Login or register to post comments email print

Canadians have a proud (and often-touted) reputation for defending human rights. What if a Canadian athlete was to challenge the human-rights record of China’s Communist government during the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing?

Could they be in violation of a gag order which forbids athletes from making political comments about an Olympic Games’ host country? Would they be sent home, years of training spent in vain?

Canada’s athletes wouldn’t, according to the Canadian Olympic Committee’s chief executive officer. But, the U.K.’s Daily Mail has reported Britain’s might.

The Canadian Olympic Committee’s CEO has called Canada’s top-level athletes “well-educated, responsible adults” and said they are “capable of recognizing the world around them and speaking freely”.

Chris Rudge made those comments to the Georgia Straight when asked if any restrictions would be placed on Canadian Olympic athletes’ freedom of expression in Beijing.

His response: “We do, as is appropriate, talk about cultural norms and what is appropriate to say and not say within a public forum, because every culture is different and every Games’ has its own environment.” But, he continued, “We certainly have no intention of, to use the phrase that was used in the British situation, ‘gagging’ our athletes.”

Rudge’s claims were supported by Jasmine Northcott, executive director of AthletesCAN, an association of Canada’s national-team athletes.

“To the best of my knowledge, I don’t believe they [the COC] have provided any sort of direction on political comments,” she told the Straight in a telephone interview.

Why the cause for concern?

On February 9, the Daily Mail reported that Britain’s athletes were being forced to sign contracts forbidding them from making “any political comment about countries staging the Olympics”, the penalty for such action being a ticket home.

But the Mail’s story may have misinterpreted the British Olympic Association’s actions, a later Associated Press report has claimed.

On February 11, the Associated Press reported that in regards to Britain’s athletes, “no gagging order existed”.

However, that story continued:

The BOA has sent out instructions to athletes headed for Beijing that they should abide by IOC-backed regulations which state they should not comment on any politically sensitive issues or take part in political, religious or racial propaganda at the Olympic sites and venues.

Those instructions referenced the Olympic Charter, which does state: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas,” and warns that any violation of that provision could result in “disqualification or withdrawal of the accreditation of the person concerned.”

While officially apolitical, the Olympic Games have entered the arena of international politics on several memorable occasions.

In 1936, the international spectacle was held in Munich, Germany, where Adolf Hitler used the Olympics to glorify the Nazi regime.

In 1968, African American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos were suspended by the U.S. Olympic team after raising their fists in a black power salute while on the podium.

And in 1980 when the Games were held in Moscow, many nations boycotted the event in protest of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan.

Some B.C. Native groups have promised to disrupt the 2010 Olympics. How strictly will the COC enforce the Olympic Charter’s section on political activity if an athlete takes a stance on Native land claims issues? Could Vancouver’s Games be added to this list of Olympic controversies?