shut up and become Moslems like everyone else around them.
That gets into a discussion, most likely a tangent' on what a 'Christian' is.

There's a phrase 'God has no grandchildren.'

Is one a 'Christian' by virtue of being born into a culture? by baptism? by conversion?
There are a number of societies (e.g. Egypt) where being born into a Xn family makes one, as far as people living there are concerned, a Christian, and liable to the disabilities and limitations involved-- theological opinions or personal beliefs are not particularly relevant in such situations (leading occasionally to the martyrdom of a nonbeliever for their religion-- one must be forgiven for speculating on the confusion this causes at the Gates of Heaven reception desk). We might not think that identities should be imposed, but that is not how everyone lives.

As far as the Olympics is concerned, they have been for some years part of the sports entertainment industry, but with a political overlay. Boycotting such events has a more limited impact than one might think: I had a conversation with two local gay activists (one of whom was well-read and generally quite knowledgeable) last night who had not heard of the boycott of the 1980 Olympics. Wondering if this was an outlier, I enquired of several other people (a journalist, two academics, a human rights officer, and a lawyer) at the event and the only one who knew of the 1980 boycott was one of the academics-- a microbiologist by trade, and that was because of her Afghan ancestry.

It seems to me that if a boycott was held of all countries with human rights issues, then they'd never be held anywhere else than in the USA (but perhaps not) and Europe. Who would come and compete?

I heard a gay athlete pn Radio 4's Today programme on Friday morning condemn a boycott. I reckon his voice is worth more than the somewhat smug Fry on this.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's actually a shame that anyone has to go to an event as 1) a gay athlete, 2) a Christian athlete, 3) a black athlete, etc, etc.

Do you think the brick-wielding murderous homophobic GLO* Rooskies will care if an athlete who is gay goes to the Olympics as a gay athlete, or as a mere athlete? What does this have to do with this thread at all?

______
*Good Little Orthodoxen

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I heard a gay athlete pn Radio 4's Today programme on Friday morning condemn a boycott. I reckon his voice is worth more than the somewhat smug Fry on this.

I heard two gay athletes say they support a boycott. I win!

And being a queer person myself, that means, per your thinking, I have a lot more say in this than you do.

It's kind of irksome that my existence has become dismissed as 'political' by those with privilege.

[ 10. August 2013, 23:27: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
It's kind of irksome that my existence has become dismissed as 'political' by those with privilege.

That's not at all what has happened here. Gay people's existence is not generally a political issue (except when it is: see Achmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University when he said there are no gay people in Iran). The political issue is gay people's rights -- because everyone's rights are a political issue.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
The Dead Horses thread about the Russian laws stopping people even talking positively about homosexuality, "Russian anti-gay bill passes, protesters detained" is here - this thread's more about what the IOC should do, what it can do, and what we think it actually will do.

The Russians rightly make the point (on RT) that they are far from being the only country with stringent anti-gay laws (not their words), but at present they are the focus of intense negative attention. I very much doubt they would be dim enough to persecute gay athletes at the Olympics.

When athletes spend years of their lives preparing for a sporting event, I think they are the ones to decide whether it is appropriate for them to attend said event or not.

We allowed all sorts of countries to attend the Olympics, regardless of their abysmal human rights records on all sorts of issues. Why should this one issue now lead to us boycotting the Winter Olympics? Why should gay rights in Russia be more important than a thousand other human rights abuses worldwide?

Mr Fry is welcome to express his point of view, but I see no reason for him to be regarded as any kind of spokesman on this issue. He is not a politician, and he is not a sportsman. He is more intelligent than the average person, but I am afraid this tends to make him appear to rather over-rate his own opinion, and think that he can never be wrong. He can.

The best way to influence Russian thinking is to be friends with Russia; to find common ground and to attempt to soften attitudes. This cannot be done by huffing away from sporting events, imo.

[ 11. August 2013, 10:20: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

As I write this my wife and I have been watching the athletics championships being held in Moscow. Before lunch we were watching various men attempting, and mostly failing, to do the pole vault.

It suddenly occurred to me: why is Mr Fry not complaining about this particular sporting event in Moscow.

Then I realised: it's not big enough a meeting for his pompous and inflated ego.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It suddenly occurred to me: why is Mr Fry not complaining about this particular sporting event in Moscow.

Then I realised: it's not big enough a meeting for his pompous and inflated ego.

What about - it's not a big enough event to focus general attention? Hand on heart, how aware were you of the World Athletics Championships before it happened? Could you say where the last one was held?

But Olympic Games - everyone's heard of those. Sad reflection I daresay on the shallow and sensationalist nature of the media - not to mention the shallow and sensation-seeking nature of the public - but it's the big event that counts.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I suppose it depends on where you're from who's in it. While I accept that the World Athletics Championships has never really been a headline grabber in the past, the success of British athletes at the Olympics means that the Moscow meeting has been mentioned quite a few times in the British press (lots of talk of it when I caught a bit of the Anniversary Games a few weeks ago).

And from memory, I think the last Championships were in Daegu, South Korea. Channel Four devoted a lot of coverage to them, if I recall correctly.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Exactly. Most people who believe in their cause would make representation even at lower levels. This is just show-business meddling. I don't agree with any form of protest. It's sport. leave it at that.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Exactly. Most people who believe in their cause would make representation even at lower levels. This is just show-business meddling. I don't agree with any form of protest. It's sport. leave it at that.

You appear to be saying both that Fry is insincere for not mentioning the WAC and that he shouldn't be protesting in any case because his trade is acting/presenting. Or are you saying no one should protest about any injustice? Or that they shouldn't use the occasion of attention being focused on a particular country because sport is involved?

Well good luck with that in the event that there is any crying wrong you think should be spoken out against.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Exactly. Most people who believe in their cause would make representation even at lower levels. This is just show-business meddling. I don't agree with any form of protest. It's sport. leave it at that.
You appear to be saying both that Fry is insincere for not mentioning the WAC and that he shouldn't be protesting in any case because his trade is acting/presenting. Or are you saying no one should protest about any injustice? Or that they shouldn't use the occasion of attention being focused on a particular country because sport is involved?

Well good luck with that in the event that there is any crying wrong you think should be spoken out against.

I think I'm wondering about a number of things:

1. The inconsistency - we'll protest at the Moscow olympics but not eh Moscow WAC.

2. The inconsistency (again) - we'll propotest about Russia banning public demonstrations of gayness in the street but we'll not protest against discrimination against Jews, Christians or other groups by Communist or Islamic authorities.

3. The self interest - Oh I'm gay and I think my cause is more important and the whole world should listen to me because I'm gay and there are a handful of gay athletes who're gay but don't ask me to say anything about persecuted Christians because I'm a gay atheist.

If one is going to protest about human rights, brilliant! Protest. But do it even handedly. Do it continuously. Do it for all intimidated and persecuted groups not just one, because I don't think it's good enough just to single out one issue and to make it the most important issue on the planet.

If you are not going to highlight all abuses, then maybe one shouldn't protest at all.
As far as the boycott is concerned, why should an athlete who trains his bollocks off at 5 o'clock in the morning every day for 4 years be stopped by Stephen Fry from fulfilling his life's dream.

Why should sport get the boycott?
Why not buying vodka and furry hats? Why not boycott Tchaikovsky's music or anything else Russian?

The word of the day is 'Inconsistent.'

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Mudfrog,

Are you seriously suggesting that one should either protest against everything that is wrong or unfair or ignore every such issue? That's how your post reads to me.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

And to me.

I have a sneaking suspicion that even Mudfrog feels more disposed to champion some oppressed groups more than others - Christians, perhaps?

Gay people feel strongly about gay rights, women feel strongly about misogyny and sexism, black people about racial discrimination. How very inconsistent of them.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... If one is going to protest about human rights, brilliant! Protest. But do it even handedly. Do it continuously. Do it for all intimidated and persecuted groups not just one, because I don't think it's good enough just to single out one issue and to make it the most important issue on the planet. ...

Awesome. So what has the Salvation Army done for the rights of gay Russians lately? For the rights of gay people anywhere? By your logic, they shouldn't just be singling out oppressed Christians for support, but helping everyone equally.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There was a London protest today and a quotation from the coverage (from Stephen Fry's Twitter feed) is:

quote:
Fry said the protest wasn’t about Olympics as much as it was about “allowing gay people of Russia to grow up free and proud and happy and with the genuine sense of importance they deserve.”

Just remember that what this is about is not a big abstract thing like the Olympic movement, or a big abstract thing like the nature of totalitarianism, it’s keeping in the head the lesbian being savagely raped and being told by the police go take a walk because it’s not a crime, it’s a corrective thing to make you straight. These things happen daily in Russia; the teenagers being humiliated by their friends, punched and kicked and forced into suicide at an enormous rate. That’s what we have to remember this is all about, it’s about allowing the gay people of Russia to grow up free and proud and happy and with the genuine sense of importance they deserve.

I suspect the timing of this has more to do with the passing of a new anti-homosexuality law in Russia on 12/13 June 2013.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Awesome. So what has the Salvation Army done for the rights of gay Russians lately? For the rights of gay people anywhere? By your logic, they shouldn't just be singling out oppressed Christians for support, but helping everyone equally.

Little, I imagine. They're usually too busy campaigning against the rights of gay people; and I suspect that this is at the root of Mudfrog's objections - he just doesn't see anything much wrong with the Russian law.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Paws up for the American Kennel Club:

quote:
... As exhibitors, breeders, handlers and trainers, we teach our dogs many things. But there is no denying, they teach us too. Our bond with dogs is not defined by the type of person who holds the leash. We cannot support competition in an environment where tolerance does not exist. ...

AKC's Letter Urging FCI to Move 2016 World Dog Show From Russia

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Considering we weren't encouraged to get out of our prams over the highly suspicious radioactive tea poisoning incident , I be surprised if our government decided to rock the boat of political expediency over this one .

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

All our services are provided to anyone in need regardless of....
We do not discriminate against anyone when we help people.
We do not discriminate against people when we employ them.

I myself was an assistant manager in a SA hostel where there were gay residents and at least 2 gay members of staff.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Little, I imagine. They're usually too busy campaigning against the rights of gay people; and I suspect that this is at the root of Mudfrog's objections - he just doesn't see anything much wrong with the Russian law.

^ This.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

As I said: 'inconsistency'. There are other laws but I don't see anyone campaigning against them.

There are other occasions - but I don't see boycotts of them.

human rights is a very important issue and it's wrong to highlight one cause at one event when there are so causes and many events that could be have equal attention paid to them.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

This illogic has already been covered.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

People will naturally be concerned with issues that concern them and people like them. It may not be a particularly good attitude to have, but it is rather natural, I would have thought.

Also, there are many groups such as Amnesty International who campaign for LGBT rights AND those of persecuted Christians (and other religions). The Olympics is a big event which naturally shines a light on the host country - other issues like persecuted Christians elsewhere in the world are just less well-known. The atheists I know are not unconcerned by the persecution of Christians, just unaware of it.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

With the Olympic thing, it's a combination of big event, the timing of them passing the law, and the deteriorating situation proceeding from that there.

Is it really *all* about the sport? You think? You really reckon that it's not substantially about the sponsors and people making money? Sure. Because Big Sport is entirely about exercise and healthy competition.
Why not bloody move it and do bits in various places? It's all about the sports and not about the big moneymaking event and the sponsors - the athletes could compete in whatever country had the best facilities, and find out who's the best at their sport, and they'd all be on the telly under an Olympic banner so everyone'd see it anyway.
Ah, so it's not about the sport, it's about the sport all being in one big event to make money for the IOC and the sponsors. Right.

So vague statements and not a lot else done - just like when they went and had their money-making sport-entertainment festival in China. Always worth a try though.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems to me that if a boycott was held of all countries with human rights issues, then they'd never be held anywhere else than in the USA (but perhaps not) and Europe. Who would come and compete?

Guantanamo? Waterboarding? Extraordinary Rendition? etc. Most of Europe, and certainly the USA are not unblemished paragons of human-rights virtue. Nobody's saying that they are, and yes, we should protest more, and more effectively about things our own country does wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

3. The self interest - Oh I'm gay and I think my cause is more important and the whole world should listen to me because I'm gay and there are a handful of gay athletes who're gay but don't ask me to say anything about persecuted Christians because I'm a gay atheist.

If one is going to protest about human rights, brilliant! Protest. But do it even handedly. Do it continuously. Do it for all intimidated and persecuted groups not just one, because I don't think it's good enough just to single out one issue and to make it the most important issue on the planet.

If you are not going to highlight all abuses, then maybe one shouldn't protest at all.

People campaign for things that particularly matter to them - because nobody has the energy to campaign about every wrong, especially since change happens so slowly - years of campaigns and Guantanamo is still there, still ignoring legality and humanity.

People would burn out if they campaigned about everything - Would Mandela and Tutu and their ilk managed to change the South African system as successfully if they were campaigning about illegal game hunting as well as apartheid? Would the suffragettes have got the vote as soon if they'd had an animal rights campaign on the side? (no, Mr Mudfrog, I'm not remotely equating a TV personality writing an open letter to some people with the Mandela, Tutu, suffragettes or others who campaigned and campaign at great cost to themselves)

Sure, some might participate in several campaigns, but there has to be a limit somewhere, even for those of us lazy useless bastards like me who just feel bad and research stuff a bit and sign petitions, otherwise you'd just cave in under the awareness of the groaning weight of humanity's consistent grinding commitment to perpetrating injustice, greed and cruelty.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The Olympics are an advertising event, not an athletic event. The IOC will do whatever the sponsors tell it to do.

The most powerful leverage can come from consumers outside Russia challenging those corporate sponsors' association with the Russian regime. Put it right out there: all those corporate sponsors, through their Olympic sponsorships and advertising, are effectively supporting Russian homophobia. Switch to Pepsi and MasterCard and tell Coke and Visa why.

It might be a more realistic and effective focus for a campaign. I've been wondering for a few days why there are no big public attempts to galvanise people into doing this.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Mudfrog, it's real sweet that that the Sally Ann says it doesn't discriminate in employment or services, but that wasn't the question I asked.

My question was "So what has the Salvation Army done for the rights of gay Russians lately? For the rights of gay people anywhere?"

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It's interesting to note that so far the budget has been overrun from 12 to 50 billion dollars according to the economist making them most expensive olympics

So besides the threat to gay athletes there's a threat to all athletes that the facilities may collapse.

I doubt it's practical to require the athletes to skip the games, however there's nothing the Russians or the IOC can do if there's a popular movement to boycott the commercial sponsors of the Olympics.

I'm looking forward to a future Olympics in in a Muslim nation when the IOC bans the athletes from wearing crosses as a political statement.

[ 12. August 2013, 00:41: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

For starters, perhaps someone who knows some details of Russian culture, and why the country is heavily supportive of the law against gay propaganda would be helpful. The CBC reported today that all members of the Duma (Russian parliament) voted in support of this law, as in 100%, and that the populace supports this law in overwhelming proportion. Quite obviously, the Russian nation is not western Europe or the western hemisphere, and has different ideas about human rights (and corruption I also understand). Are we projecting world views from our local progressive (or not) situations on to a country which has a lot of catching up to do.

As for the boycott, this has already been stated. people are going to Socchi to participate and watch sport. In the athletes village, the athletes will be in a bubble, with differential enforcement of a vaguely worded law, and the local police are unlikely to enforce anything disruptive to the games. The IOC is likely to remind the athletes through their NOCs as to the standards of behaviour expected of them. I also doubt that this will be much news once someone has been caught doping, which is inevitable.

So - no boycott. It's about sports.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re buying vodka:

Actually, many people have protested by buying vodka and pouring it out. Except the brand they chose turns out to be made in Lithuania. And the company is going, "hey, wait a minute, we're not Russian, and we don't support that law!"

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
3. The self interest - Oh I'm gay and I think my cause is more important and the whole world should listen to me because I'm gay and there are a handful of gay athletes who're gay but don't ask me to say anything about persecuted Christians because I'm a gay atheist.

Mudfrog, this simply took my breath away.

It was so egregious I thought it deserved its own highlight.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re buying vodka:

Actually, many people have protested by buying vodka and pouring it out. Except the brand they chose turns out to be made in Lithuania. And the company is going, "hey, wait a minute, we're not Russian, and we don't support that law!"

So people are protesting a Russian law by buying extra non-Russian vodka? It's a little random, but OK...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Thing is, the SA did campaign against the repeal of a related law in England - Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act - which, for those who need reminding, forbade local authorities (among other things) "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". And in the US they've gone out of their way to refuse employment benefits to same-sex partners. Which rather proves my point.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Thing is, the SA did campaign against the repeal of a related law in England - Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act - which, for those who need reminding, forbade local authorities (among other things) "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". And in the US they've gone out of their way to refuse employment benefits to same-sex partners. Which rather proves my point.

So it expressed its moral opposition to something - a bit like RCs protesting about abortion laws and Methodists protesting about gambling laws. Come on.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Mudfrog - Section 28 legitimised homophobic bullying in schools. Some (many?) teachers held up their hands and said they could not tackle homophobic bullying as they were prevented from doing so under that clause. I did know some teachers who would tackle homophobia when the act was in place, but they had to be careful.

Examples of homophobic bullying I have seen are vicious attacks, both physical and verbal, on young people who were labelled as gay, whether or not they were. Round here it was because those young people were not sexually active at 13. The thinking went: they're not already having heterosexual sex, they have to be gay, let's just trash all their kit, prevent them from changing for PE in the communal changing rooms, graffiti all their school books ...

We are only now, 10 years after the repeal of Section 28, beginning to tackle homophobic bullying in schools.

That clause was all about enshrining homophobia in law.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Thing is, the SA did campaign against the repeal of a related law in England - Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act - which, for those who need reminding, forbade local authorities (among other things) "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". And in the US they've gone out of their way to refuse employment benefits to same-sex partners. Which rather proves my point.
So it expressed its moral opposition to something - a bit like RCs protesting about abortion laws and Methodists protesting about gambling laws. Come on.

Don't be so disingenuous. Section 28 prevented teachers supporting young gay people; prevented homophobic bullying being dealt with; and prevented school giving gay young people proper health and relationship advice. Gambling laws don't remotely affect people in the same way, and when the RCC supports decisions that result in women dying then I'm inclined to think them anti-women. This is far more blatant though, because it is support for laws and practices deliberately intended to discriminate against and intimidate gay people. The SA in New York threatened to shut down all charitable activities rather than gives employment benefits to same-sex partners on the same basis as opposite-sex ones. That's more than declaring a moral position; that's abuse. And, quite honestly, screw that.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

And we are against bullying for any reason - gender based, sexuality based, faith based and race based.

What I cannot agree with is the extension of homophobia to include any statement of disagreement with homosexual activity. For example, The Salvation Army is opposed to same sex marriage - I resist any attempt to accuse us of homophobia in that respect.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And we are against bullying for any reason - gender based, sexuality based, faith based and race based.

What I cannot agree with is the extension of homophobia to include any statement of disagreement with homosexual activity. For example, The Salvation Army is opposed to same sex marriage - I resist any attempt to accuse us of homophobia in that respect.

Which is fine because no-one is doing that. The homophobia comes from trying to use the power of the state and your organisational power to make life worse for gay people, as in the two examples I gave. The SA can oppose same-sex marriage by discouraging its members from marrying people of the same sex and not solemnising such marriages.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It suddenly occurred to me: why is Mr Fry not complaining about this particular sporting event in Moscow.

Then I realised: it's not big enough a meeting for his pompous and inflated ego.
What about - it's not a big enough event to focus general attention? Hand on heart, how aware were you of the World Athletics Championships before it happened? Could you say where the last one was held?

But Olympic Games - everyone's heard of those. Sad reflection I daresay on the shallow and sensationalist nature of the media - not to mention the shallow and sensation-seeking nature of the public - but it's the big event that counts.

I myself was scratching my head, as in my house the WAC in Moscow is a must-watch even and we'd been looking very much forward to it. Then I hear everyone talking about the 2014 Olympics and a boycott, as if there isn't a major event with some of the world's biggest sports stars (e.g. Usain Bolt, Mo Farah) in attendance taking place in the same country.

The BBC's Colin Jackson has long been rumoured to be gay and he looked happy as a clam presenting in Moscow over the weekend. I am fairly positive that there are many gay athletes participating in the event, including Russian ones.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What a shame we have never boycotted sporting events in communist countries for their treatment of Christians, yes, even entire churches.

I wonder what you'll all be saying when the world cup goes to Quatar where Christianity is severely restricted and conversion to faith in Christ is considered a criminal offence that carries the death penalty.
Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.

That's a Horlicks of an argument: try being born a Catholic in 'Norn Iron' prior to the late-1960s (and even since then) and you'll realise what bullshit you've posted.

There's more than an element of hypocrisy in these protests: everyone seemed happy for athletes to go to Sochi when Putin & Co were just persecuting their political opponents but now it's about human rights?! Puh-leeze!

[ 12. August 2013, 13:54: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What a shame we have never boycotted sporting events in communist countries for their treatment of Christians, yes, even entire churches.

I wonder what you'll all be saying when the world cup goes to Quatar where Christianity is severely restricted and conversion to faith in Christ is considered a criminal offence that carries the death penalty.
Some difference, though. people choose to be Christians. They don't choose to be LGBT.
That's a Horlicks of an argument: try being born a Catholic in 'Norn Iron' prior to the late-1960s (and even since then) and you'll realise what bullshit you've posted.

There's more than an element of hypocrisy in these protests: everyone seemed happy for athletes to go to Sochi when Putin & Co were just persecuting their political opponents but now it's about human rights?! Puh-leeze!

And more than that, it's gay human rights which, as everyone in the BBC knows, is far more important than anyone else's.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Oh yes, and I was bullied at school for going to church and being poor.

You want to start a human rights group for me?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And more than that, it's gay human rights which, as everyone in the BBC knows, is far more important than anyone else's.

God does one get sick of this shit.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And more than that, it's gay human rights which, as everyone in the BBC knows, is far more important than anyone else's.

I take a traditional line on sexual morality, Mudfrog, but I think the Putin government's actions against gay people are incredibly spiteful and malevolent and people should make a stink about it. Gay people and people protesting about their treatment are getting beaten up in the streets, for heaven's sake. It's disgusting. I do not believe in the criminalisation of homosexuality: it appals me.

(Meanwhile, as we are talking of other persecuted minorities, I will go on supporting the persecuted Church.)

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And more than that, it's gay human rights which, as everyone in the BBC knows, is far more important than anyone else's.
God does one get sick of this shit.

Yes indeed Mr Riggle, but you don't live in the UK where certain 'isshoos' are aired and supported because they are parallel with popular culture.

Have you not wondered why the protests against gay 'persecution' in Moscow is highlighted by a nothing-to-do-with-sport celebrity quiz show host and not an athelete, politician or human rights spokesman?

The gay cultural voice in this country is far out of proportion to the rest of society's interests and attitudes.

To some, this 'prostest' smacks of even more gay self-promotion.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

But the fact you see certain ishoos as being covered heavily by the Press is not Stephen Fry's fault. In the last few days he has also campaigned on Twitter for mental health services in the NHS and some animal conservation charity, and those were the ones I noticed. Both are causes he espouses. Neither of those got picked up by the Press.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Have you not wondered why the protests against gay 'persecution' in Moscow is highlighted by a nothing-to-do-with-sport celebrity quiz show host and not an athelete, politician or human rights spokesman?

The gay cultural voice in this country is far out of proportion to the rest of society's interests and attitudes.

To some, this 'prostest' smacks of even more gay self-promotion.

I'm not sure what a 'gay cultural voice' is when it's at home and I don't think that society's 'interests and attitudes' are opposed, say, to luring gay teenagers to a meeting on the pretext of a date but then beating them up on camera.

That aside, couldn't Fry's profile be more attributable to the fact that large sections of the media, and society generally, fawn at what he has to say? I don't think that's anything to do with his sexuality. I fully agree with Julie Burchill's description of Fry as 'a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is like'. Perhaps we just have a lot of stupid people in our society?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think that society's 'interests and attitudes' are opposed, say, to luring gay teenagers to a meeting on the pretext of a date but then beating them up on camera.

That should have read, of course, that I don't think that society's 'interests and attitudes' are in favour of luring gay teenagers to a meeting on the pretext of a date and then beating them up on camera (assuming one is talking about British society).

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And more than that, it's gay human rights which, as everyone in the BBC knows, is far more important than anyone else's.
God does one get sick of this shit.
Yes indeed Mr Riggle, but you don't live in the UK where certain 'isshoos' are aired and supported because they are parallel with popular culture. Can you enlighten me?

Have you not wondered why the protests against gay 'persecution' in Moscow is highlighted by a nothing-to-do-with-sport celebrity quiz show host and not an athelete, politician or human rights spokesman?

The gay cultural voice in this country is far out of proportion to the rest of society's interests and attitudes.

To some, this 'prostest' smacks of even more gay self-promotion.

Right. I don't live in the UK either, so I don't know what semantic value "'isshoos'" has in your post, still less "'prostest'".

Perhaps the comedian in question is a "nothing-to-do-with-sport celebrity quiz show host and not an athelete, [sic] politician," but he does happen to be gay.

Perhaps that gives him standing to speak up against anti-gay oppression. No?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

I am delighted to unload this crap to DH.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh yes, and I was bullied at school for going to church and being poor.

You want to start a human rights group for me?

Actually, there are many anti-bullying groups, here in the US. Even the federal gov't has a StopBullying.gov site. Even the president has spoken out against bullying.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I am delighted to unload this crap to DH.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

And that, my friends, is why I rarely darken the door to Dead Horses.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

We need a Dead Horses in Hell thread so we can tell people what we think about them on DH issues.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And we are against bullying for any reason - gender based, sexuality based, faith based and race based.

How nice. But not so much against it to try to eliminate it in Russia.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I cannot agree with is the extension of homophobia to include any statement of disagreement with homosexual activity. For example, The Salvation Army is opposed to same sex marriage - I resist any attempt to accuse us of homophobia in that respect.

Too bad. You and the Army aren't doing too well.
You will get accused of homophobia when you take government funds and want to not give the benefits to the same sex partners of gay employees that you give to spouses of heterosexual partners. This is going to come up again in New York when Mayor Bloomberg is gone since he's not enforcing the ordinances and the Salvation Army has said they would pull out of funded services if they had to treat same sex employees equally and were trying to get congressional support for an exemption during the Bush years.

Salvation Army stance on Homosexuality

Since you and the Salvation Army are both opposed to Equal Rights for Gay people such as the right to marry, why would anyone want to listen to your critique of the methods used to get those rights?

Critiques such as "he can't protest because he's not an Olympic athlete", "it's not consistent to protest the Olympics unless you've protested all prior smaller regional events" or "you can't protest that unless you first protest things that are more important to me like Christian persecution" are all meant to obstruct obtaining the goals of the actions.

The Salvation Army will just continue to look nasty and homophobic as it has with it's support of section 28, and with its fight against gay marriage (how's that working for you lately in the UK?) Don't expect people to forgot your prior history.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

So the SA 'must' give up it's Christian beliefs about morality (that is shares with most mainstream churches) in order to satisfy your drive for equality? We must igniore the very Bible that we are trying to promote? Why should we?

If we don't believe that same sex marriage is valid or even moral, then how can we, in conscience and freedom of speech and belief, recognise and affirm these relationships?

We can't.

[ 13. August 2013, 07:46: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So the SA 'must' give up it's Christian beliefs about morality ....

There is nothing Christian about excluding people from marriage, or anything else, on grounds of sexuality.

The SA needs a big re-think.

It does so much good it'd be such a shame for it to dig its heels in on this issue and miss the point.

[Frown]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There is nothing Christian about excluding people from marriage, or anything else, on grounds of sexuality.

Well that's that old chestnut sorted out then, eh? Who'd have thought it was so easy?

Why not try your hand at resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict next?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh yes, and I was bullied at school for going to church and being poor.

Then you ought to know better and show some empathy.

[ 13. August 2013, 11:22: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We need a Dead Horses in Hell thread so we can tell people what we think about them on DH issues.

Hosting

Can I point out to everyone that after previous discussion with the Hell Hosts and admins it has been accepted that posters "can tell people what we think about them on DH issues" in Hell?

You can do this either by calling a poster whose DH views have raised your ire to hell or by starting a rant thread about the DH related subject in Hell.

There is no need to derail Dead Horse threads because someone's views have provoked you to outrage. As ever the Hell board is your option.

So let's get this thread back on track.

This thread is for discussing whether a boycott of the 2014 Olympics is a useful response to anti-gay laws in Russia.

If you want to discuss the track record of the Salvation Army on gay rights in a Purgatory style manner, then please start a new thread here in Dead Horses. If you wish to discuss it in a hellish manner, then do so in Hell.

If you want to tell posters of any stripe 'what you think about them' in uncomplimentary terms then start a Hell thread.

The next post on this thread should be about some variant of whether a boycott of the 2014 Olympics is a useful response to anti-gay laws in Russia. If that's not what you were planning to post, please consider the options I have given above!

Time to stop the derail, thanks!

Louise
Dead Horses Host

Hosting off

[ 13. August 2013, 12:03: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

I was around for the boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. Aside from putting a pin in the balloon of Soviet pride the boycott didn't accomplish anything. In this instance, however, as long as the lives of gay athletes and tourists are endangered by current Russian law (evidenced by anti gay violence in Russia) I am very much in favor of a boycott. On the flip side of the coin, Greg Louganis spoke out against a boycott using the example of how the Olympics in Nazi Germany actually pointed out the fallacy of arian beliefs.

I have to sdd that the level of anti gay hatred on this thread is very depressing.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Like niteowl, I remember the 1980 Olympic boycott (as does my mother, as she and her husband, respectful of the Canadian government's request to do so, joined with all of the others cancelling their bookings).

As I was at a social event last week where a Sochi boycott was being discussed, I raised the 1980 example. Of those in attendance, most younger than myself (we were all heading off to a local jazz dive) and well-educated, only one had heard of it (a microbiologist, Canadian-born Pathan of Afghan origin)-- not the journalist, nor the two academics, not the human rights activist, not the bureaucrat, and not the very well-read gay activist.

In this case, I think that the Russian government will be more attentive to the international profile than was the Soviet government, and are uncomfortable at the thought of many empty seats at Sochi. As there has been some contradictory statements from ministers, I suspect that policy is (as we say in Ottawa) still "in development" and that "efforts are underway to maximize clarity in messaging."

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I suspect that policy is (as we say in Ottawa) still "in development" and that "efforts are underway to maximize clarity in messaging."

That sounds an awful lot like "lie."

It seems unlikely that Russia is going to have a sudden epiphany because people are talking about boycotting Sochi. Russia knows how to hate.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In this case, I think that the Russian government will be more attentive to the international profile than was the Soviet government, and are uncomfortable at the thought of many empty seats at Sochi.

Especially considering how terrible the World Athletics Championships is going in terms of attendance: World Championships Marred by Empty Seats

It's particularly depressing for the Russian athletes, of which there are a significant number.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I suspect that policy is (as we say in Ottawa) still "in development" and that "efforts are underway to maximize clarity in messaging."
That sounds an awful lot like "lie."

It seems unlikely that Russia is going to have a sudden epiphany because people are talking about boycotting Sochi. Russia knows how to hate.

Actually, it means Utter Confusion While We Try To Figure Out The Impact and If We Need To Change Tune.

I think in this case, a certain amount of attention will be paid to how Olympic sponsors (such as Visa) react to threats of a commercial boycott. Marx was right about one thing: it's all about the money.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Another reason to consider a boycott is what happened to the Israeli team in the Munich Olympics in 1972.
The Soviet police are used to standing by and watching while thugs beat up gay people.
It's possible they may decide to do so if some thugs decided to attack Gay or Gay sympathetic Olympic athletes and attendees.

[ 13. August 2013, 20:49: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Is there really a comparison to be made? The Israeli team in Munich suffered because a bungling German government wasn't sure how to respond to a terrorist kidnapping and lacked the capability to deal with it by force. I wouldn't have said that's the same as turning a blind eye to something.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The comparison is in the result; dead and wounded athletes and attendees.

That one was allowed bungling by the good intentioned and the other would be allowed by indifference and corruption is a minor point.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

As I've already said above, Russia has passed a law, democratically, which is backed by as many as 90% of the Russian population. Surprisingly I respect democracy and therefore respect Russia's right to regulate their citizens behaviour, especially in regards to minors (because lets be clear this is not a law banning homosexuality, merely a law which prevents the presentation of same-sex relationships to minors.)

If we are to get indignant about Russia's democratic decision on such a minor issue as the presentation of same-sex relationships (and lets be fair it is only because they are holding the Winter Olympics next year that we even give two figs about this) then we need to get more indignant and therefore boycott/stop sending Aid/etc. to places across the world including the football world cup, Palestine, anywhere (except as the oasis in the desert which it is Israel) in the Middle East/Muslim world, and a whole host of other places where it is not just a case of minors being prevented from seeing anything to do with homosexuality, but in fact where LGBT people find themselves murdered not just by groups of people but by the state itself.

Once our politicians, and ourselves, actually make a proper, prolonged, fuss about the murder which happens across the world, and the homophobia which occurs on British streets in 'Sharia Zones' then I will stop accepting Russia's stance on this issue, but certainly not before as it just stinks of hypocrisy otherwise.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

[aside]

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We need a Dead Horses in Hell thread so we can tell people what we think about them on DH issues.

further to what your lovely and long-suffering host has said: BRING IT.

[/aside]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Once our politicians, and ourselves, actually make a proper, prolonged, fuss about the murder which happens across the world, and the homophobia which occurs on British streets in 'Sharia Zones' then I will stop accepting Russia's stance on this issue, but certainly not before as it just stinks of hypocrisy otherwise.

Odd. I've never thought of British football stadiums as "Sharia Zones". Plenty of homophobia there. No shortage of Islamophobia either.

[ 13. August 2013, 22:19: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

But wait-- there's more! Via HuffPost:

quote:

Dmitri Kisilev, Russian Official, Degrades Gays On National Television

In the latest chapter of Russia's continuing saga of homophobic legislation and anti-LGBT violence, Dmitri Kisilev, Deputy General Director of the Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, recently slammed the gay community on the country's most popular news program.

Speaking on Rossiya 1, a state-owned news network, Kisilev stated that:

quote:
I think that just imposing fines on gays for homosexual propaganda among teenagers is not enough. They should be banned from donating blood, sperm. And their hearts, in case of the automobile accident, should be buried in the ground or burned as unsuitable for the continuation of life.
The statements were met with resounding applause from the audience.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

My (gay) best friend suggested that the NHL should simply refuse to release its players for the Sochi Olympics. That would definitely get the IOC's and sponsors' attention. [Devil]

And am I the only person who thinks that some of this homophobia is Putin overcompensating? I mean, come on, the guy behaves like he's auditioning for the Village People. He's running around Siberia with his shirt off and fishin' and huntin' and doing all those MANLY things. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As I've already said above, Russia has passed a law, democratically, which is backed by as many as 90% of the Russian population. Surprisingly I respect democracy and therefore respect Russia's right to regulate their citizens behaviour ...

I believe that is what is referred to as "the tyranny of the majority". It's totally awesome unless you happen to be a minority. If Russia passed a law that all Jewish people had to jump off a cliff, would you respect that too?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's been pointed out numerous times on the Ship that children really don't get in a fluster about same-sex relationships. It's only adults who get in a fluster about it, somehow thinking that the poor little children will be either traumatised or 'influenced'.

I sure don't remember ever encountering any same-sex relationships before discovering that I was attracted to my own gender, so Lord knows where this 'influence' idea comes from. It sure as hell ain't from science.

So if the rationale of the Russian law is to stop same-sex relationships being presented to children, it's both bigoted AND completely ineffective. Which is even dumber than being bigoted but with some kind of point.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
My (gay) best friend suggested that the NHL should simply refuse to release its players for the Sochi Olympics. That would definitely get the IOC's and sponsors' attention.

And am I the only person who thinks that some of this homophobia is Putin overcompensating? I mean, come on, the guy behaves like he's auditioning for the Village People. He's running around Siberia with his shirt off and fishin' and huntin' and doing all those MANLY things.

Yes, all those Brokeback Mountain-style pics!

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's been pointed out numerous times on the Ship that children really don't get in a fluster about same-sex relationships. It's only adults who get in a fluster about it, somehow thinking that the poor little children will be either traumatised or 'influenced'.

I sure don't remember ever encountering any same-sex relationships before discovering that I was attracted to my own gender, so Lord knows where this 'influence' idea comes from. It sure as hell ain't from science.

For people who are gay or bisexual, that's probably right.

However when I was a teen the "girls should kiss at parties to turn on guys" trend was very popular. There was a lot of pressure on teen girls to do sexual things with each other for the male gaze. That influence absolutely came from movies (e.g. Wild Things, Cruel Intentions) that were popular at the time.

Don't you think that for some teens they are influenced to participate in certain sexual activities by external factors, rather than their innate orientation?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's been pointed out numerous times on the Ship that children really don't get in a fluster about same-sex relationships. It's only adults who get in a fluster about it, somehow thinking that the poor little children will be either traumatised or 'influenced'.

I sure don't remember ever encountering any same-sex relationships before discovering that I was attracted to my own gender, so Lord knows where this 'influence' idea comes from. It sure as hell ain't from science.

For people who are gay or bisexual, that's probably right.

However when I was a teen the "girls should kiss at parties to turn on guys" trend was very popular. There was a lot of pressure on teen girls to do sexual things with each other for the male gaze. That influence absolutely came from movies (e.g. Wild Things, Cruel Intentions) that were popular at the time.

Don't you think that for some teens they are influenced to participate in certain sexual activities by external factors, rather than their innate orientation?

Yes, there are a couple of pop songs that irritate the hell out of me, about girls kissing girls for 'fun' or to be provocative (or really, to make money/fulfil male fantasies).

I doubt, though, that the Russian law is aimed at discouraging a bit of playful girl-on-girl action (unless Russian heterosexual male fantasies are very different from their Western counterparts).

And I'm quite sure that lots of teenagers do things due to pressure. But I suspect the most common 'pressure' is to date or make out with a person of the opposite sex when what you actually want is to be with your own sex. And this law is going to do exactly that. Thousands of Russian teenagers are going to try very hard to look heterosexual because they're going to be terrified of the consequences if anyone figures out that they're queer.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I believe that is what is referred to as "the tyranny of the majority". It's totally awesome unless you happen to be a minority. If Russia passed a law that all Jewish people had to jump off a cliff, would you respect that too?

Very true, but I still stand behind the democratic principle.

Whilst I find the violence directed at gay people in Russia repugnant, that is where our focus should be, the actual harm being done to people which is not being challenged by the authorities.*

Your hypothetical bears no resemblance to the actual issue at hand, there is no law which criminalises homosexuality, nor does it advocate violence and murder, it is, as has been rightly pointed out, a pretty useless piece of legislation that will probably not have any such desired effect (as kids will be kids and hormones do funny things) you would be better to make the hypothetical comparison to the banning of alcohol adverts for example (I know it is still insufficient a comparison but by far better than the one you give.)

* Hence why I mention the issue of sending aid, trading with, visiting, or allowing international events to occur without boycott, where homosexuality is still a criminal offence and severally punished by the state (ie. any Muslim country) yet there is no boycott or international punishment, hence the misguided hypocrisy.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Firstly, there is most certainly pressure on some of the places where homosexuality is criminalised. Barack Obama has been making his views known while meeting leaders in Africa, for example.

Secondly, much of the outcry against Russia is because they've gone backwards. It's one thing to have had laws on the books for a long period that need repeal. It's another thing to be introducing anti-homosexual laws in the 21st century.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

UK protests against Ugandan anti-homosexuality laws
e-petition asking for withdrawal of aid to Uganda - expires 17 August 2013

[link removed - links to petitions are not allowed except in sigs, if you want to use one for example purposes, link to a news story about it or quote the text without a link. Do not link directly. Thanks - L]

[ 14. August 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
you would be better to make the hypothetical comparison to the banning of alcohol adverts for example (I know it is still insufficient a comparison but by far better than the one you give.)

Insufficient doesn't cover it by half. Alcoholic adverts aren't people and can't have the shit beaten out of them.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
UK protests against Ugandan anti-homosexuality laws
e-petition asking for withdrawal of aidto Uganda - expires 17 August 2013

Thanks - just signed it

[ 14. August 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
UK protests against Ugandan anti-homosexuality laws
e-petition asking for withdrawal of aid to Uganda - expires 17 August 2013

I think this petition is problematic.

For South Africa, the sanctions were related to trade and arms - focusing on the government and the private sector, the two main sponsors of the apartheid regime.

Taking aid from Uganda does not hurt the government or the private sector, it only hurts the Ugandan poor.

I would be much more supportive of a boycott of British companies that operate in Uganda.

[ 14. August 2013, 21:00: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Wouldn't a boycott of British companies operating in Uganda harm Uganda's poor too? I imagine foreign companies operating in Africa employ local labour, etc.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Wouldn't a boycott of British companies operating in Uganda harm Uganda's poor too? I imagine foreign companies operating in Africa employ local labour, etc.

No, because the poor are rarely the people employed by foreign corporations. The poor in Africa are by and large subsistence farmers, not employed labor.

Additionally the majority of UK foreign aid is channelled through NGOs, charities, and other aid organizations, with only a small amount actually going in as income to the government itself. So removing aid just cuts off those NGO services to the poor.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

If you throw out foreign companies, the masses will continue being poor, subsistence farmers. I don't see how that is a solution.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you throw out foreign companies, the masses will continue being poor, subsistence farmers. I don't see how that is a solution.

That's based on a false assumption that foreign companies contribute to the general economic well-being of underdeveloped countries. There is plenty of evidence that they do not.

They pay taxes to the government, if the government is corrupt, the money doesn't get to the people. In fact DFID has pulled some funding from Uganda over government corruption already, unrelated to LGBT issues.

This is a tangent so don't want to linger on it but I am really familiar with this topic and a boycott of companies is a much more effective and less damaging way of dealing with bad government policy than the withdrawal of aid.

I would strongly recommend against signing any petition that removes aid to a poor country.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I wasn't actually recommending that petition, I was pointing out that other protests against other countries existed and challengmg the charge of hypocrisy .

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting
Please move discussion about Uganda to a separate thread unless you are making a direct comparison with Russia and talking about the Olympic issue.
Thanks,
L
hosting off

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

A Montréal friend is exercised on this issue-- I pointed out that *company name* is one of the sponsors. If *company name* was the recipient of a few thousand scissored cards, I suspected that they would convey their corporate sentiments to the Russian Olympic authorities very quickly.

For a number of reasons, some of which have been mentioned above, I do not see the Russian authorities responding to direct pressure. But, as Karl Marx suggested, it's all about the money.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I believe that is what is referred to as "the tyranny of the majority". It's totally awesome unless you happen to be a minority. If Russia passed a law that all Jewish people had to jump off a cliff, would you respect that too?
Very true, but I still stand behind the democratic principle.

Whilst I find the violence directed at gay people in Russia repugnant, that is where our focus should be, the actual harm being done to people which is not being challenged by the authorities.*

Your hypothetical bears no resemblance to the actual issue at hand, there is no law which criminalises homosexuality, nor does it advocate violence and murder, it is, as has been rightly pointed out, a pretty useless piece of legislation that will probably not have any such desired effect (as kids will be kids and hormones do funny things) you would be better to make the hypothetical comparison to the banning of alcohol adverts for example (I know it is still insufficient a comparison but by far better than the one you give.)

* Hence why I mention the issue of sending aid, trading with, visiting, or allowing international events to occur without boycott, where homosexuality is still a criminal offence and severally punished by the state (ie. any Muslim country) yet there is no boycott or international punishment, hence the misguided hypocrisy.

If a country with a largely Muslim population democratically passed a law that said that all children were not to be exposed to Christians or Christianity would you support that law as well?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If a country with a largely Muslim population democratically passed a law that said that all children were not to be exposed to Christians or Christianity would you support that law as well?

It is their democratic decision, and as long as I continue to campaign against, and treat the same, all countries which restrict the freedoms of Christians then there is no hypocrisy...

Don't forget I have said I will respect the democratic principle until such time as equality in boycott and action is being taken because to do otherwise is hypocrisy... I don't support this law (don't think that it is particularly harmful however) anymore than I support the public execution of gay people in Saudi, or the latest words of ++Ntgali. However, I am opposed to unequal action, and therefore, until such time as the plight of all gay people is being given the attention we are giving to this small Russian issue (in terms of boycotts, stopping any aid, etc.), then I will stand behind Russia's democratic decision to introduce a law which doesn't advocate violence towards others.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

That's like saying there's no point in feeding some hungry people unless you can feed all hungry people now. Why did Jesus do the miracle of the loaves and fishes when the hungry in China weren't fed at the same time. Was he being hypocritical?

What's your schedule for boycotting every country that discriminates against Christians? Spell out the time table. If you don't have one, this is just an excuse not to do anything.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

If you are opposed to unequal action, you are opposed to any action at all.

Because the world is full of problems and injustice. There must be literally MILLIONS of worthy causes out there. You expect each of us to distribute our time and effort evenly across all of them?

I give regularly to 5 or 6 charities. Are you saying that's wrong because there are hundreds of others just in my own country that I don't donate to?

This is why I get so frustrated and annoyed every time that a Shipmate trots out this 'oh, but you can't deal with A unless you also deal with B through Z at the same time'. It's asking for the impossible. We all prioritise, and if we didn't the result would be complete and utter inertia.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be gone for a while because I really should go and post on every single other message board on the internet before taking another turn here.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Well, the IOC's commitment to making money and not rocking the boat persisits. It'll all be fine, just don't be gay at the Olympics.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be gone for a while because I really should go and post on every single other message board on the internet before taking another turn here.

Especially regarding your last paragraph, you are being absurd!

With the act of giving and physically doing, it is completely impossible to give to every charity and do everything, we do have our own interests and things which we support but that does not therefore negate you from taking all possible action within that sub-section which is of your interest, in that whilst I may have made LGBT rights an issue I campaign about and thereby do not give my time or money to WaterAid, I will do my utmost to ensure that I campaign on every area of LGBT rights and do not just advocate in one small section, hence why if you are going to kick up a fuss about one issue then you need to bring a light to bear, and pressure, upon those other related issues. If you call for a boycott of Russia, call for a boycott of every other place in the world which acts as Russia does or even worse does not give even the minimum of human rights to LGBT peoples.

So whilst I wait for you to return from your misguided ad absurdum statement, I hope that my clarification of my position will actually help you to understand that I am not advocating everyone fights for everything, but that when talking about those issues we care about we do not do so in a hypocritical and part-bit fashion but take care to ensure that we bring to light every incident of that which we campaign about, as in this topic anti-gay legislation and action all over the world not just in Russia because it happens to be hosting the winter games or because it is a semi-European country and therefore not racist to criticise or whatever reason people use to justify hypocrisy and half-hearted campaigning.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

But even with a given area, one must choose. I don't post on every Christian-themed message board. I don't post on every Tori Amos message board. I don't give to every children's charity, or every organisation working to provide clean water.

It doesn't matter how you define your subset, it is always possible to define a different smaller subset. There are over 200 countries on this planet, and frankly, no, I don't believe that anyone can keep track of what's happening to gay rights in all of those countries other than a professional, well-resourced organisation where it is literally their JOB to keep track of what is happening to gay rights all over the world.

For those of us who have other jobs, we'll notice some countries more than others. Just as we'll notice some endangered animals more than others.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Sergius-Melli - I did point out, badly (sorry, Louise), without much effort, that there was a current campaign to withdraw aid from Uganda, and if I bothered to look I could find other initiatives.

Some of the impetus for the boycott of the Winter Olympics in Russia is the recent law change and the gearing up for those Olympics. There have also been continuing protests following similar recent Ugandan law changes with little media attention. The UK Government failed to follow through on threats to withdraw aid should this law be passed, which makes sense of the current e-petition.

I did also find other boycotts and protests, but they tend to be triggered by law changes or a case attracting attention. As is happening with the campaign for an Olympics boycott.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Especially regarding your last paragraph, you are being absurd!

With the act of giving and physically doing, it is completely impossible to give to every charity and do everything, we do have our own interests and things which we support but that does not therefore negate you from taking all possible action within that sub-section which is of your interest, in that whilst I may have made LGBT rights an issue I campaign about and thereby do not give my time or money to WaterAid, I will do my utmost to ensure that I campaign on every area of LGBT rights and do not just advocate in one small section, hence why if you are going to kick up a fuss about one issue then you need to bring a light to bear, and pressure, upon those other related issues. If you call for a boycott of Russia, call for a boycott of every other place in the world which acts as Russia does or even worse does not give even the minimum of human rights to LGBT peoples.

So whilst I wait for you to return from your misguided ad absurdum statement, I hope that my clarification of my position will actually help you to understand that I am not advocating everyone fights for everything, but that when talking about those issues we care about we do not do so in a hypocritical and part-bit fashion but take care to ensure that we bring to light every incident of that which we campaign about, as in this topic anti-gay legislation and action all over the world not just in Russia because it happens to be hosting the winter games or because it is a semi-European country and therefore not racist to criticise or whatever reason people use to justify hypocrisy and half-hearted campaigning.

But this is continuing the concern trolling. There are two reasons to boycott Russia .

1: It's there. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The question is whether it's a step in the right direction.

2: It's the Olympics. And this is the important one. The Olympics are a great big symbolic thing that draw the attention of the world - and saying that some things are not on are most effective when you don't have the direct power to change them at large symbolic events.

Even if you want to know the answer to "Why start there?" the answer is "Because the Olympic Games are not in any other country right now."

(And why is Russia more important than China here? China didn't suddenly decide to make things spectacularly worse).

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Anyone who thought they didn't really mean it, or that the attitudes espoused were confined to a political stratum and remote from public opinion should read and weep - I nearly wept when hearing it:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/15/yelena-isinbayeva-green-tregaro-rainbow-gesture

I've been very interested in Russia since University - including doing a degree in Russian and spending a year there - and this sort of thing epitomises why, with heavy heart, I decided I couldn't live there.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Anyone who thought they didn't really mean it, or that the attitudes espoused were confined to a political stratum and remote from public opinion should read and weep - I nearly wept when hearing it:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/15/yelena-isinbayeva-green-tregaro-rainbow-gesture

OMFG. If that's all it takes to be disrespectful to your country, Yelena Gadzhievna, your country doesn't deserve respect.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Not just Gadzhievna.

Russia's Interior Ministry has joined in.

Whether this includes Emma Green Tregaro's rainbow-painted nails remains to beseen.

In other news... [Biased]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

In other news...

He is the constant companion of my wildest carnal thoughts......

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Anyone who thought they didn't really mean it, or that the attitudes espoused were confined to a political stratum and remote from public opinion should read and weep - I nearly wept when hearing it:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/15/yelena-isinbayeva-green-tregaro-rainbow-gesture

They discussed this on the BBC's coverage of the Athletics Championships. Interestingly Michael Johnson said that Isinbayeva is backed by a group of wealthy well-connected people (as in paying for her training) and they are linked to Putin, so that she was basically spouting the party line on their behalf and to keep herself in their good graces. It didn't really make sense for her to discuss this topic so perhaps there's some truth in that - someone put her up to it or she knows that her sponsors will reward her for saying that kind of nonsense.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

[sarcasm] Well this is reassuring! [/sarcasm]

quote:
The Russian government assured the IOC on Thursday that it will not discriminate against homosexuals during the Sochi Olympics, while defending the law against gay "propaganda" that has provoked an international backlash.

The IOC received a letter from Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak giving reassurances the host country will comply fully with the Olympic Charter's provision against discrimination of any kind.

"The Russian Federation guarantees the fulfillment of its obligations before the International Olympic Committee in its entirety," Kozak said.

However, Kozak did not back down on the issue of the new law, which penalizes anyone who distributes information aimed at persuading minors that "nontraditional" relationships are normal or attractive.

The law applies equally to everyone and "cannot be regarded as discrimination based on sexual orientation," Kozak said.

So the law, in its majestic equality, forbids both gays and straights from saying gay people should be treated like human beings. So very egalitarian!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the law, in its majestic equality, forbids both gays and straights from saying gay people should be treated like human beings. So very egalitarian!

Both the rich AND the poor are forbidden from sleeping on park benches.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Artist who painted Putin in underwear flees Russia

MOSCOW (AP) — A museum director says an artist whose paintings depicted Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in women's undergarments has fled the country.

The director of St. Petersburg's Museum of Power, Tatiana Titova, said Wednesday that Konstantin Altunin left for France and was planning to request asylum there. Authorities removed four of Altunin's satirical depictions of Russian politicians on Monday and shut down the exhibition.

You know, it would be easier to refrain from making certain Godwin-violating analogies if the Russian government would stop doing stuff like this. Are they deliberately copying the twentieth century's most infamous government, or is it simply that "great[ly authoritarian] minds think alike"?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Well, they had their own Stalin, doncha know. No need to look for imports.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0