Jump to content

Female Ski Jumpers To Take Olympics Exclusion Case To B.c. Court Of Appeal


Recommended Posts

Absolutely retarded. Do these women not understand they are suing the WRONG people in the first place? Not to mention that VANOC is a subsidiary of the IOC. What part of 'the IOC always puts on the Olympics which it owns, in the chosen venue' do people not understand? Vancouver was chosen to HOST the Olympics, not to put them on. VANOC has no say whatsoever in what events are presented; it is nothing more than the organizer of the locations used, and helps the IOC. VANOC cannot in any sense of the word decide what is or isn't presented.

To the point: Women's ski jumping only has a handful of athletes, and they only very recently had a world championship. In order to include women's ski jumping as a Olympic sport, it needs two world championships. This was the rule set back in the late 1980's regarding sport inclusion, and any sport that was included before the rule was implemented was 'grandfathered'. Ski jumping was one of those that was grandfathered.

If you compare the men's and women's ski jumping world championship results, the men outperform the women by so much it's not even funny.

At the end of the day, it was about the technical merit of the sport. They can use the gender card all they want and get sympathy from a rather ignorant public and media because of that false pretence, but that's not what it is about. The gender card is used far too easily in this country, and every time we accuse of sexism we go all liberal to the point we seem to disregard logic and common sense. And you can bet that the men's ski jumpers and other athletes also absolutely despise these girls too for throwing tantrums and threatening to cancel the men's event: way to make friends! "Either I'm in or nobody's in!"

Why would I despise these girls? They clearly want to win a easy medal at home. Now that they can't, those that were suing VANOC are quitting the sport. Any thoughts about 2014? They're basically saying "screw it", since it's not at home.

Had they tried to develop their sport, rather than wasting time, effort, and money on complaining and suing VANOC (the WRONG organization) for the past 3 years, they might have been able to make it as an Olympic sport for 2014. Sadly, the deadline for the finalization of 2014 sports is coming fast...and besides making noise with lawsuits, women's ski jumping hasn't grown that much at all. Rather, it might have shrinked after this lawsuit - a lawsuit that was bound to fail when clearly VANOC was a subsidiary of the IOC, and the IOC in Lausaunne was responsible for selecting the sports (a deadline which passed years ago).

Above all, it is far, far too late to add the women's event to the 2010 schedule.

Female ski jumpers to take Olympics exclusion case to B.C. Court of Appeal

By Jeff Lee, Vancouver Sun

July 16, 2009

VANCOUVER — Female ski jumpers who lost a court case to force the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee to hold an event for them in 2010 are launching an appeal.

Saying they had won "90 per cent of the case" but not the key point, the women said they believe they can convince the B.C. Court of Appeal to rule in their favour.

"We won on the issue of discrimination, and we won on the issue that Vanoc is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Deedee Corradini, the president of Women's Ski Jumping USA, said Thursday. "What we want is for the judges to agree that Vanoc must hold an event because it is subject to the Charter. All we are asking for is one event."

On July 10 B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon ruled that while the International Olympic Committee had indeed discriminated against the 15 female plaintiffs, it was not subject to either the court or the Charter and could not be forced to hold an event for them at the 2010 Winter Games.

In a statement released Thursday, Ross Clark, the jumpers' lawyer, said he'll argue Vanoc must host the Games in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“It cannot host events on Canadian soil that implement discrimination,” he said. The appeal will be formally filed on Friday.

With only months to go before the Games, time is running out for the women. But Corradini, a former mayor of Salt Lake City, said Vanoc should be prepared in the event the three-judge appeal court finds in the women's favour.

"We're asking for an expedited hearing. Vanoc has known for more than a year that it could have to put on an event for the women, and so they must have a contingency plan."

Vanoc said it was developing a response to the women's announcement and would issue a statement later today.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Female+...7542/story.html

Comments from the Sun:

Vancouver hippe

July 16, 2009 - 4:46 PM

If you want to have an event, organize your sport on the world stage, become recognized, hjold pre-qualifying events etc. and compete legitamtely. you guys have not even done pre-qualifcation rounds.

unbelievable

July 16, 2009 - 3:39 PM

who is paying for all this? i hope the Women's ski jump association is footing the bill. as long as tax dollars are not funding this, because public court is being tied up and that is bad enough. do the women not understand the judgement, or are they receiving bad advice from their council? the ruling last week is straight forward - VANOC does not dictate what makes an Olympic event. the IOC makes this determintation based on a series of qualifying criteria. the women's ski jumping does not meet the qualifications, period. it looks to be a growing sport which is great, so maybe the women will qualify for an exhibition event in 2014. thise case is a complete waste of court time and money. i hope the women's association has to pay for the frivolous waste of this court time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hopes this gets thrown out of the window faster than usain bolt's 100m. the ruling was clear and staright forward. what don't they understand. i wonder if deedee coradini is again behind this? i've said it before and i'll say it again, why is she pushign this when vancouver is about to host the games? why didn't she push for this before salt lake city hosted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I was part right. They have filed an appeal. Except I thought they would do it with the CAS and not before another Canadian court. But they are doing it by the letter.

hopes this gets thrown out of the window faster than usain bolt's 100m. the ruling was clear and staright forward. what don't they understand. i wonder if deedee coradini is again behind this? i've said it before and i'll say it again, why is she pushign this when vancouver is about to host the games? why didn't she push for this before salt lake city hosted?

I think there mightn't have been the numbers back then. That was nine years ago. Maybe it was only a handful of women trying the sport back then. But apparently there were what? 32 signatories to this petitiion. So they felt that they could be listened to.

What they're really doing is setting it up for 2014.

It's still feasible to add an event for only one day. Look what happened in Munich. They had to reschedule the remainder of the competition two days later --so that meant everything, including ticket-hodlers, had to adjust to a new schedule.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I really do quite dislike this Vancouver Sun columnist, Daphne Bramham. Her overly liberal views, which throws out logic and rational out the window, is one reason why the media has picked up on the female ski jumping lawsuit case and have blindly sided towards the girls. And now, she's complaining about the measures the IOC does for every host city and that Vancouver is "blindly" following the IOC:

Games contract binds Vancouver to play by IOC rules, or not play at all

By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun columnist

August 6, 2009 7:35 PM

It's easy to understand why the International Olympic Committee would want any disputes with host cities decided by its own "court," so that it is beyond the grasp of courts in countries whose judicial systems are dodgy.

But why on earth did Vancouver's former mayor Larry Campbell sign the host city contract governed by Swiss law and agree that "any dispute concerning [the contract's] validity, interpretation or performance shall be determined conclusively by arbitration, to the exclusion of the ordinary courts of Switzerland or of the host country?"

The sports court — the IOC's arbitration process — deals with issues of athletes' disqualifications due to doping or other infractions. It has rarely, if ever, dealt with the myriad other issues from sponsorship agreements to taxes to financial disbursements that are covered in the Vancouver agreement.

Signing off Vancouver's right to access Canadian courts in the event of a dispute with the IOC is just one of the troubling pieces of the 61-page contract signed in 2003 and obtained by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association under B.C.'s Access to Information Act.

The contract's preamble declares that the IOC is "the supreme authority of and leads the Olympic movement." And the Olympic ayatollahs required that the city stage the Games in full compliance with the Olympic Charter and that it agrees to "conduct all activities in a manner which promotes and enhances the integrity, ideals and long-term interests of the IOC and the Olympic Movement."

I've added the emphasis because in a pen stroke, Campbell signed away the real responsibility of democratically elected mayors and councillors to promote, enhance and represent the long-term interests of their citizens.

There is no mention in the contract of human rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, it stipulates that the city must abide by the Olympic Charter and be in "full compliance with universal fundamental ethical principles, including those contained in the IOC Code of Ethics."

In effect, the city and the IOC have attempted to contract their way out of Canadian legal jurisdiction and beyond the reach of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

It's something that the civil liberties association is considering challenging in court. Another group, Impact on Communities Coalition, filed two complaints with the United Nations High Commissioners of Human Rights last week. One deals with civil liberties and the city's omnibus bylaw, while the other is about inadequate tenancy protection.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon has already ruled that as a government agency, the Vancouver organizing committee is subject to the Charter. However, she also decided that despite Vanoc having to be Charter-compliant, there was nothing Vanoc could do to force the IOC to include a women's ski jumping event.

It's the Olympic Charter that now-Senator Campbell signed on to obey in 2003. He bound the city (and his Vision party successor Gregor Robertson) to its provisions limiting propaganda free speech and agreed to even stronger restrictions in the contract.

Contrary to the Canadian Charter's guarantee of free speech and peaceful protest, the Olympic Charter says: "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any of the Olympic sites, venues or other areas."

(Despite the word's negative connotations, propaganda's dictionary definition is a statement of principles or beliefs.) Under the Vancouver contract, no propaganda or advertising material can be within view of spectators at the venues or television cameras covering the sports or "in the airspace over the city and other cities and venues hosting Olympic events during the period of the Games."

To meet its contractual obligations, Vancouver's council recently passed an omnibus bylaw amending dozens of existing laws. Among the changes are the creation of so-called free-speech zones and blocks of the city (including David Lam Park, the main library's precinct and the Vancouver Art Gallery) where no political pamphlets, leaflets, graffiti or "non-celebratory posters" will be allowed.

Despite that, Robertson insists all of Vancouver remains a free-speech zone. He defends the bylaw as a balance between safety and security and respecting citizens' rights. But asked whether he would have signed the contract in 2003, Robertson hedged.

"I would like to know if the city could have negotiated something different," he replied.

Meanwhile, Vanoc has asked other municipalities along the 44,000-kilometre torch relay route to pass bylaws ensuring that no political messages be distributed or visible. It's not clear how many have agreed, nor is it clear whether the IOC will ask that the torch route be altered if they refuse.

That's the sword of Damocles that the secretive elites of the international Olympic movement hang over the heads of enthusiastic sports bodies, organizing committees and politicians.

Play by our rules or not at all.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

No medals for Vancouver council in the free-speech event

By David Eby, Vancouver Sun

July 29, 2009

While the International Olympic Committee earns a gold medal in the race to protect its sponsors and the Olympic brand, the same cannot be said of its performance in the competition for free speech and democratic rights.

For example, Rule 51 of the IOC Olympic Charter prohibits any "demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas." Not exactly the stuff of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but then again, nobody elected the IOC to protect democracy.

In countries such as Canada, protecting our sometimes messy but always cherished freedoms is the task, in large part, of our elected representatives.

Unfortunately for Vancouverites, our city council hasn't turned in a medal performance in the free-speech competition either. They've just rushed through a package of bylaws that skate over the free-speech rights of, in no particular order: small and independent businesses, artists, rock bands, protesters and Vancouver residents as a whole. Haste in passing the bylaws, last-minute amendments and council's surprise about negative public reaction show a lack of care, or concern, for the implications of the changes.

Vision Coun. Geoff Meggs defends the new bylaws, suggesting the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is "going too far" in criticizing the initiatives. Apparently without appreciating the irony involved, he advises that council values free expression rights because, among other initiatives: "Security planners . . . are creating certain high-profile areas, close to the heart of the action, where protesters are sure to be heard and seen by IOC and world leaders."

Beyond the alarming possibility that the majority of council believes that limiting free speech to particular areas, high profile or otherwise, somehow demonstrates a commitment to free speech, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association points out that council's new bylaws and motions:

- Restrict access to more than 40 downtown residential and commercial blocks deemed Olympic "venues" or "sites," including parks, community centres and the central library, to people who consent to "security screening" and in which displaying "any [unlicensed] sign" is prohibited unless the sign is "celebratory."

- Allow the city manager to make any rules she sees fit restricting access to these city blocks and public facilities, without approval from council.

- Give special Olympic exemption permits across the city to signs that are "celebratory in nature" and, by extension, refuse permits to signs that are critical or, presumably, melancholic in nature.

- Call on the province to authorize the city to prohibit leaflet distribution if the leaflet is offensive to authorities and might end up as litter, punishable by fines of up to $10,000 per day, ostensibly to reduce work for city trash collectors.

- Conscript taxpayer-funded city workers to enforce trademark rules on behalf of the IOC, which at least makes use of the extra staff time created by eliminating those hated discarded leaflet-pickup shifts.

- Eliminate the low-cost posters found on construction hoardings and utility poles that typically advertise concerts, protests, community meetings and art shows, because during the Olympics such affordable and accessible posters are a "nuisance and eyesore" when compared to the simple beauty of an unmolested construction hoarding.

Given this remarkably poor performance by the majority of our elected municipal representatives in protecting free-speech rights in Vancouver for the Olympics, is it going too far to point out that there is no sure footing when ice skating in July?

Council's prize of a gold medal from the IOC for passing these bylaws may be judged differently by voters who know what a democracy truly values.

David Eby is executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association.

© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I still don't understand why this was even brought to a lawsuit in the first place. What response did the ski jumpers have to the technical requirements not being met? All I've heard is discrimination, blah blah blah, and in that respect the court found in their favor..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why this was even brought to a lawsuit in the first place. What response did the ski jumpers have to the technical requirements not being met? All I've heard is discrimination, blah blah blah, and in that respect the court found in their favor..
they wanted a free ride. its just like in college. in order for you to graduate you need to ensure that you have passed all the pre-requiste requirements. they wanted to bypass that knowing that they haven't met the basic technical requirement needed for inclusion. they figure we can go the legal avenue. on the other hand its pretty uneducated of american ladies ski jumper lindsay van to compare the IOC to the Taliban. the IOC respects and honors women's rights, the Taliban doesn't. plain and simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Canadian court system is weak," Van added. "They can't even stand up to the IOC. [The IOC] can come in here and do whatever they want. That's scary. It's like the Taliban of the Olympics."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...-dismissed.html

Its Lindsey Van, not to be confused whit alpine skier Lindsey Vonn (why do two American skiers have to have such similar names?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did she really say that? :wacko:
she did. and her nerves to say that on canadian soil. maybe she and deedee coradini better be deported very soon. delta has 2 nonstop flights between SLC and Vancouver and several conencting flights available as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's such a selfish endeavor. These girls just want to win Olympic medals while they're still of prime age for competitive sports.
its not only selfish and self serving. but they were certainly asking for special treatment and tried to stretch the law to apply to them knowing that they failed to do their homework which cost them their inclusion in vancouver in the first place. had they done earlier they'll probably get a better chance but no. i hope the earliest they get in is 2018 or 2022. i don't think they merit inclusion in Sochi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an immature, insensitive, narcissist she must be. Yes the IOC will stone her to death and make her wear a burqa. What an a$$hat.

"The Canadian court system is weak," Van added. "They can't even stand up to the IOC. [The IOC] can come in here and do whatever they want. That's scary. It's like the Taliban of the Olympics."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...-dismissed.html

Its Lindsey Van, not to be confused whit alpine skier Lindsey Vonn (why do two American skiers have to have such similar names?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink: Unbelievable. I'm sorry, but Olympic competition is not a basic human right. Yeah, it kinda sucks that they women aren't able to compete, but it sucks because the sport isn't all that big among females. And the IOC isn't the Taliban of the Olympics. The IOC is the OWNER of the Olympics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another dumb statement for an American female ski jumper. They never had a case.

"We had a good case. We had good arguments. It sucks that they're blind to that."

Here's the link:

Women's Ski Jumping: Corradini says the fight will go on

I hope they don't get in until 2030 if that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What drives me crazy about this debate is how quiet the voice for reason is. If the ski federation and/or the IOC would just make the effort to go to the media with a presentation showing the evolution of women's ski jumping, a checklist of what needs to happen for inclusion, projected dates for unchecked items, and a projected date for full event inclusion (almost 100% likely Sochi) they won't come off as arrogant and misogynist as the appealing party and uninformed supporters make them out to be. Instead they're all kind of lying low and hoping they will get bored and stop. Well, people who don't get their way with civil cases in BC tend to NEVER go away if not soundly argued against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have been doing this and pushing for this years ago. If Miss. SLC mayor is so concerned about gender equality at the Olympics, why didn't she bring it up when her city hosted the games in 2002. If she had gotten the ball rolling then FIS might have put the event into the 2005 or 2007 WC and the IOC would then have had the justification to put the sport into the 2010 Olympics.

It is extremely disrespectful to the gender equality movement to make this about gender discrimination, because its not. Simple as that. The IOC has moved mountains in pressuring the IFs to promote women's sport, have included no sports since 1984 that have been men's only (if you think of baseball and softball as a package). Since 1984 I can think of the marathon, the steeplechase, water polo, boxing, wrestling, track cycling, synchronized swimming, and rhythmic gymnastics as added sports to increase female participation. And I am sure there are more. Women's luge, bobsleigh and hockey also on the winter side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have been doing this and pushing for this years ago. If Miss. SLC mayor is so concerned about gender equality at the Olympics, why didn't she bring it up when her city hosted the games in 2002. If she had gotten the ball rolling then FIS might have put the event into the 2005 or 2007 WC and the IOC would then have had the justification to put the sport into the 2010 Olympics.

It is extremely disrespectful to the gender equality movement to make this about gender discrimination, because its not. Simple as that. The IOC has moved mountains in pressuring the IFs to promote women's sport, have included no sports since 1984 that have been men's only (if you think of baseball and softball as a package). Since 1984 I can think of the marathon, the steeplechase, water polo, boxing, wrestling, track cycling, synchronized swimming, and rhythmic gymnastics as added sports to increase female participation. And I am sure there are more. Women's luge, bobsleigh and hockey also on the winter side.

i feel exactly the same. its like these girls wanted to graduate college with an incomplete subject. what pisses me off here is deedee corradini. why is she pushing this now and not when her city hosted the games. pretty hypocritical. typical politician.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...