Connect with us

Do Or Die Time For The 2014 Sochi Olympics



Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll have noticed increasing noise over Russia’s violent anti-gay agenda is making its way to the highest levels of government.

As Russia prepares to host the Olympic Games in Sochi in 2014, its recently adopted “gay propaganda” legislation doesn’t simply reflect badly on it as a host country, but genuinely threatens gay athletes, athletes that voice support for them, and any gay or pro-gay spectators.

If Jews were under attack in Russia, persecuted by the government for practicing their religion, attending synagogues, wearing yarmulkes, or engaging in anything that might be considered “Jewish propaganda,” do you think the International Olympic Committee (IOC) would still be holding the Games in Sochi in 2014?

How about NBC? Think they’d still be broadcasting it?

Boycotts can be tricky. However a recent history of boycotts relating to the Olympics is instructive here.

As a South African raised during the height of apartheid, I remember the cultural and economic boycotts. In the end, they had an impact, leaving South Africa isolated and alone.

On August 18th, 1964, a few months before I was born, South Africa was barred from competing in the 18th Olympic Games in Tokyo after they failed to reach an ultimatum that included condemning apartheid.

The International Olympic Committee, based in Lausanne, Switzerland, had originally withdrawn South Africa’s invitation to Japan based in part on the premise that South Africa’s discrimination in sport didn’t allow black and white athletes to compete.

Despite South Africa’s attempt to circumvent the ban by including seven non-white athletes (which under South Africa’s racial classification system could have included blacks, “coloureds,” and Indians), the country’s stubborn refusal to publicly renounce racial discrimination in sport in newspapers and on the radio was enough to uphold the rescinded invitation.

Seemingly inept at discerning irony, South Africa angrily denounced IOC for injecting politics into sport, but it did little to stem the tide. In June of the same year, protests against South African policies had forced South African players to pull out of the Wimbledon Tennis championships in London, and further boycotts would follow.

South Africa was indefinitely suspended by FIFA, the world cup soccer organization in October 1964, and bans on rugby and cricket in the 1970s and 1980s were especially hard felt by sport-loving South Africans.

In September, 1967, a committee of the IOC visited South Africa to examine claims that South Africa’s Prime Minister, J.B. Vorster had relaxed sports policy to enable a truly merit-based, multiracial team for the next Olympic Games. The fawning committee’s report resulted in the IOC extending an invitation to South Africa to compete in the 1968 games in Mexico, but strong, vocal opposition by numerous African countries, who threatened to boycott themselves if South Africa was competing, forced the IOC to once again rescind its invitation.

In 1976, as many as 25 African countries pulled out of the Montreal Olympics to protest the inclusion of New Zealand, whose rugby team the All Blacks (who remain mostly white) was touring South Africa, although New Zealand was one of 26 countries to have played sport in South Africa during that year.

The boycotts that year resulted in world record holder in the 1500 m, Filbert Bayi from Tanzania, and John Akii-Bua of Uganda who held the, world record in the 400 m hurdles, failing to hold onto their titles. Kenya’s foreign minister at the time, James Osogo, announced:

“The government and the people of Kenya hold the view that principles are more precious than medals.”

It wasn’t until the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, until the international community became convinced that South Africa was irrevocably on the road to political transformation and democracy, and was able to compete.

More recently, the IOC, along with other global sports bodies and institutions, has had to deal with discrimination that has revealed them to be less than even-handed in their understanding of human rights. The IOC banned the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan from competing in the Sydney Olympics in 2000, citing Afghanistan’s laws forbidding females from playing any sports ever.


When did it become okay for a country hosting the Games to be able to get away with this kind of crap?

When did the IOC become such a frightened, greedy, insipid organization with no backbone, let alone moral virtue?


Principles may have indeed been more precious to Kenyans than medals back in 1976, but the principles that once allowed the IOC to position itself as a moral guardian appear to have flown out the window. (Although China’s human rights record didn’t preclude them from hosting the Olympics in Beijing, suggesting IOC’s willingness to turn a blind eye to discrimination is hardly a new phenomenon.)

The legislation, signed by President Vladimir Putin in June provides jail terms for anyone wearing rainbow pins or clothing, waving a gay flag or simply holding hands with someone of the same sex. Presumably, pink triangles, like the ones homosexuals in Germany were forced to wear on their arms while being led into gas ovens are also no nos.

These aren’t just idle threats, as alarming videos and dramatic spikes in anti-gay violence in Russia reflect how the draconian laws, which criminalize vocal support for GLBT communities, are fueling homophobia in Russia. Last week, images of a Russian neo-Nazi group that was kidnapping gay teenagers, then assaulting and humiliating them on camera in a “anti-pedophilia campaign” made their rounds.

Despite having received calls to boycott, or relocate, the 2014 Winter Games, the IOC has blatantly ignored the principle and has deemed “assurances” from the highest levels of Russian government an adequate response to actual threats to the safety of gay athletes, let alone their supporters.

Vitaly Milonov, the Russian lawmaker who is a co-sponsor of the ‘non-traditional relationships’ bill, has contradicted the IOC, warning that the government cannot decide when to selectively enforce the law. (A petition to ban Milonov and the other co-sponsor of the “gay propaganda” bill, Elena Mizulina, from receiving visas to enter the United States only has 7800 signatures as of this writing.)

Russia’s Sports Minister, Vitaly L. Mutko, also warned that Olympic athletes travelling to Russia would be expected to obey the new law.

Australia’s diving gold medalist in the Beijing Games, Matthew Mitcham told Australia’s Daily Telegraph that the Russian law was horrific. “The Olympics is the best experience you will ever have as an athlete,” he said. “Their whole memory and experience is going to be marred by this stuff. They are going to be made to feel unacceptable, inappropriate, and it is a really awful, awful feeling.”

But it’s not simply the feelings of gay athletes that warrants concern here. It’s their physical safety.

When did it become okay for a country hosting the Games to be able to get away with this kind of crap?

When did the IOC become such a frightened, greedy, insipid organization with no backbone, let alone moral virtue?

This is the same organization that banned South Africa from competing, not just from hosting, because of its racist policies. This is the same organization that banned Afghanistan because of its refusal to allow women to compete. Does Russia allow openly gay athletes to compete? Or are they too closeted to dare come out or are already in jail?

Why the fuck the double standard?

Where are the countries who pulled out of the Olympics when New Zealand violated the sports ban by visiting South Africa?

Unfortunately we know that Uganda, whose “Kill the Gays” bill keeps threatening her citizens won’t be condemning Russia anytime soon. How about Kenya? When did medals become more precious than people for your citizens? Where’s the strength and courage of conviction you once showed the world?

Gay activists in the United States in New York, Los Angles and San Francisco have launched boycotts of Stoli Vodka, which haven’t fully caught on owing to questions as to the true origins of Stoli, the company’s own issues with the Russian government, and its frequent sponsorship of gay related causes. And while any attempt to draw attention to this issue is better than apathy, there needs to be a damn lot more than a Vodka boycott to shame those who have remained silent or plan to profit regardless of Russia’s belligerent commitment to hate, and the IOC’s pitiful, castrated shameful response.

NBC, which is televising the Olympics, is touting assurances by Igor Ananskikh, deputy chairman of the State Duma’s Physical Culture, Sport and Youth Policy Committee to Russian news agency Interfax: “The Olympic Games is a major international event. We need to be as polite and tolerant as possible. That is why a decision has been made not to raise this issue during the Olympics.”

Polite? Seriously?

In response to a rising chorus of voices decrying NBC’s involvement, including questions as to whether the controversial Russian law would be exposed during the Opening Ceremonies, NBC bravely committed to acknowledging it. Yep, acknowledging it. According to Variety, NBC Sports Chief, Mark Lazarus said, “If it is still their law and impacting any part of the Olympic games we will acknowledge it. We don’t believe in the spirit of the law that they have passed and are hopeful that the Olympic spirit will win out.”

Whether Mr. Lazarus would be as hopeful and accommodating to the host country if it was Jews that were being forbidden from “propagandizing” or could be jailed for wearing yarmulkes, is simply speculative. Perhaps we’ll see what moral backbone looks like when it comes to the World Cup in Qatar in 2022.

IOC presidential candidate Richard Carrion issued a statement Friday saying the IOC should use “all avenues possible” to keep athletes competing at the Olympics from being subject to the law passed in June.

“We should use all the avenues possible for influence and diplomacy with Russian officials, so that this legislation will not create a problem for our athletes,” he said. “I am confident that the discussions going on now with the Russian authorities will help clarify the extent of the law and will ensure that our athletes will be protected.”

“And, looking ahead, a condition to getting the Olympics games in the future should be to make sure the city does not have laws that discriminate against people in any way, consistent with the Olympic Charter.”

When exactly did this stop being a prerequisite?

Does Carrion not realize how pathetic this sounds? Looking ahead? Rings about as meaningful as President Obama’s decision to “look forward” rather than prosecute torture and war crimes done in America’s name during his predecessor’s administration. Nor sanction those who found ways to legally justify it.


Who are we? What have we become? At what point did we lose any kind of moral standing?

There was once a time when we used to at least pretend that we gave a shit morally.

I am puzzled and ashamed.


This is a pivotal moment.

While it may seem on the surface that a gay agenda is focused exclusively on getting married and serving in the military, the real agenda is to be afforded the most basic of our rights, namely life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The lack of action by the IOC, and NBC’s tepid criticism and willingness to place profits over principle says absolutely everything.

While Nelson Mandela, the man who inspired the first constitution to specifically preclude discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, lies dying in a hospital in Pretoria, South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma is too busy tripping over himself to congratulate Robert Mugabe’s fraudulent victory to remember his country’s Olympic history, and do what’s right. We haven’t heard a peep about this from South Africa.

Unfortunately, the United States is so busy spying on its citizens, hunting down whistleblowers and targeting drone strikes that it would sooner do diplomatic battle with Russia over Edward Snowden than it would make a principled stand for Russia’s treatment of her gay citizens, let alone for gay American athletes or audiences.

Who are we? What have we become? At what point did we lose any kind of moral standing?

There was once a time when we used to at least pretend that we gave a shit morally.

I am puzzled and ashamed.

The fact that all that’s being done to demonstrate displeasure for Russia’s actions is limited to toothless letters to the Secretary of State, John Kerry, from members of congress and questionably relevant actions by well-meaning activists and opportunistic gay bar owners is mortifying.

Jen Kirkman, a comedian on Chelsea Handler’s talk show “Chelsea Lately” joked that a boycott on Stoli Vodka would last until gays realized they need Appletinis to watch Olympic figure skating. Sadly, she is spot on. But it isn’t particularly funny.

George Takei has wholeheartedly endorsed a movement to have the Games moved from Russia, and a petition to that effect is gaining momentum. In one of the first take-no-prisoners approaches I have seen to date, Takei warns NBC and the corporate sponsors of the Olympics to pay “close attention” and “get behind the ‘Move the Olympics’ movement now, while there is still time to do so.”

I support this effort, but propose going further, should the IOC fail to act. And NBC too.

I plan to dedicate myself to making sure that any brand affiliated with Sochi Games suffer the consequences. I will recruit Jews and Muslims and women and blacks and as many races, religions, creeds, nationalities and sexual orientations that I can to join this fight.

What are you willing to do? Because switching cocktail brands is not going to cut it this time.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen this story before.

If we allow the IOC to turn a blind eye to this, and refuse to act now, we can’t expect them to do shit when vile, sexually confused, neurotic monsters like Vladimir Putin and the ilk he inspires start firing up the ovens.

Let the Boycotts Begin.

Clinton Fein is an internationally acclaimed author, artist, and First Amendment activist, best-known for his 1997 First Amendment Supreme Court victory against United States Attorney General Janet Reno. Fein has also gained international recognition for his site, and for his work as a political artist. Fein is on the Board of Directors of the First Amendment Project, “a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom of information, expression, and petition.” Fein’s political and privacy activism have been widely covered around the world. His work also led him to be nominated for a 2001 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Reporters Reveal Some Republicans Don’t Understand What a Default Means – and Don’t Believe the Debt Ceiling Is Real



CNN’s Jim Acosta and John Avlon compared notes on Republicans speaking on raising the debt ceiling over the weekend only to realize that the far-right members refuse to support the deal between Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden.

Acosta cited an interview he conducted Saturday with Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), who said he’s voted for shutdowns and would vote again this week.

After ranting about cutting spending, Acosta said, “Well, you can have the argument about cutting spending during the budget and appropriations process, but as you know, Congressman, the U.S. has never missed making payments on its bills before. In the last 45 years, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 65 times. So, again, I go back to the question: is it responsible — I understand what you’re saying about how much your daughter spends, but we’re not talking about $15. We’re talking about the American economy. Is it responsible to be the deciding vote to send the country into default?”

Burchett claimed that the country wasn’t going to be sent into default. He crafted a conspiracy that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen kept changing the date the U.S. default would happen.

“Nobody is, as the young people say, nobody has provided the receipts. Nobody has called her into Washington and said, ‘Show us the math on this,'” he said.

Yellen works at the Treasury Department, which is in Washington.

Burchett also had his own math, saying that if they cut the budget spending to the 2022 levels, the country would be in a surplus. The House passed a massive defense spending package that would have required cuts from other places.

“All they’re doin’ right now is scarin’ people,” Burchett claimed. “They’re talkin’ about cutting programs that have no need other than political cronyism, we’re tellin’ our seniors — and the Democrats will, and I get it — they’re tellin’ the seniors they’re gonna be cut. Veterans are gonna be cut. And nothing can be farther (sic) from the truth. And that’s just the reality of politics.”

The reason Democrats were citing cuts to seniors and veterans goes back to the Republican Party budget bill that required cuts to seniors and veterans. That’s because returning to the 2022 budget levels means making cuts to increases already passed by Congress.

Acosta turned back to Burchett to ask if he believed the debt ceiling wasn’t real.

“I think the debt ceiling is — it’s just a creative thing to hold us into responsible — into check,” said Burchett.

Avlon cited Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), who claimed he refused to sign a bill that would bankrupt the economy.

“Well, hold it right there,” said Avlon. “I mean, if you let the country default on its debt, that’s functionally the same thing.”

An annoyed Avlon was frustrated the process was even something allowed to happen.

“It’s a fact, Congress has to control the pursestrings. So, frankly, someone should figure out the 14th Amendment side of this because I think this is not the way we’re supposed to play ball, the greatest nation in the world constantly every couple of years when there’s a Democratic president flirting with defaulting on our debt because it’s fiscal policy by extortion,” said Avlon. “This is a win to the extent that we came up to a bipartisan agreement, but this is not the way the greatest nation in the world should conduct its fiscal policy. It’s ridiculous. And it didn’t happen when Donald Trump was president because Democrats worked with Republicans to ensure the debt ceiling was raised three times.”

See the discussion below or at the link here.

Image: GOP Rep. Tim Burchett


Continue Reading


‘Start the Kevin McCarthy Death-Clock’ After Biden Wins Debt Ceiling Battle: Rick Wilson



Appearing late Saturday night on MSNBC after it was announced that President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had reached an agreement “in principle’ on a budget deal, former GOP strategist Rick Wilson claimed this could be the beginning of the end for McCathy’s speakership.

Sitting in on a panel with guest host Michael Steele, Wilson suggested that McCarthy’s decision to compromise with the president to avoid a default that would spin the economy into chaos will not go over well with far-right members of his House caucus who could make a motion to “vacate the chair” to express their displeasure.

Asked by host Steel about what comes next, Wilson stated it was a win for the White House which will not make conservatives happy.

RELATED: ‘Crazy cuckoo MAGA people’ could sink debt ceiling deal: Dem strategist

“Great night for Joe Biden, great night for the White House even though I think their messaging has been kind of tentative the past few weeks” the Lincoln Project founder began. “I think though we are now going to start the Kevin McCarthy death-clock. He has certainly got a very angry part of his caucus tonight who probably burning up his phone no matter how good it is for the country not to default.”

“It’s not going to please the chaos caucus in the GOP,” he added.

Watch below or at the link:


Continue Reading


Debt Ceiling: McCarthy Faces ‘Lingering Anger’ and a Possible Revolt as Far-Right House Members Start Issuing Threats



As House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) continues to negotiate a deal to avoid a debt crisis, members of the far-right Freedom Caucus are growing furious with him over broken promises he made to them.

According to MSNBC political analyst Steve Benen, with a slim GOP majority in the House, McCarthy is walking a tightrope to get a budget deal passed and may need help from House Democrats if members of his caucus refuse to go along with him.

As Benen points out, in order to win the speakership McCarthy agreed to an easier path for a motion to “vacate the chair” which could end his tenure as Speaker. That could come into play if the Freedom Caucus stages a revolt.

“… as the negotiations approach an apparent finish line, the House Republicans’ most radical faction is learning that it isn’t likely to get everything its members demanded — and for the Freedom Caucus, that’s not going to work,” he wrote in his MSNBC column.

ALSO IN THE NEWS: Trump in danger of heightened espionage charges after bombshell report: legal expert

Citing a Washington Times report that stated, “[Freedom Caucus members] want everything from the debt limit bill passed by the House last month plus several new concessions from the White House,” Benen suggested far-right House Republicans are now issuing veiled threats.

In an interview, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) stated, “I am going to have to go have some blunt conversations with my colleagues and the leadership team. I don’t like the direction they are headed.”

With Politico reporting, “The [House Freedom Caucus] was already unlikely to support a final bipartisan deal, but lingering anger with Kevin McCarthy could have lasting implications on his speakership,” Benen added, “If this is simply a matter of lingering ill-will from members who come to believe that GOP leaders ‘caved,’ the practical consequences might be limited. But let’s also not forget that McCarthy, while begging his own members for their support during his protracted fight for the speaker’s gavel, agreed to tweak the motion-to-vacate-the-chair rules, which at least in theory, would make it easier for angry House Republicans to try to oust McCarthy from his leadership position.”

Adding the caveat that he is not predicting an imminent McCarthy ouster he added, “But if the scope of the Freedom Caucus’ discontent reaches a fever pitch, a hypothetical deal clears thanks to significant Democratic support, don’t be surprised if we all start hearing the phrase ‘vacate the chair” a lot more frequently.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.