General News IOC Violates own charter

They are hypocrits

 

I still fail to see how "do not express any political views" is discrimination, as I keep raising this point and nobody has yet to explain it to me.

I'll gladly drop it once someone explains.

 

I've already pointed out that by accepting gender equality, they're already choosing a side on a political view. There are still dozens of countries where women have no rights or no where near as many as men.

But they're siding with countries where they do, despite some countries where they don't have rights/not as many also competing in the Olympics.

By saying they are taking a neutral stand in this case, they are choosing a political view. They're cherry picking which political views their charter applies to.

 

They are saying not to express any political views as a way of maintaining neutrality, but in fact it's not remaining neutral at all. The athletes are going to be bombarded by Russia's political views throughout the entirety of game (especially since they are going to be held accountable and could be punished by the Russian viewpoint), it's only fair that they should be able to express their own opinions. As I stated before, the only way to truly achieve political neutrality would to have both sides of the issue be free to express their opinions during the duration of the game. For the Olympics to be a place where politics don't matter, then all ideas should be welcomed there. Simply saying that one side of the issue should not be free to express itself simply to appease those who belong to the other side is not neutrality at all.

 

And I want to point out that neutrality is not a choice to be respected or encouraged in this situation.

 

Not sure I agree here. Let's pretend for a minute that the olympics were being held in NYC. There's a law on the books from 1907 forbidding adultery. Let's say NY for whatever reason decided that law was now worth vigorously enforcing.

Would you expect the IOC to come to the defense of cheaters everywhere? Or let NY deal with it's asinine laws how it saw fit? I would hope the latter!

I really fail to see how the situation is any different.

 

I would hope that those who are in favor of adultery would be allowed to express their viewpoint while in NY. I'm not saying that the IOC needs to necessarily defend anyone. I'm saying that the athletes should be able to express their opinions and not have them oppressed because they do not coincide with the host city/country/etc

 

You realize you pretty much just told everyone here that being a cheater and being gay is no different from each other.

It's also implying that being gay is a choice like being a cheater is.

 

It is discrimination because it is not really a "neutral" position, it's a position that favors Russia since they are the host country. It is effectively telling LGBT athletes to go back into the closet to not upset Russia and their laws, which they are STILL threatening to use on gay athletes and foreign visitors. Simply having it mentioned in public that they are in a same sex relationship, or that they're gay... what if a reporter asks them a question on the matter, what are they supposed to say: "I'm afraid to talk about that, because the IOC will punish me?"

It's absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing neutral in what the IOC is doing, unless it was being held in another country, and Russia was threatening to harass gay people or hold anti-gay protests and we were threatening to have pro-gay protests in response. At that point the IOC could step in and ask that the games not be turned toward such political ends, and they could appear neutral.

They cannot - it is impossible - for them to be neutral due to the fact that Russia is the host country. Therefore, they have an ethical obligation to demand that Russia PROTECT those who come to see the games as well as the athletes who participate in them, and if the IOC cannot ensure the security of the athletes and the spectators, then the games should be moved.

It is the responsibility of Russia, as the host of the games, to ensure that those who come to view the games can do so without harassment.

 

Are we really comparing this hypothetical with what is happening in Russia?

 

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

Here is the original article, which is found in the "General Principles" section of the Olympics Charter:

"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."

This clause immediately follows it:

"7: Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter
and recognition by the IOC."

Under the provisions of the Charter, in order to be a participant to the Olympic games and to be a candidate as a host country, becoming a signatory (and hence, like a contract to agree to be bound by the terms and conditions as said on the document) is necessary. Russia, as a successor state to the former Soviet Union has therefore been a participant of the Olympic movement since 1952.

Under this premise, there are two issues which needs to be answered:
1. Does differential treatment based upon sexual orientation satisfy as "discrimination"?
2. What are the ramifications of IOC's actions/inaction?

1.)
It has been argued (on this thread and others) that due to the political charged nature of homosexuality, it cannot be recognized as subjected to universal protection from discrimination. While it is true that not all states have codified protection of individuals from discrimination against sexual orientation as law, this does not mean it has not received recognition under international law.

The UN and various international tribunals have declared (through General Assembly Resolutions, which are highly influential on the development of international law) that discrimination due to sexual orientation is prohibited under the ICCPR. Furthermore, Russia being a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights is under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which art. 14's mention of "other status" has allowed the court to extend it's jurisdiction over protection from discrimination to sexual orientation (Alekseyev v. Russia).

Under these various sources of law, it can thus be established that discrimination of individuals based on sexual orientation is now a human right, which in essence decouples it from the political sphere, since under the law, all signatories of the ICCPR (which Russia has) and the ECHR (which Russia also has) have a duty to uphold these protections, regardless of that nation's political proclivities. This is similar to how a man is bound to honour a contract he has signed, regardless of whether personal, religious or political beliefs determine that contract to be unjust or unlawful.

2.)
This question is difficult to answer, because it involves balancing two main principles which the Olympic Movement is founded on: neutrality and respect for human dignity. However, my argument is that while the IOC pulling out now may be bad press, it does not in fact violate it's principles of neutrality. Furthermore, the very choice of the IOC in picking Russia as the place to hold the Olympic Games is already a violation of it's own charter.

As we have established above, although some contention still exists it is now generally accepted by the international community through organizations such as the UN that sexual orientation should not be a ground for discrimination. The duty of Russia to uphold this is even greater due to their status as a signatory to the ECHR, which is an actual legally binding instrument that enforces such duty on Russia. By passing the propaganda laws, Russia is not only going against an internationally recognized facet of Human Rights, but is also breaching the law. Since a core part of the IOC's mission is to prevent discrimination, and sexual orientation is included in the protected classes of grounds against discrimination, then neutrality for neutrality's sake cannot justify IOC not honouring it's own constitutional instrument.

Since we can now establish discrimination to include sexual orientation, what are the impacts of IOC's choice of Russia to hold the Games, and their subsequent inaction when these violations have come to light? Since the IOC have the duty to uphold the seven principles of the Olympic movement, their choice of venue and recognition of member states must also reflect these values.

However, one can argue that since the choice of Sochi as the venue for the 2014 winter Olympics was made in 2007, before all these horrible events come into play, it's only natural that the current violations concerted by Russia should not be the reason for the IOC to change venue. However, if one is to look at section 6, it includes "politics" as a ground of discrimination. This means that the IOC, even back in 2007 should not have chosen Russia as a venue, and in fact should have expelled Russia from being a signatory of the IOC Charter due to repeated human rights violations going back way before 2007.
The current anti-homophobia laws is simply a cherry on top of the long lists of examples in which the IOC has failed to act on it's charter with regards to Russia and other countries which abuses Human Rights.





Source:
http://humanrights.uchicago.edu/Baro/holninglau.pdf
Council of Europe - ETS no. 005 - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Alekseyev v. Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Not the intent. The intent was to compare one bunk law that stigmatizes a group (whether that group is formed by choice or not) under the law to another.

It is most certainly different from each other, and if it was interpreted that I was equating them, I'm VERY sorry.

 

Yes, I would expect the IOC to come to the defense of cheaters everywhere. Because it is vitally important that the government get its ass out of people's sex lives. I don't think cheating is ethical, generally speaking, but I would strongly oppose any law to make it illegal.