Jump to content

Countries with discrimination laws could be banned from hosting the Olympics Games.


Gold Coast Lions
 Share

Recommended Posts

The IOC could be planning to ban countries with homophobic and other discrimination laws from hosting the games the impact for future bidding,

For the 2022 race it is Poland and the Ukraine have homophobic laws, while Kazakhstan opposed the UN laws on Gay Rights and Norway supports them while China is neutral on the UN vote nor have any laws on the gay issue, So if it goes into the new rules from hosting the games that will leave only Oslo Norway and Beijing China being allowed to host the Olympics Games.

Countries like Malaysia, UAE, Qatar, Nigeria, Uganda and Russia will be banned from hosting the games.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/russia-could-be-banned-hosting-olympics-again-over-anti-gay-laws180214

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about countries like the United States, where some places discriminate against same sex marriage? Or the gulf states where they discriminate against women.

This won't happen as there are too many countries discriminating in some way against groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I don't think we saw that in near future. Fist of all, the article doesn't show a concrete fact or action from the IOC. Only put possibilities, which are good wishes, but again, the world doesn't move of good wishes. Also, don't forget that Bach prefered to skip the controversy during the speech on Sochi.

Again, this is exactly the same problem from the UN and other Human Rights organizations, when you include all countries and representative, you include different agendas/ideologies and let's to remind that the voting process will make difficult to make these changes in a short time. If you count that, countries like China, Russia and Gulf emirates have strong presence in the voting and also in strong groups like -Athletics, Gymnastic, Swimming- and next, they have enough power.

I know many people will love Tony actions as part of the defenders, unless a big change is taking from the roofs of IOC, these are mostly diplomatic words. At best they reject the bids for other reasons.


Or maybe they can wish the world will have the same ideology -Which unfortunally won't happen-.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT gonna happen. Homosexuality is only an 'accepted' practice in most western-liberal-type societies. Needless to say, that's really about 2 dozen countries or so. And that is not the fulcrum around which the modern Olympic Games are founded. That is why you have the Gay and OutGames.

I agree this idea of banning countries from hosting the Olympics has absolutely zero traction. And given the source of this article, it is extremely misleading to think this "could" happen. Dear writers at Gay Star News.. just because something "could" happen does not mean it's a likely outcome just because you want to to be. That said..

And FGS baron, do us all a favor and stop commenting on this issue. You clearly and consistently miss the mark on why this a point of concern for people. Homosexuality is not a 'practice.' It's not a matter of accepting it or not. I get that centuries of religious teachings say otherwise it's only progressive an liberal nations who are starting to realize homosexuality is not wrong. But yea, shame on a nation that would discriminate against them. Let's remind you of fundamental principles #4 and #6 of Olympism..

4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

6. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

Now regardless of whether or not the IOC adheres to their own policies, this isn't about LGBT athletes like you constantly like to tell us you think it is. A homosexual athlete has as much right to compete in the Olympics as a heterosexual athlete. The fact you're saying "they have the Gay Games" is not only discriminatory, it just reeks of ignorance. What, so a gay athlete has another competition for them, so the Olympics are less important to them?

I don't expect that the IOC or any of us here can change the views of citizens of the world based on where the Olympics are held. But it would be nice to think that the type of discrimination going on in countries like Russia is unacceptable to the rest of the modern world. That's the issue at hand here. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that these anti-gay countries have to realise is, how would they feel if they were separated because of there religion or political view. They would cause a massive protest. So what gives them any right to judge people on sexual orientation, religion or not. For equality to happen, it has to work both ways. The Olympic Games are open for everybody, whether it is your sexual orientation, religion, race, country of origin or political view. If a country cannot accept these basic values of being a decent human being, then don't bid or get involved with the Olympic movement. There shouldn't even be an argument on this matter to be perfectly honest, sexual orientation is not a choice, and is not an issue. As long as you are a nice person inside, your not a criminal, and you accept everybody, then you shouldn't be discriminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the U.S., it's not a matter of what states do or don't allow same-sex marriages. It's more of a matter of which countries downright discriminate, persicute, jail etc their gay citizens, like in the cases of Russia & the Middle East. So it's not even comparable whatsoever to bring up the U.S. in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the U.S., it's not a matter of what states do or don't allow same-sex marriages. It's more of a matter of which countries downright discriminate, persicute, jail etc their gay citizens, like in the cases of Russia & the Middle East. So it's not even comparable whatsoever to bring up the U.S. in this instance.

I must ask, as I don't know too much about how American Politics work, I only know British politics and SOME foreign politics, are non-liberal parties homophobic? Would they kill gay citizens, or is it just, they don't agree with gay marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, Tony. That's precisely the point I was making. The U.S. Federal Government does not allow for the persecution just for being gay, like in the cases of Russia & the Middle East, where their governments DO allow it. On individual basis, you'll always have your bigots, no matter where you are. Even in England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must ask, as I don't know too much about how American Politics work, I only know British politics and SOME foreign politics, are non-liberal parties homophobic? Would they kill gay citizens, or is it just, they don't agree with gay marriage?

I'm sorry, but I just can't help myself right now...

I've been into Sport and Computers since an early age. I started researching about Politics at the age of 6 or 7 believe it or not.

So you started researching politics at age 6 or 7, but you only know British politics and some foreign politics? Need to study a little harder, do we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I just can't help myself right now...

So you started researching politics at age 6 or 7, but you only know British politics and some foreign politics? Need to study a little harder, do we?

I don't want this turning around to me, but I never stated I started researching ALL Politics at the age of 6 or 7. I should of said British Politics, and as I got older, I learnt a little about Foreign Politics. Back to topic now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sochi's award was before Russia instigated its anti-gay laws. Now, we can all talk about whether the IOC's response has been strong enough, but it's unfair to go too far down the road of castigating the IOC for this. At the very least, it gives them huge pause for thought in picking future hosts though and hopefully (though this is likely wishful thinking) gives future Olympics hosts pause for thought should they consider introducing such laws in the build up to their own Games. These Games, despite their success, will be remembered in part for the anti-gay laws and the world's response to them, in the same way other Games in the past are remebered for things other than their organisers and the IOC would want them to be.

I think there is case for making more explicit opposition to sexual discrimination in the IOC charter. In the UK, discrimination law bans discriminiation on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, disability and religion and does so explicitly. If there is not a specific clause within the IOC charter to do with sexual discrimination perhaps after Sochi there ought to be. At the very least, such a change would be symbolic and show to the world the IOC recognises its responsibilities going forward.

Lastly, the article in the opening post states there is a worry that should such a change be made, it will only be one factor in the voting that could be overridden by other factors. Well, I think they're hoping for too much if they think it'll be a decisive factor. If it becomes a factor at all that'll probably be progress. And now those pushing for equality see they can target the IOC, they're not going to (and nor should they) stop. The pressure will always be there from now on. Sochi was a watershed, something that ought to please Putin immensely.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair though, the US political system must look pretty weird to foreign eyes.

Atlanta: explicit ban on gay marriage, executions legal and frequent, loose restrictions on firearms

New York: gay marriage, no capital punishment, strict gun laws

Seattle: gay marriage, euthanasia, and marijuana are all legal, but gun laws are relaxed and executions are also legal (albeit hardly ever used)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't look weird at all. It's a federal system that allows states a lot of freedom to decide their own laws within a national constitution. In general, though (states like Kansas aside), the US is going in the right direction on this issue and much faster than anyone would've thought possible only a few years ago.

This is why it differs from Russia. Yes, some US states where fringe Republicans have control are putting forward very backwards legislaation. But so many of these state laws, as I understand it, have been shot down by higher courts as unconstitutional. So whilst Kansas' recent bill allowing people to refuse services to LGBT people is as harsh as anything Russia has passed, it won't get past the higher courts. The US government won't allow it. On the other hand, what's happened in Russia is their national government has passed discriminatory laws. The US as a whole is moving forwards on this issue (while small parts of it resist), Russia as a whole is moving backwards (and their government is encouraging this).

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about countries like the United States, where some places discriminate against same sex marriage? Or the gulf states where they discriminate against women.

This won't happen as there are too many countries discriminating in some way against groups.

You're right to say an outright ban on states that have anti-gay laws hosting won't happen. But would it really limit the IOC's options as much as some think?

Here's a map of the nations which have signed an LGBT rights Declaration in the General Assembly of the UNHRC (in green), those who've opposed it (in red) and those who have not officially opposed or supported it (in grey).

Who wants an Olympics in the red bits anyway?! An Olympics cycle that worked its way around the green countries for the rest of my life wouldn't be the end of the world. Sure, I'd probably like to see an Indian and Turkish Games at some point, but there's not much else there that springs out.

800px-LGBT_rights_at_the_UN.svg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is very naive to believe that this particular topic will eventually influence the majority of voters in the IOC, Charter or not.

I didn't check, but my guess is that there is already a considerable number of IOC members from grey/red countries. They might even share their home country's view on that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is very naive to believe that this particular topic will eventually influence the majority of voters in the IOC, Charter or not.

I didn't check, but my guess is that there is already a considerable number of IOC members from grey/red countries. They might even share their home country's view on that matter.

I don't think that "this particular topic" would sway many IOC voters one way or another. But I don't think the overwhelming cooralation is a coincidence either.

The things, ideas, attatudes, etc. that make countries attractive to IOC voters also tend to lead to certain viewpoints on LGBT topics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that "this particular topic" would sway many IOC voters one way or another. But I don't think the overwhelming cooralation is a coincidence either.

The things, ideas, attatudes, etc. that make countries attractive to IOC voters also tend to lead to certain viewpoints on LGBT topics.

I could also phrase my previous post up more directly:

In the past, the IOC didn't care about Human Rights, including LGBT rights. And my level of trust in the IOC is such that they won't care much in the future either when a potentially promising bid a la Beijing 2007 or Sochi 2014 comes along.

Much talk, no action, as the Sochi aftermath. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm a pessimist in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical towards politicising the olympics even further. Not because LGBT rights isn't important or shouldn't be a topic of criticism and discussion in conjunction with the olympics, but because politicising it also means subjecting the "human rights critique" to existing power structures. In other words, "human rights issues" will be defined by "us". For those who've read Chomsky, they would know that the US is per definition never opposed to the peace process. If someone opposes the US in a conflict zone, they are per definition opposed to the peace process. The Olympics really shouldn't turn into an arena for western powers to exercise domination over their geopolitical enemies, as I'm tempted to say we're seeing with Sochi.

Some points:

Utah 2002, gay sexual activities were illegal. Was there any press about this at all? Where was the outrage? Did the POTUS send gay athletes leading the delegation in protest?

It's not the same situation of course, and gays generally suffer much more in Russia than in the US which is very gay liberal in a global context, but there's still a degree of hypocrisy. As long as there's an "us" that is a lot stronger than "them" and this "us" dominates the olympic movement, you can never ever expect an honest assessment of something as vague, complex and value based as "human rights issues", "discrimination" or just "good guys/bad guys".

It's good that ridiculous anti gay propaganda legislation gets shot down internationally, but it's sad if much of that engagement isn't genuine but in fact remnants of cold war mentality and anti-russian sentiment. That's what needs to be avoided for the '"olympic movement" to have credibility. So critique and concern over discrimination is good, but it shouldn't alone have disqualified Russia from hosting and everyone concerned about the olympics in the west should look at their own games with the same scrutiny.

From a western european stand point, several held viewpoints and legal practices in the US is strictly against human rights, such as capital punishment, anti-gay legislation and illegal warfare. My mentioning of that will probably annoy some americans and they will point to practices of the EU that they don't agree with, which only reflects that different values rule in different parts of the world and no one really has a clean "human rights record". Still, you'll never see the europeans talking about boycotting an US olympics or the other way around, cause they are friends and allies.

Discrimination laws, discrimination culture and other forms of human rights violation should count as a negative for a potential host nation, but I'm extremely skeptical to a categorization of good guys and bad guys.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While that is certainly true, you run into another problem. Namely that corporate sponsors are going to be put under pressure to not cooperate with a host country they see as particularly wrong. I don't think you would see sponsors boycott a country like China (too much money at stake), but it might happen for Iran, Nigeria or Kazakhstan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...