The International Olympic Committee has the authority to do Vladimir Putin’s dirty work for him. The NY Times reports the IOC charter prohibits political expression by athletes.
The issue is coming into focus after Frank Bruni proposed a silent rainbow flag protest by American athletes — or any athletes — during an Olympic ceremony.
There is no doubt that, while it is possible the Russian government might try to go after openly gay or lesbian athletes — there are very few of them, after all — they could not possibly go after every straight athlete who expressed support for gay equality, which would be a clear violation of the law prohibiting propaganda. While the Russian people clearly retain much of the world’s remaining prejudices about homosexuality, it’s hard to think they would have the stomach to really punish thousands of Olympic athletes for simply articulating — possibly silently — a widespread political opinion. Let’s not forget that these athletes are overwhelmingly young, and well within the demographic of greatest support for gay equality.
The IOC, though, has much greater control over the athletes than the Russian police. They have their political expression rule for their own administrative reasons, and the athletes would obviously have to take a public pronouncement seriously.
This would be collaboration of the ugliest sort. I don’t think there is any reason to believe the IOC would actually do this. But if they do, I think it’s pretty likely Putin would greet the news as a public relations victory and an enormous gesture of assistance.
34 Comments for “The IOC has a choice”
posted by Doug on
There have been a lot of political statements by athletes during the Olympics over the past 55+ years I’ve been watching and reading about them. I don’t recall the IOC getting all that involved or terribly upset. If this becomes a major issue it could spell the end of the Olympics as we know it. The best thing the IOC could do is stay out of it.
Human rights is not a political issue, it’s an issue of right and wrong.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. This is NOT a political issue. It’s a human rights issue. the same IOC banned South Africa from competing until they ended Apartheid. That wasn’t political either. It was about acknowledging a universal standard for human rights. But the history on issues like this is disgusting. In 1936 the US pulled Jewish athletes from competing at the Berlin games so as not to “offend” the Germans. This is a moment when the IOC and the Olympic committees of all nation will have to decide whether they oppose human rights abuses or not. Will they buckle or stand up against an oppressive regime (which shouldn’t have been allowed to host the games in the first place). Given the IOC’s record of bribery and corruption, one hardly expects them to take a principled stand unless it is too embarrassing or costly not to.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
The British actor Stephen Fry has a slightly different take on Olympics in Russia – it IS a political event.
This is a well-written essay, brief and to the point, re: what is happening in Russia, the upcoming Olympics, and how we must strive to stop history from repeating itself…
http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What is to preclude the US Olympic Committee from incorporating a pink triangle into our athlete’s uniforms? It would be a fitting symbol, born of oppression.
I’m with the President on this: “I have no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.”
And that goes for our own country’s laws as well as the laws of other countries. That’s why I’ve had a pink triangle on the tailgate of every truck I’ve owned, and will keep it there until “equal is equal”.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I suspect that — in terms of human rights and LGBT issues — the Olympics will probably do its best to avoid saying too much one way or the other. Sad, but true.
Once the ban on ‘homosexual propaganda’ is enforced, the issue might go before the Russian Constitutional Court (who have not been terribly fair-minded) or the European Union (which has been fair-minded, but may take time for the ‘day in court’ to actually happen).
If we really want to do something about LGBT rights in Russia then we need to look at helping charities and other NGO’s in Russia.
posted by Jorge on
The only prior example I’m even aware of was when some black athletes did the black power sign on the medal stand some decades ago. They were punished. It is a footnote now.
I was of one mind before I began typing this, but now I’m of a different mind. The Olympics is an event where athletes from all over the world gather to compete, regardless of their political or social differences. It is firmly neutral territory. Thus the Olympics have been held in Nazi Germany and Communist China. If this neutrality is important, than the International Olympic Committee must try to enforce that neutrality against those of its athletes who would make political statements. It is true that it must also enforce political neutrality to protect its athletes from the politics of the moment (something it is not very good at doing in my opinion). Otherwise the Olympics could become a venue for the very division and hatred that it aspires to avoid.
The prospect of a good fraction of athletes expressing this divisive political opinion, and a whole wave of athletes conspicuously not doing so, could create serious international rifts among different nations’ teams as well as a wave of hysterical media publicity. I also believe a mass political expression lends itself to the potential to create destructive rifts within teams, or between different teams of the same nation, as individual athletes or team feel peer pressured into supporting a political cause that they are nonchalant about or even oppose. This should not be. The IOC must place good sportsmanship as the greatest imperative. Questions of moral right and wrong, aside from being rather hypocritically self-serving when done on behalf of a cause that is highly reactionary toward moralizing, have no place at an event which tyrannical and oppressive countries are invited to host and attend.
There is a call to action, a call to make a difference, a call for an nternational discourse of questioning and frustration. But the Olympic games are not the venue for it–at least not for the athletes. Our salvation lies elsewhere.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Questions of moral right and wrong, aside from being rather hypocritically self-serving when done on behalf of a cause that is highly reactionary toward moralizing, have no place at an event which tyrannical and oppressive countries are invited to host and attend.
Under the current laws of Russia any expression of sexual orientation by a gay or lesbian athlete while at the Olympics is illegal “propaganda”, a political act in and of itself. Conversely, a decision by a gay or lesbian athlete to suppress all expression of sexual orientation — think DADT — in order to maintain a “neutral” Olympics is a political act.
The situation is different than the situation faced by the “black power” athletes. It would be akin to asking them not to be black or acknowledge their race.
The situation is untenable, and can’t be avoided.
My own view, as expressed in another thread, is that our government should take action to condemn the Russian law. To my mind, sanctions are in order, but I recognize the difficulties of imposing sanctions. But I do think that it is appropriate for the President to speak out loud and clear (as he has recently done), for the State Department to issue formal statements, and for Congress to issue resolutions condemning the law.
posted by Houndentenor on
I understand the point about not allowing the Olympics to become a free-for-all of political statements. That could easily get out of hand. At the same time, this is political because the corrupt IOC places the games in a country which does not honor basic human rights. When anyone is in Russia they don’t have to make an overt display of support for gay rights. Any expression of that support, no matter how modest is illegal. They have no equivalent to the first amendment. This is a real problem. The games need to be moved, even if that means postponing them a year or two. Anything else is a potential international incident. It’s not the athletes who politicized these Olympics. It’s the Russian government who passed draconian anti-gay laws.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anything else is a potential international incident.
What’s wrong with an international incident?
I’m not being snarky. International incidents and the reaction they create increase public awareness, forcing people to think.
International moral outrage — the protests, the arrests, the jailing — contributed to the demise of apartheid. The outrage didn’t force South Africa to change — short of sanctions, outsiders can’t force internal change — but the worldwide reaction to Apartheid (including South Africa being banned from Olympic competition until 1992) lent support to internal forces seeking change within South Africa.
Why shouldn’t violation of our basic human rights — in particular, the rights of gays and lesbians in Russia — be as much a cause for international outrage as the rights of other groups whose basic human rights are systematically violated?
I recognize that there is a danger in my thinking.
If people in the United States begin thinking about the violations of human rights in Russia — a country that we have treated as an international foe and equal for decades, and whose laws are not completely over the edge (as, say, in Iran, where gays were beheaded) in terms of the way many Americans think — then Americans might begin to see the inevitable similarities between the laws in Russia and the laws and proposed laws in the United States.
That might unsettle things in the United States. But I don’t think that would be a bad thing, to be truthful.
posted by Jorge on
Under the current laws of Russia any expression of sexual orientation by a gay or lesbian athlete while at the Olympics is illegal “propaganda”, a political act in and of itself.
I can’t argue with that. I was mainly responding to Mr. Link’s discussion of acts of political solidarity. Otherwise I agree with you.
I understand the point about not allowing the Olympics to become a free-for-all of political statements. That could easily get out of hand. At the same time, this is political because the corrupt IOC places the games in a country which does not honor basic human rights…
Hmm…
But that is the very definition of the Olympics–all nations are equal. Shall we have completing bloc Olympics, one for the free nations and one for anti-freedom nations? Or two United Nations? This is an issue that comes up fairly regularly. The answer to that question depends more on whether there is any use for the Olympics at all than on questions of justice and fairness.
posted by Houndentenor on
While I share the concern over what Russians are doing to their own citizens, the chief concern with the Olympics is how they will treat visitors. There are contradictory statements from Russian government officials as to whether or not they will enforce the anti-gay laws during the Olympics. Assurances from the IOC are meaningless. I understand that the Olympics should be separate from partisan political squabbles between and inside the various countries. I would agree to banning such displays. But in reality, the IOC cannot guarantee that a local official won’t jail a gay athlete, his or her coach, friends, visitors etc causing them to miss an important event. They can’t. I think that may be unlikely, at least in terms of what Putin’s regime will do (although I wouldn’t put anything past a monster like Putin), but there’s no way of guaranteeing the safety of anyone attending the games and I can’t remember an Olympic Games in my lifetime when that was true.
posted by Jorge on
While I share the concern over what Russians are doing to their own citizens, the chief concern with the Olympics is how they will treat visitors…
…But in reality, the IOC cannot guarantee that a local official won’t jail a gay athlete, his or her coach, friends, visitors etc causing them to miss an important event. They can’t.
Hmm…
It is true that it must also enforce political neutrality to protect its athletes from the politics of the moment (something it is not very good at doing in my opinion). Otherwise the Olympics could become a venue for the very division and hatred that it aspires to avoid.
The prospect of a good fraction of athletes expressing this divisive political opinion, and a whole wave of athletes conspicuously not doing so, could create serious international rifts among different nations’ teams as well as a wave of hysterical media publicity.
(Imagine athletes being threatened with arrest because their teammates maliciously out them as gay during the Olympic games.)
If the International Olympic Committee cannot protect its competing athletes from the political whimseys of its host country, then it must withdraw the games from Russia and hold them in another country.
posted by Don on
I think Jorge has nailed it (IMHO). I see no reason to push the Olympics to move. Well, I see a reason. And a good one normally. But everybody gets to play. We put all that aside to compete in a different way for a couple of weeks. THAT is the entire point of its existence. Some had hoped that it would foster world unity at some point.
I don’t think we’re anywhere near that nor will we see it in my lifetime. But the IOC definitely sees themselves that way. I think they prefer more neutral than Switzerland in that respect. Because they were founded on that particular ideal. Far fetched as it may be, that’s who they are.
One of the corollaries of this has been that host countries like to show themselves off. And they get a nice spotlight. But it will also make this story an international story. And whenever totalitarian countries say “you can’t say ____” it leads to a whole lotta talk about _____.
I’m personally enjoying the schadenfreude of fundamentalist whackos jumping up and down to agree with RUSSIA. We’ve learned to fear and hate you more than anything; and yet we’re in total agreement? The stupid; it burns.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
From the Stephen Fry essay I linked above:
“The IOC absolutely must take a firm stance on behalf of the shared humanity it is supposed to represent against the barbaric, fascist law that Putin has pushed through the Duma. Let us not forget that Olympic events used not only to be athletic, they used to include cultural competitions. Let us realise that in fact, sport is cultural. It does not exist in a bubble outside society or politics. The idea that sport and politics don’t connect is worse than disingenuous, worse than stupid. It is wickedly, wilfully wrong. Everyone knows politics interconnects with everything for “politics” is simply the Greek for “to do with the people”.
An absolute ban on the Russian Winter Olympics of 2014 on Sochi is simply essential. Stage them elsewhere in Utah, Lillyhammer, anywhere you like. At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world.”
The Russian lgbt community, Don, will not be allowed to “put all that aside…for a couple of weeks…”
And what Russia will evidence is our tacit approval of their laws – because we are willing to turn our backs on these atrocities in order to allow some athletes to play their sport.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Some context re: the notion that the Olympics are not political. The IOC banned South Africa from participation starting in 1963 (prior to the Tokyo games) until 1992 (when apartheid was overturned in SA).
Looking at the history of the games throughout the past century shows that these games are nothing but political – countries boycotting the games, threats of bans by the IOC, etc…
I worry that the lack of outrage by some is due to the fact that the Russian laws are directed against its lgbt citizens, rather than racially or religiously directed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
<en<I’m personally enjoying the schadenfreude of fundamentalist whackos jumping up and down to agree with RUSSIA.]
It is entertaining. But it is important to remember that the reason the fundamentalists are agreeing with Russia is that they advocate similar laws for the United States, and would put them in place if they can get away with it.
posted by Houndentenor on
The current meme among fundamentalists is that gays want to jail people who are anti-gay. meanwhile they applaud Russia for jailing people who are pro-gay. Are they too stupid to realize that such a law could work either way? Dumb question. Of course they are that stupid. But it’s still bizarre to watch people who don’t respect the rights of others act like they are the ones who are being persecuted.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I am skeptical of boycotting the Olympics or trying to get it moved out of Russia. I doubt the later is likely to happen and (as for the former) I don’t think its fair to all of the Olympic athletes. I also doubt that either move would actually help LGBT Russians.
If we want to help LGBT Russians then we need to support effective education and lobbyist initiatives within Russia. I suspect that the LGBT rights groups in Russia have little-to no money, infrastructure or any sense of how to impact public opinion or policy over the long term.
I cannot read Russian — so I am not sure how the law is written, but it is probably in violation of the European Union human rights convention, which is actually binding on all EU members, at least in theory.
The EU and Romania went back and forth over their anti-gay criminal laws. The EU told them to dump the draconian law, but Romania refused (until their standing in the EU was going to be impacted) and then they set up some sort of law anti-gay propaganda law, which, eventually, they finally revised to comply with the EU.
So, as soon as the Russian law is enforced against a Russian or a citizen of an EU nation, someone should begin the legal process to challenge it in the EU court system.
posted by Doug on
I doubt that Russia will respond to EU pressure the Romania did because Russia is not and will not become part of the EU. I suspect that Russia would enjoy sticking it’s finger in the eye of the EU they have the US.
posted by Jorge on
The internet news about President Obama’s news conference today says that he is opposed to a boycott of the Olympics (by the US Olympic team, I presume).
He says something to the effect that he would like to see a gay or lesbian athlete medal at the games.
Well, I will take that as an assurance that our athletes, gay and straight, are under our diplomatic protection, that the United States will not countenance any untoward actions toward them. Or toward other countries’ athletes? Can we count on our rabble-rousing friends from GetEQUAL to harass Obama if things go south and our government’s will falters?
Then I will be satisfied. The international community can step in where it needs to.
Now, this is outside my control, but I would like to know which other countries are also affirming a pro-GLBT + straight allies stance toward the Olympic games in Russia. I do not ask for much, simply the government’s protection. Maybe I’ll look it up.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
He says something to the effect that he would like to see a gay or lesbian athlete medal at the games.
Of the two emerging camps (boycott versus the “gayest Olympics ever”), the President came down on the side of the latter approach.
The right is is already spinning the President’s remarks to create a wedge issue yet again. F**k them and all they stand for.
I will take that as an assurance that our athletes, gay and straight, are under our diplomatic protection, that the United States will not countenance any untoward actions toward them.
I don’t think that diplomatic protection applies to Olympians. Diplomatic protection is limited to embassy/consulate personnel. What the President can do is to make sure that the Russians understand that any interference with the Olympics will create an international incident, with consequences. I trust that he will do so though diplomatic and other channels.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The preceding comment got formatted backwards. Here is is again with the link properly formatted:
posted by Jorge on
The right is is already spinning the President’s remarks to create a wedge issue yet again.
The article you linked to is itself spinning a Fox News article in a very deceptive fashion. Mr. Basash takes issue with this statement: “It sounds like the president is suggesting a litmus test for membership on the U.S. Olympic team” and takes it to mean: “Starnes is actually implying President Obama only wants gay Olympic athletes — which is ludicrous on its face.” That is such a massive failure in reading comprehension I think the author must be either a mental defect or a pathological liar.
In fact, the article immediatley clarifies, or at least limits the statement by adding, “The president also suggested that Olympic teams without gay or lesbian athletes are somehow weaker than heterosexual athletic teams.”
Now, it’s fair to take some issue with the article and its statements, but I happen to think it is reasonable to conclude the President suggested a litmus test for membership on Olympic teams. Not that all athletes are gay, but that there is something wrong with a team that does not have gay athletes. Now, I would take issue with even making that observation, but I take even greater issue with deception.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You can spin it any way you want. I think Starnes was playing the “wedge” game. You, I guess, disagree.
But the final sentence of Starnes’ commentary (“Why can’t President Obama support all of our Olympic athletes — regardless of who they choose to love, regardless of their sexual orientation?“) makes it clear, to me anyway, what Starnes is up to, and it isn’t good.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t want to beat the Starnes thing to death, Jorge, but if you have any questions about “wedging” in his commentary, read it in the context of these tweets.
posted by Jorge on
As for “diplomatic and other channels”, that is pretty much what I meant.
The only reason I would have favored a boycott was out of safety concerns. Well that concern got addressed to my satisfaction rather quickly.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Does anyone know if any of the Republican presidential candidates (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Raul Ryan et. al.) have made any statements about Russia’s anti-gay laws in the context of the Olympics? I did a quick (not extensive, admittedly) search this morning and came up with nothing.
The “fundamentalist whackos” are “jumping up and down” to support Russia, as Don pointed out, but I’m a little surprised at the silence from more responsible conservative leaders.
posted by Jorge on
The only 2012 Republican presidential candidate who I remember saying anything that even condemned anti-gay laws without being asked directly about gays is Rick Santorum (mentioning Iran’s execution of gays in a discussion about foreign policy). Other than that, silence.
Several gay publications mention that Lindsey Graham wanted to put a boycott of the Olympics on the table over Russia harboring Edward Snowden. I think it is very unlikely that Graham will let himself be distracted from his agenda unless he holds a joint press conference with Democratic boycott supporters. And that’s not going to happen.
Most of the congressional Republican who might have brought this up on their own got defeated for re-election. The others don’t seem to be ready yet. Illena Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) seems more concerned about Cuban LGBT rights activists (*shrug*). Richard Hanna (R-NY) does not have anywhere near the blizzard of press releases Ros-Lehtinen has… he works well with our two Democratic Senators. He joined Sen. Gillibrand in announcing legislation to reform how the military handles sex abuse abuses, that’s gotten some traction lately.
Otherwise the leadership is going to have to come from the left. As usual.
This is a good year for bipartisanship. If the Democrats think something is a good idea it should be able to leak to the Republicans.
posted by Jorge on
Blink and you’ll miss it. I just heard Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on a CNN program this hour saying something about what Russia is doing to gays. The topic is about Russia’s proposal on Syria and President Putin’s op-ed, and King has strongly supported a military strike. King’s opinion on foreign policy is so predictable as to be irrelevant, but then he brings in that detail. I wasn’t listening.
There is one, one responsible neo-conservative leader who has spoken against Russia’s anti-gay law.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There is one, one responsible neo-conservative leader who has spoken against Russia’s anti-gay law.
Who’s that? I missed it. The silence from the right has been deafening.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Hmm…I am pretty sure that Ricky was in favor of anti-gay criminal laws. So, not entirely sure what is complaint about Iran would be in that regard.
Beyond that no major GOP candidate is going to do anything publicly that will alienate the likely GOP primary voters, who tend to have a certain…er…um “worldview” about how the government should treat gay people (or other ‘heretics’) that is downright creepy.
posted by Jorge on
Catholics don’t believe in the death penalty.
posted by Don on
I don’t see why Republicans would in this regard. This is the preferred policy choice of the party. They believe people are lured into the “gay lifestyle.” As if we had to take turns going on recruitment missions.
If House Republicans could, they would pass Russia’s law in the morning. It’s dream legislation.
As for Santorum, his Iran comment is very consistent with his prior positions: do anything and everything bad to them you can imagine legally to get them to change to hetero: but hey! killing them is just plain wrong.
posted by Doug on
Having to live in Santorum’s world might be worse that death if carried to his extreme. IMHO.