Connect with us

Do Or Die Time For The 2014 Sochi Olympics

Published

on

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The International Olympic Committee, based in Lausanne, Switzerland, had originally withdrawn South Africa’s invitation to Japan based in part on the premise that South Africa’s discrimination in sport didn’t allow black and white athletes to compete.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refusal to publicly renounce racial discrimination in sport in newspapers and on the radio was enough to uphold the rescinded invitation.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 Annoy.com 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.

OPINION

Trump Threatens to Violate Gag Order and Go to Jail: ‘I’ll Do That Sacrifice Any Day’

Published

on

Just hours after a New York State Supreme Court Justice held Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court for violating his gag order and threatened him with jail time, the ex-president attacked several of the judges overseeing his cases, and suggested he may violate the gag order for the good of the U.S. Constitution.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and says you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day,” Trump claimed.

Trump is on trial for 34 criminal felonies for falsification of business records, which experts describe as election interference after he paid “hush money” to an adult film actress in an effort to keep his alleged affair away from the public eye just before the 2016 presidential election.

The ex-president, who announced his 2024 run for the White House, insiders say, to escape prosecution for a wide variety of alleged crimes, began his Monday post-trial news conference with reporters by criticizing the prosecution’s announcement it expects to wrap up its portion of the trial in about two weeks.

READ MORE: ‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

“The government just said that they want two to three more weeks,” Trump complained. “That means they want to get me off the [campaign] trail for two to three more weeks. Now, anybody in there would realize that there’s no case, they don’t have a case. Every legal scholar says they don’t have a case. This is just a political witch. It’s election interference. And this is really truly election interference, and it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace, and in every poll I’m leading by a lot.”

Those statements are false.

The New York Post reports, “Prosecutor Josh Steinglass estimated that the DA’s office would wrap up its case around May 21, two weeks from tomorrow. But he cautioned that’s a ‘rough estimate.'”

Concluding the District Attorney’s Office did have a case, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts.

A great many legal scholars say there is a case.

There is no evidence of a “political witch-hunt.”

Trump is not leading in all the polls, nor, in all the ones he is leading in, is he leading by “a lot.” Nor do political candidates get exempt from prosecution because they may be leading in a particular poll.

The ex-president went on to claim prosecutors “figure maybe they can do something here, maybe they can do, this case should be over, this case should have never been brought.”

“And then Alvin Bragg brought the case, as soon as, when I’m running and leading, that’s when they decided, let’s go bring a case. So it’s a disgrace. But we just heard two to three more weeks. I thought that we’re finished today and they are finished today. We look at what’s happening. I thought they were going to be finished today and then 2 to 3 more weeks,” he again complained, again saying prosecutors “all want to keep me off the campaign trail. That’s all this is about. This about election interference. How do we stop it? And it’s a disgrace.”

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Trump then brought up the gag order.

“Where I can basically, I have to watch every word I tell you people, you asked me a question, a simple question I’d like to give it but I can’t talk about it,” he claimed, falsely.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and say you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day.”

Trump attacked three of judges overseeing his case, excluding U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon.

“But what’s happening here is a disgrace and the appellate courts ought to get involved. New York looks so bad, system of so called justice was so bad between this judge and [Judge Arthur] Engoron and [Judge Lewis] Kaplan the triple teamed with the corrupt judges is a disgrace to our nation. So I should be out there campaigning.”

Watch Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

Published

on

Last year in January, in the wake of a study that found 650,000 children have developed asthma because of gas stoves, Bloomberg News reported: “US Safety Agency to Consider Ban on Gas Stoves Amid Health Fears.”

There was no ban in the works or on the way, and the chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was forced to issue a statement promising, “I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.”

Republicans however, went on the attack, with some, like U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), a physician, shouting on social media, “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!”

Congressman Jackson soon doubled-down, appearing on Newsmax.

One month later, West Virginia Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin teamed up with several Republicans to protect Americans’ “right” to non-electric cooking.

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

“Gas stoves have been in the news lately and I’ve come out strongly against the Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuing any ban of gas stoves,” Manchin declared, despite there being no possibility of that. “In fact, I’m introducing legislation today with Senator [Ted] Cruz that would ensure that they don’t and separately sending a letter to the commission with Senator [James] Lankford.”

For decades the scientific community has known about the health dangers of gas stoves, but Americans love them and there are no plans to have any federal government agency coming to take them away.

The Biden administration would like to help Americans buy new, energy-saving home appliances, but Republicans oppose those efforts as well.

Nearly sixteen months later, Republicans are still working to protect Americans from what some have suggested will be the federal government knocking on the doors of U.S. citizens to take away their gas stoves.

Last month, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson was all set to revive the House’s focus on ensuring Americans can continue to grill baby grill – indoors – childhood asthma-be-damned, and nearly put HR 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, and several others on the floor for votes, including:

The “Liberty in Laundry Act” (HR 7673), the “Clothes Dryers Reliability Act (HR 7645), the “Refrigerator Freedom Act” (HR 7637), the “Affordable Air Conditioning Act” (HR 7626), and the “Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act” (HR 7700).

But at the last minute he changed the schedule after aid to Ukraine and Israel became the national focus.

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

MSNBC’s Steve Benen reports Monday, “the ‘Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act’ … will likely reach the floor this week, possibly as early as tomorrow.”

One year ago this month, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) delivered amusing remarks during a House hearing.

“I want to apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party that we have decided to put kids’ safety, in their neighborhoods from getting gunned down, in movie theaters, or grocery stores, or school churches, or synagogues – we as Democrats have clearly lost our way that we are not focused on appliances,” Moskowitz said sarcastically in a viral video.

Now he’s back, along with the House Republicans’ renewed focus on the false fear-mongering the federal government is coming for your home appliances, or is going to ban them.

In response to Axios’ Andrew Solender reporting, “Appliance Week is BACK in the House!” Congressman Moskowitz replied, “Israel aid, Ukraine aid, Humanitarian aid, Kitchenaid.”

He then grew even more sarcastically excited:

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

News

‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Published

on

Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem continues to make media appearances promoting her new book, which has received massive attention for the story about her shooting to death her 14-month old dog, Cricket, and a goat, and her reportedly false claim she met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

But in discussing that apparent lie that appears in her book, Noem appeared to tell a few more – and seemed to suggest she may have actually met with Kim Jong Un but should not have put that meeting in her memoir. Experts have said it’s unlikely she did meet with him.

“The book is called, ‘No Going Back,’ but it sounds like the publisher, Center Street, is going back on a couple of the details in the book,” CBS Mornings told Noem.

“Well, I don’t believe so,” Noem replied.

After hearing the apparently false details of her alleged meeting with Kim Jong Un being read on-air straight from her book, Noem explained, “when I became aware of that we changed the content, and the future editions will be adjusted.”

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

Noem also said she’s “met with many, many world leaders, I’ve traveled around the world. I should not have put that anecdote in the book, and at my request they have removed it.”

She was then asked, “That specifically didn’t happen?” but Noem appeared to brush off the question.

“What I’m saying is I’m not talking about that meeting, I’m not talking about my meetings with world leaders, there are some that are in the book and there’s some that are not in the book.”

Asked, “Did you tell your ghost writer to write that?” Noem refused to answer the question.

“I specifically have worked on policy for over 30 years, and over that time I have traveled around the world and met with leaders around the world. And that anecdote, I’ve asked them to change the content, and it will be removed.”

“It’s a simple question, did you or did you not meet with Kim Jong Un?”

“That’s the answer that I have for you,” Noem replied.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

She also did not tell CBS why she chose to put it in the book at all, if she knew it was false.

Noem does not mention that she recorded the audio book version for “No Going Back,” and would have read those words about meeting with the North Korean dictator aloud, yet apparently did not ask her publisher to remove it until a local newspaper, The Dakota Scout, published a report starting her account of the event was “in doubt.”

On Sunday, Noem first began to suggest the meeting might have taken place. Speaking with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Axios reported, “Noem declined to talk about specific meetings she had with various world leaders, and never outright said she didn’t meet with Kim during the interview.”

A CBS News transcript of that interview shows “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan saying, “you released video of your recording of the audio book. you didn’t catch these errors when you were recording it?”

“Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected,” Noem responded, before leaping into an attack on the media.

Also on Sunday, The Independent reported, “North Korea experts say it’s highly unlikely Ms Noem ever met the North Korean leader.”

“From 2011 to 2018, Mr Kim did not leave North Korea, according to University of Notre Dame professor and North Korea expert George Lopez.” The Independent added, “Benjamin Young, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and an expert on North Korea, told The Dakota Scout that Ms Noem’s account of meeting Kim was ‘dubious.'”

“I cover North Korea very closely, and I have never heard of Kim Jong Un meeting congressmen or congresswomen,” Young said.

Watch Noem’s full CBS interview from Monday below or at this link.

READ MORE: RFK Jr., Embracing Far-Right, Spoke at Fundraiser for Anti-Government Group With J6 Ties

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.