Athletes vs Human Rights

When you put it this way, many athletes might feel kinda baaaad…

Many people are justifying ‘not boycotting’ the Olympic games in Beijing by calling attention to the plight of the athletes:  these people have trained and sacrificed, to be at the pinnacle of their form, so they could perform at these games!  Denying them the chance to go could dash their Olympic hopes forever, because it is unlikely that most of them will be able to remain at their highest performance level for four years.

So, what should one say to an athlete who has perhaps sacrificed a lot, instead of investing in a career and a home, they have invested in training and now it will all be for naught?  I have an answer! 

Get a life!

Sports are a hobby!  It is something we do for fun and pleasure – and to keep ourselver healthy.  It is ‘self-care’. 

How do I know it?  Because if I want to buy a membership in an athletic club, go swimming in a public pool, ride a bicycle, play ball on a sports field – I have to pay for it!  Just like I have to pay for my haircut, my facial, my manicure… and these are also necessities for a competition!  A different competition, to be true, but a completition based on physical attributes, their training and presentation!  Except that the other beauty contests are nowhere near as politicized as the Olympic Games are, were, and always will be.

Are you getting angry yet? 

Good!  You should be.

Comparing the preparation and dedication necessary to compete at the Olympic games to those of a beauty contest is ludicrous (though some little girls might differ).  Yes, beauty contestants also need it – but the degree of magnitude is somewhat lower.  Importance, and all that…

Now imagine the degree of dedication it takes to stand up for human rights against an opressive, callous, arrogant giant like the Peoples’ Republic of China!

Yes, a few degrees of magnitude greater than the athletes need to get ready for the Olympics!  

So, now, perhaps you can understand the anger that decent people feel rise up within them when someone worries about dissapointing the athletes… or places their desire for self-validation above the very survival of a peoples threatened with genocide!

Olympics, Politics…and other ‘-icks’

To boycott or not to boycott – that is the question!

At least, that is the question on everyone’s mind.  But why?

So many people who wish the Olympics to go on ‘as usual’.  “Don’t drag politics into the Olympics!’ they say.  “The athletes have trained hard for this pinnacle of their efforts – most will not stay in top shape for the next Olympics!”  “The athletes have two great moments:  when they perform, and when they walk into the Olympic Stadium behind their country’s flag during Opening Ceremonies – you cannot deprive them of this!”  “What would boycotting the games accomplish?”

What a load of dingo’s kidneys!!!

 Let’s take a closer look…

1.  Olympics in the ancient times 

From their inception, the Olympic games were about politics and reilgion!  And there were wars fought over who would control the games – and reap the political benefits from doing so.  Yes, the favour of various deities was vied for, but that would be in the form of real polititcal advantages for the host city-state.

So, for all those people loudly shouting that ‘politics should not be dragged into the Olympic games’ – politics was why they were started!

Of course, if you really want to be true to the ancient Olympic spirit, you will only run 2 footraces for naked men and 2 footraces for 16 women…. Oh, and all the participants must be able to speek Greek.

Ah, but those were just them silly ancients!  We are so way above dragging politics into the modern Olympic games!  Yeah, right.  Pull the other one!

2.  Modern Olympic Games

Why were the Modern Olympic Games revived?  Well, in a nutshell, because the French could not get over loosing the Franko-Prussian war – and thought this would be a political payback.  Some very cynical people (and I would never endorse this point of view myself – I simply report it, since people are questioning the ‘politicization’ of the games) have claimed that the French could not win the war… but they thought that if the discipline was running, they just might excell.  So they decided to put on a running race…  The ancient Olympia was just found by archeologists, so the idea presented itself – and the first games were symbolically placed in Greece.  Legitimacy through tradition, and all that political stuff.  But, to drive the French political agenda, the very next one went to Paris…

Ah, but it was not political after this!

Yeah, right.  And water is not falling from the skies when it rains!  In the interest of brevity (!), let us look at just one example:

Twenty two countries boycotted the Montreal Olympics in 1976, not because Canada did anything, but because they allowed in athletes from New Zeland.  And what did the government of New Zeland do, that was so very terrible?  Nothing.  Just some New Zeland athletes dared to play sports with a country whom these twenty two countries thought (correctly) to be oppressive.

Yes, let us review.  Canada did not opress anyone.  New Zeland did not opress anyone.  But, some athletes from new Zeland took part in a sports event (not paying attention to politics) with non-opressive athletes from an opressive country, and other athletes from New Zeland, who were never part of that sport, were going to the games in Canada… so the Canadian games were boycotted.  That would make Canada, the host, three degrees separated (if not more) from the opression itself.

Gee, I wonder what would have happened if Canada had actually opressed someone…..would have been very lonely games!

So, what country was it, that got Canada boycotted, because one of their visitors once played with them?  What was that country’s crime?  Ah, it was the racial opression in South Africa!  And the racially opressive practices of the South African government of those days truly were deplorable.  Targetting a portion of a country’s population, and brutally opressing them, because of their ethnicity!  Shame, shame, shame, shame!!!

Yeah, that is soooo very differen than the situation today:  OK, so China is targetting and brutally opressing a portion of their population, because of their Tibetan ethnicity… but, well, this is China!!!  They have all the money, and unlike South Africa, we want access to their market and their cheap stuff!!!  Yeah, and the Tibetans are so annoying – represented as they are by that Dalai Lama:  always smiling, preaching non-violence and wanting people to get along!  Sheesh!  And who trusts a religious leader without any major scandals under his belt, anyway???

 So, why is Archbishop Desmond Tutu (another one of them holy men without a major scandal – unless you consider the Nobel Peace prize a scandal – like the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Tutu has one), the one man who truly peacefully laboured for the end of opression in South Africa, why is he supporting the boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games? 

Could it be that he is colourblind?

A Soldier’s gift

Most of the world is watching the circus leading up to the US elections, whether they want to or not, because our media is inundated with it.  And, while 0.01% of what they beam at us may actually be interesting, many important things which will impact our daily lives remain barely covered.

OK, OK, so this is happening in Canada….

But, to all you Americans out there, please, pay attention!  Why?  Because more often than not, Canada serves as USA’s political ‘canary in the mineshaft’…  Yet it took months before even the Canadian media raised its sleepy head and, bleary-eyed, began to sip its ‘Timmy’s coffee’ and realize what is actually going on. 

So, if you have missed this story so far, here is a quick recap:

Long time ago, when hippies just began to leave outdoor concerts and started applying their activism to setting up bureaucracies, Canada saw the establishment of these so called ‘Human Rights Commissions’:  each province got one of its own, but to be sure, one overarching ‘Canadian HRC’ was set up as well.  And, as many drug-inspired dreams, while the intent was good … the practice sucked.

And unquestionably, the intent was good.  Really good.  The HRC was to serve as a kind of a ‘small claims court’ for protecting human rights.  People who were not allowed to rent an apartment because they happened to be black, or not served in a restaurant because they were ‘Oriental’ (which had actually happened to my friends in the 1990’s) could go there and get help, without the stress and strain of getting a lawyer and launching an expensive lawsuit.   In other words, the HRC’s were to make sure that justice was not denied to anyone.

But, as the saying goes, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. 

These ‘Human Rights Commissions’, however well intentioned, were drafted up in a bit of ‘purple haze’, with predictable results.  And while it may or may not have been so intentioned, their constitutions’ ‘Section 13’ actually prohibits communication (even private) or anything else “that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.  Translation:  Section 13 bans ‘thought crime’!!! 

These HRC’s are not proper courts:  once they receive a complaint, their officers investigate, draft a report with recommendations, and then the HRC announces their ruling.  To show how effective this ‘investigator-prosecutor-judge’ system is, to date, the federal Human Rights Commission enjoys 100% conviction rate…  Hey, what are all these kangaroos doing in Canada?

Currently, there are two very high profile cases under investigation by the various HRC’s. 

  1. The newsmagazine Macleans published an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book.  This included a quote from an Imam in Norway, where the Imam boasted that the birth rate among European Muslims was very high:  the IMAM used the phrase that the Muslims were ‘multiplying like mosquitoes’….  Decidedly, this is disrespectful:  which is why it is important that we all realize that an Imam would actually say that!  I read that article when it first came out, and the quote was duly attributed.  Yet, a complaint was laid at the HRC against both Macleans and Mr. Steyn for spreading hate against Muslims for printing that quote.
  2. Two years ago, worldwide violence broke out because a Danish paper published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad AND because some Danish mullahs manufactured some even more offensive cartoons and distributed them in the Middle East, claiming them to be part of the ‘Danish cartoons’.  The reactions were vitriolic and violent, people were murdered, churches set on fire, yet very few ‘Western media’ saw it fit to let us know what the subject of this violence was actually about.  In Canada, The Western Standard was one newsmagazine that dared to publish them.  In no time at all, the magazine and its editor, Ezra Levant, were being dragged in front of one of the HRC’s…..and a $100,000 in legal fees later, the Western Standard is only online and Mr. Levant is still trying to defend himself.

Mr. Levant did a very clever thing:  he actually taped his interrogation in the HRC’s modern-day dungeon.  Parts of it are now on YouTube…my favourite ones are ‘Attributes of Free Speech’ and ‘I don’t answer to the state’.  And, I read his blog, where there are many updates on this, as well as other ‘stuff’ about the HRC’s and the state of freedoms in our Western society.

Which is where I came across a letter, written to Mr. Evant, from a Canadian soldier on the front-line in Afghanistan….a true hero.  I must admit, it left me speechless…and touched me in places I thought I had long ago walled off with cynicism.  The soldier has some very deep insights, and though he is not rich, he donated $1,000 of his danger pay to help Mr. Levant’s defence fund!  Please, take a few moments and read that letter….it puts so much into perspective…

Thank you.

Cultural Tolerance – Part 1: Setting the stage

This is a bit off topic for me – I never planned to write about this.  But, with all the broo-ha-ha stirred up when the Archbishop of Cantebury, Dr. Williams, called for establishing a parallel legal system in Britain, based on Sharia law, my blood started to boil.  I am an immigrant, having come to North America from a non-democratic, non-English speaking country, I have integrated quite successfully.  I volunteer teaching English as a second language.  In the past, I have created ‘stay-at-home’ jobs for immigrant women from more oppressive backgrounds, empowering them and helping them connect with their new society. 

As such, I have had the opportunity to observe this ‘cultural tolerance’ from both sides – as the immigrant and as a member of the cultural mainstream.  And I am absolutely amazed at how basic concepts can become so muddled…to the detriment of both sides. Please, indulge me in this rant on WHAT we should – and perhaps more importantly, what we should NOT – tolerate with respect to immigrants coming to a society from a foreign culture.  This is for the benefit of us, immigrants, as well as us, the host society (I have made the integration successfully, and so feel part of both groups…). 

First and foremost, immigrants come to a new country in order to improve their life and to provide a better future for their children.  Perhaps this is not a universal statement, but I am willing to bet that it comes pretty close.  So, right off the bat, there is something ‘good’ about the new society that we have come to seek. 

When immigrants first arrive, things can be overwhelming:  new language, new surroundings, unknown expectations…because even if you read a lot about your new land, (I memorized the 84 page brochure I got at the Canadian embassy during my interview), things are never quite the same as in the ads.  Some are better, some are worse, some are just different. 

And even for a person who did try to learn English before, being immersed in the language for the first few weeks created incredible fatigue and triggered a unique type of headaches.  I was surprised at how my jaw, cheeks and tongue hurt after hours of flexing my speech muscles into positions they were not used to. 

In situations like this, in the first few weeks, it is very helpful if other immigrants, who had arrived years or decades earlier, from the same culture, speaking the same mother tongue, can help one orient themselves.  It is a relief to ‘tune out’ English for half-an-hour and chat with someone without fishing for every phrase, worrying if a mispronounced word would give offense.  (I’m not joking:  I know a guy who just about got beaten up because when his neighbour invited him for dinner, he tried to compliment his wife on the desert….and mispronounced the word ‘cake’.  Until I explained, he had no idea that cake is not pronounced ‘cock’.) 

It is understandable that the immigrants should form loose communities, offering each other support.  It is also very much appreciated when people in the host community show a great deal of leeway to newly arrived immigrants who are trying to learn the language and culture both.   

The key here is:  ‘newly arrived’ and ‘trying to learn’. 

The problem arises when government agencies, seeing the help new immigrants receive from their fellow ex-patriots, think that they are somehow making things easier on the newcomers if they contract these immigrant communities to help the newcomers settle in.  This gives the immigrant association incredible control over the newly arrived people:  and what’s worse, now money is involved. The money attracts precisely the wrong kind of person:  busybodies who did not integrate into the new society well enough to have a busy career, and controlling the newcomers’ integration gives them the status they could never earn on their own merits.  If you don’t see this for the recipe for disaster that it is, I’m not sure what I could write to make it clear. 

These people boost their self by controlling as much as possible in the lives of newcomers.  And since these do not know any better (after all, the government entrusted this person with their care, so even if they did, it would not help them much), they accept the control – and the often distorted picture of the host culture painted to them so the busybody could retain control.  This officially sanctioned isolation leads to nothing less than ghettoization and actually prevents successful integration of newcomers into society. 

To a smaller degree, this can occur in all places, even without government financing it.  Seeking support at the beginning can trap newcomers in a cycle of obligations that are hard to escape, while preventing them from forming ties outside the immigrant community. I have seen it, felt its pull, and struggled against it.  Till today, I have friends among immigrants from my ethnic background, there is nothing wrong in that.  But I am careful to balance my friends and acquaintances among many backgrounds, keeping myself firmly within mainstream culture.  And while I do volunteer to help newcomers learn English, I never reveal my first language and usually request that they not tell me theirs, either. 

After all, we have left our past behind….   

Coming next: 

Part 2 – WHAT we should and should not tolerate                       

Part 3 – HOW we should and should not tolerate

And we are…..?

“Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be preferable to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”
                                                            – C.S. Lewis
 

So, where exactly does that put us?