“THE PRACTICE OF SPORT IS A HUMAN RIGHT. EVERY INDIVIDUAL MUST HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF PRACTICING SPORT, WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND.” -The Olympic Charter
Focusing more closely on the Sochi Games, the IOC has conducted several investigations into the exact impact the new anti-gay legislation will have on the Olympic athletes. On September 26th, 2013, the IOC released a report stating that it was “satisfied” with the Russian government’s explanation of the law and how it will not apply to athletes at the Games. Their findings, while deemed official, seem to be entirely contrary to the guidelines the IOC itself has written for the meaning of the Games and the rights of the athletes participating. The official Olympic Charter explicitly states, “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind.” This portion of the charter was cited specifically in a swift response by the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group that works to ensure equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Their spokesperson, Chad Griffin, voiced his organization’s displeasure with the IOC’s announcement by saying, “If this law doesn’t violate the IOC’s charter, then the charter is completely meaningless.” He would go on to declare that, “the safety of millions of LGBT Russians and international travelers is at risk, and by all accounts the IOC has completely neglected its responsibility to Olympic athletes, sponsors and fans from around the world.” Unfortunately, this is not the first time politics has entered the arenas previously reserved only for athletes, with past examples not necessarily supporting the human rights-centered ideology proclaimed by the Olympic Charter either. In 1968, at the height of the struggle for racial equality in the United States, the summer Olympics were held in Mexico City. Unfortunately, the most enduring moment of the Games came not during competition, but during a medal ceremony. While on the podium receiving their medals for the 200 meter race, American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who had taken 1st and 3rd respectively, each donned a black glove and raised a single fist into the night air. This act, a salute to the struggle of oppressed blacks under American segregation laws, led to an enormous backlash from the IOC. They immediately rescinded Smith and Carlos’ medals and banned the two from the Olympic Village where the rest of the athletes were staying. When the U.S. delegation refused to accept this punishment, the IOC threatened to disqualify the entire U.S. track and field team from the Games. Under this threat, the US relented and agreed to the disqualifications. While this is certainly not the only time the IOC has limited the personal, political speech of athletes, it is certainly one of the most well-publicized. The lasting legacy of the incident shows that the IOC has historically had a zero tolerance policy for expressions of opinion, and their attitude towards the upcoming Games is no different. While protection from the Russian legal system has been “guaranteed” by the IOC, it still reserves the right to issue their own competition-related punishments for any form of political self-expression. The threat of disqualification looms large for competitors, but many, including Steve Holcomb, an American bobsledder, agree that perhaps the best outlet for their dissention is through the talents that are taking them to Russia in the first place. “It would be so much better to go over there and kick their butt,” said Holcomb. “That, right there, would say so much.” As the clock ticks ever closer to the Opening Ceremonies in Sochi, international pressure will continue to grow. The eyes of the world will fix their gaze firmly on Russia and, with luck, the nation’s stance on equality will be called into question. For the athletes, the Games will represent more than just an athletic competition. Realistically, even the strongest among them do not have the power to elicit change by themselves. Rather, they will arrive in Russia with only their talent to display; skills they will use in support of their nations that do have the power to create change in the world. Sadly, for the spectators and fans attending the Games the threat of imprisonment will almost certainly remain, despite the IOC’s allusions to the contrary. Will the Games of 2014 bring change to a society that is quickly falling behind the rest of the world? Will spectators voicing their personal opinions be punished for speaking their minds? Will the 2014 Games finally thrust the purpose and mission of the Olympics, one of equality and respect for all, back into a global spotlight? Only time will tell.
UHURU MAGAZINE // FALL 2013 // 39