Posted on 02/10/2008 9:52:20 AM PST by mojito
British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China's appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing.
The move – which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest.
The controversial clause has been inserted into athletes' contracts for the first time and forbids them from making any political comment about countries staging the Olympic Games.
It is contained in a 32-page document that will be presented to all those who reach the qualifying standard and are chosen for the team.
From the moment they sign up, the competitors – likely to include the Queen's granddaughter Zara Phillips and world record holder Paula Radcliffe – will be effectively gagged from commenting on China's politics, human rights abuses or illegal occupation of Tibet.
Prince Charles has already let it be known that he will not be going to China, even if he is invited by Games organisers.
His views on the Communist dictatorship are well known, after this newspaper revealed how he described China's leaders as “appalling old waxworks” in a journal written after he attended the handover of Hong Kong. The Prince is also a long-time supporter of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader.
Yesterday the British Olympic Association (BOA) confirmed to The Mail on Sunday that any athlete who refuses to sign the agreements will not be allowed to travel to Beijing.
Should a competitor agree to the clause but then speak their mind about China, they will be put on the next plane home.
The clause, in section 4 of the contract, simply states: “[Athletes] are not to comment on any politically sensitive issues.”
It then refers competitors to Section 51 of the International Olympic Committee charter, which “provides for no kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda in the Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.
The BOA took the decision even though other countries – including the United States, Canada, Finland, and Australia – have pledged that their athletes would be free to speak about any issue concerning China.
To date, only New Zealand and Belgium have banned their athletes from giving political opinions while competing at the Games.
Simon Clegg, the BOA's chief executive, said: “There are all sorts of organisations who would like athletes to use the Olympic Games as a vehicle to publicise their causes.
“I don't believe that is in the interest of the team performance.
“As a team we are ambassadors of the country and we have to conform to an appropriate code of conduct.”
However, human rights campaigner Lord David Alton condemned the move as “making a mockery” of the right to free speech.
The controversial decision to award the Olympics to Beijing means this year's Games have the potential to be the most politically charged since 1936.
Adolf Hitler used the Munich Games that year to glorify his Nazi regime, although his claims of Aryan superiority were undermined by black American athlete Jesse Owens winning four gold medals.
More recently, there was a mass boycott of the 1980 Games in Moscow in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
But Colin Moynihan – now BOA chairman Lord Moynihan – defied Margaret Thatcher's calls for British athletes to stay at home and won a silver medal as cox of the men's eight rowing team.
Former Olympic rowing champion Matthew Pinsent has already criticised the Chinese authorities over the training methods used on children, which he regarded as tantamount to abuse.
Young gymnasts told him they were repeatedly beaten during training sessions.
Mr Clegg confirmed that such criticisms would be banned under the team's code of conduct, which will be in force from when athletes are selected in July, until the end of the Games on August 24.
Mr Clegg said: “During the period of the contract, that sort of action would be in dispute with the team-member agreement.
“There are all sorts of sanctions that I can apply. I had to send a team member home in Sydney because they breached our sponsorship agreement and that is the first time it happened.
“I have to act in the interest of the whole British team, not one individual. No athlete is above being part of the team.
“There is a requirement on team members to sign the agreement. If athletes step out of line, action will have to be taken.”
Darren Campbell, Olympic relay gold winner at the 2004 Games in Athens, said the BOA's move would “heap extra pressure on athletes”. But he added: “We are there to represent our country in sporting terms, just as our Army do when they go off to war. It is not supposed to be about politics.”
The BOA is taking a far more stringent stance than authorities in other countries. Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates said: “What we will be saying to the athletes is that it's best to concentrate on your competitions.
“But they're entitled to have their opinions and express them. They're free to speak.”
Jouko Purontakanen, secretary general of the Finnish Olympic Committee, said: “We will not be issuing instructions on the matter. The freedom of expression is a basic right that cannot be limited.
“But the starting point is that we will go to Beijing to compete, not to talk politics.”
Political gestures have been made at previous Olympics, most famously in Mexico City in 1968 when black American 200m champion Tommie Smith and bronze medallist John Carlos raised their fists in a black power salute.
Both were suspended from the US Olympic team and barred from the Olympic village.
Forty years on, British athletes face similar sanctions if they highlight the abuse of human rights in China.
Last night Edward McMillan-Scott, Conservative MEP and the European Parliament vice-president, predicted a public outcry over the BOA's move.
He said: “Foreign Secretary David Miliband is off to China soon. But before he gets on the plane, he and the rest of the Government should tell the BOA to take this clause out of the agreement.”
Potentially the contract means that a British athlete who witnesses someone being mistreated on the way to a stadium is forbidden from even speaking to their colleagues about it.
Competitors emailing home or writing blogs will also have to exercise self-censorship – or face having their Olympic dreams ruined.
Lord Alton said: “It is extraordinary to bar athletes from expressing an opinion about China's human-rights record. About the only justification for participating in the Beijing Games is that it offers an opportunity to encourage more awareness about human rights.
“Imposing compulsory vows of silence is an affront to our athletes, and in China it will be viewed as acquiescence.
“Each year 8,000 executions take place in China, political and religious opinion is repressed, journalists are jailed and the internet and overseas broadcasts are heavily censored.
“For our athletes to be told that they may not make any comment makes a mockery of our own country's belief in free speech.”
I am obviously pro-British, and I know from many accounts that the Brits aren’t exactly in love with us any more, to put it mildly. But times change, while the underlying basics are still there. It’s like hating your brother-in-law but you would never shoot the whole family.
Dad says to thank you. If I had a picture of a German Shepard, I could compliment your Mom.
Nothing personal, of course not, I'd rather die first, but you need to have your Dad's eyesight checked. My mom is not a German Shepherd, this is her
on her last birthday. We had the picture made at Glamour Shots.
Unfortunately, I think they feel the same way about us - at least for the present. So what foreign country can we look to admire if we feel so inclined and desperately need allies?
Let's lay down one rule: Anyone that votes for France goes to Devils Island without possibly of parole.
All the Muslim countries hate us worse than they hate the British, and there aren't jobs for us in India because they have all our outsourced jobs now.
Mexico? We might as well love it because we'll never get rid of all their illegal citizens in this country, and we'd be trampled to death trying to illegally immigrate in the opposite direction.
Australia's cool but they've taken gun control to the extreme.
Any Asian country like China or Viet Nam - give me a break.
Israel has too much to handle as it is right now, so the most important ally is and always has been Great Britain
So an entire country is ‘humiliated’ because of the decision taken by an athletic board?...
Does the baseball steroid abuse make America a joke then?.
It is in the Olympic charter that athletes must not indulge in politics. The British decision is merely enforcing this.
Anyway, given various scandals, the vast majority of British people dont respect British athletes as they did in the clean days of Coe, Ovett, Cram, Daley Thompson, Allan Wells...
F**K YOU.
The British still have balls, even if not at 1914 or 1940 levels, even 1982.
Plenty of British ‘pussies’ fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan btw.
And what of the vitriol against Britain that exists on this site?...
The dislike is BOTH ways mate.
I thought it was you who likes to get f**cked, dear.
Ya learn something every day. I had to see it, so here it is.
Does Vietnam and Mogadishu mean America dosnt have balls?. Of course not.
We are not the Britain we once were, but we are not useless pussies either. And America isnt what it was either, an accusation that can be levelled at the West per se.
Whoever said that it wasn’t a two way street? I didn’t. I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised by the amount of contempt for Britain that I do see on this forum. I can also say that it is a relatively new phenomena. Ten years ago, five years ago, there would not have been any hint of hostility or bitterness especially not towards Britain. But this is a brand new day.
That it now exists tells me that at least some Americans are beginning to pay attention to Britain and Europe and the crap that is sent our way. I’m glad that America is finally taking a long hard look at this so called relationship and are finding it sadly lacking. It’s heart warming....mate.
The only time that Britain has ever “liked” America is when that have a use for America. Otherwise they trash us as the garbage that they think we are. A popular British saying during WW2 while they lamented our being over there, they said, “The Americans are overpaid, over sexed, and unfortunately over here.” Charm isn’t exactly their forte, is it? Nothing that we did in WW2 was appreciated. Hell, it isn’t even mentioned in their history book anymore. I look forward to the day when Britain is another EU county and nothing more.
Why is it necessary for America to have allies? What we have are goals and interests if they mesh fine with other countries fine, then they can be allies, but most often I think you will find that we have nothing in common with Britain or indeed any of Europe. There are many in Europe who want to build a EU army to challenge American military might, and so I have been told to form and alliance with Russia and China to crush the US if necessary. Do your really want them as allies? Do you really want to share military technology with these back stabbers? I wouldn’t.
P.S. I do hope you caught my reply to you on the Prince Andrew thread. I would hate to think it was wasted.
Thanks! I saw that. I was wondering about an official USOC statement. I can’t find one.
The PLA Navy was ranked in 1987 as the third largest navy in the world, although naval personnel had comprised only 12 percent of PLA strength. In 1987 the Navy consisted (as it does now) of the naval headquarters in Beijing; three fleet commands — the North Sea Fleet, based at Qingdao, Shandong; the East Sea Fleet, based at Shanghai; and the South Sea Fleet, based at Zhanjiang, Guangdong — and about 2,000 ships. The 350,000-person Navy included Naval Air Force units of 34,000 men, the Coastal Defense Forces of 38,000, and the Marine Corps of 56,500. Navy Headquarters, which controlled the three fleet commands, was subordinate to the PLA General Staff Department. In 1987, China's 1,500 km coastline was protected by more than 100 diesel-powered Romeo- and Whiskey-class submarines, which could remain at sea only a limited time. Inside this protective ring and within range of shore-based aircraft were destroyers and frigates mounting Styx antiship missiles, depth-charge projectors, and guns up to 130mm. Any invader penetrating the destroyer and frigate protection would have been swarmed by almost 900 fast-attack craft. Stormy weather limited the range of these small boats, however, and curtailed air support. Behind the inner ring were Coastal Defense Force personnel operating naval shore batteries of Styx missiles and guns, backed by ground force units deployed in depth.
1—And couldnt we argue the same for America’s attitude to Britain?.
You are quite happy to have us at your side in war and after terrorist attacks on America, but for the most part you think of us as effete, monocle wearing Hugh Grants...
2—The oversexed, overpaid comment?.Yes, it was used in sarcasm, but was also used in a more affectionately mocking way. And didnt the GI’s have their own sarcy comments about the British, civilian and armed forces?.Yes, they did.But ultimately they had more in common than in opposition...
You seem to have a massive blindspot where any sarcasm or nastiness by Americans is concerned. This ‘whiter than the driven snow’ act isnt selling any tickets,sorry.
2-’Nothing that we did in WW2 was appreciated. Hell, it isn’t even mentioned in their history book anymore.’
Excuse me?.
Not only is that drivel,but if any nation has had its ww2 history progressively sidelined, ignored and even ridiculed, its us.
And if any nation has distorted the history of both world wars, its you. The American sacrifices in both world wars ARE appreciated. However, the modern American ‘we saved your ass’ type nonsense is not.
If you chuck s**t in someone’s direction for so long, dont be surprised if sadly some of it starts to come back...
Mate is a phrase, I am not actually stating you are my friend. Just like buddy in America, or mate in Australia.
And well done on finding the relationship lacking. We found that out 52 years ago...
Welcome back tk! PING
“For our athletes to be told that they may not make any comment makes a mockery of our own country’s belief in free speech.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.