Let's have a little look at the Olympic Charter shall we (http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf). According to the students scholarly archive, Wikipedia, the Olympic Charter "is a set of rules and guidelines for the organization of the Olympic Games and for governing the Olympic Movement" and "throughout the history of the Olympics, the Olympic Charter has often decided the outcome of Olympic controversy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Charter)

Okay, wicked, super, splendid, so the Charter can either explain why China (largest abusers of human rights- well arguably after US- and Tibeten Buddist repressors) have the Olympics or in my opinion justify why we should boycott the Olympics.

Lets just look at 3 of the 6 Fundatmental Principles of Olympism outlined in the Charter:

 "Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."

"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"

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

 OOPS i guess the IOC just forgot about the Charter when it decided in 2001 to award the games to Beijing.

Well actually, no, the IOC acknowledgies these flaws in China's human rights record and justifies the awarding of the Olympic games to China as a way to bring international pressure onto China to improve its human rights... well something along those lines anyway.

Hmm, i don't personally see an improvment in China's HR record, just look at their response to peaceful protests in Tibet the other month, or maybe even look at their influence in Dafur where they use the equation Oil=Money=Power>Human Life. 

Really until the IOC grow some balls, the Olympics should be renamed the Lympits to suit its governing body. Apologises to all the Lympits who are offended to be ranked alongside these people, no offence meant to you.

The best idea i have seen with boycotting the Olmpics is the one suggested by Johann Hari in The Independant (Monday 7th April 2008) where he suggested that athletes should ask Beijing to do three things. One; release the 10 biggest human rights activists in China. Two; invite the Dalai Lama to talk with Beijing. Third; allow a peacekeeping force into Dafur. Hari suggests that if these critea are fullfilled then the athletes should agree to take part, but if not, they should boycott the games.

 This would involve a large coalition of athletes to come together and discuss these issues. However, it would not be the first time that athletes have boycotted the Games, for example 62 nations boycotted the games in Moscow 1980.

The above idea gives the athletes the control. It allows them to show to the world that they are ready to make a stand, but to not boycott the games comlpetely, as it is totally unfair to ask people who have been working hard for years to partake in the Olympics not to.

This blog post is a bit random from me i know, especially considering my last post. I just want to say with regard to the subject of my previous post is that popularity is not the right word, a wise person once said that popularity is the whole point of democracy. It's not about how many friends you have as to whether you win or not. It's about how effective your campaign is, how loud you can be, how well you can get into the heads of the students. These are normally the most simple campaigns, most recognisable campaigns. It's not popularity to the extent of how many friends you have or how many people you know, and perhaps i confused these two points within my own thought process before which then came across when i have my rants and therefore lead to people misunderstanding me. Perhaps, or perhaps i am now just rambling and you have no idea what i'm going on about. :-P

Comments have been closed for this article

 

 

OK, so you made the conclusion that China has no right to hold this coming Olympic Game because it offended the Olympic Charter. How about the UK, which will hold the next Olympic Game in 2012. UK still have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan. And UK has so sad history in the past four hundred years. UK invaded India, Eqypt... and even China! Oh, I almost forgot you are having a degree in history, so you should be an expert in this. Could you comment the UK and the 2012 Game as well as what you did on China? 
 
 
........Matt Edit............. 
Sorry i had to reply here because comments have been turned off for this blog entry, so i cant reply properly!! Don't worry, i haven't editted your message.  
 
Anyway, i don't support the UK having the Olympics because as you say we are also abusing human rights in places like Iraq and Afganistan, however if we go down this route, there will be hardly any country that could have it!! However, the siutation i mention in China is a current one, yes Britain has got a sickening history, one which i never supported, but if Britain were to improve its human rights record NOW then in my opinion, thats okay, which is the argument i am applying to China. My idea is either that the Olympics should not have been given to China until it improved its record, and also that now they have it, pressure should be put on China to improve its record. And to be honest, i also feel this is what should had happened to UK for 2012. We should not had got it until we pulled out of Iraq and Afganistan, and now we have it, the internatinal community and British citizens should put pressure on the government. Ultimately, its not a question about what happened hundreds of years ago, but more about what is happening now, and how we can all move forward together :-) 
 
Did i pass? 
........Matt Edit.......... 
 
This comment was edited by mattblackall on 2008-05-11

Anthony - Sun, 27 Apr 2008