The following is a response to the article “Shut up or stay home” by Gary Kingston in Saturday’s Canwest papers, in which it was reported that Dick Pound issued a stern warning to Canadian athletes who may be wrestling with the moral dilemma of competing in the Beijing Olympics due to, most notably, China’s role in the human rights issues in Tibet, and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
At present, many of the prominent IOC member nations have gone on record stating that there are no official plans to boycott these Games. And while he is not attending the opening ceremonies himself, Stephen Harper made it clear that it was not for the purpose of political statement (an official delegation is scheduled to be in attendance). As such, the proverbial baton has been ultimately passed to the hands of the athletes and their own moral judgment as to whether or not to participate in any political actions of protest or boycott.
Kingston mentions a couple of the activist groups and actions already in process, including Nikki Dryden (Team Darfur) and Romain Mesniol (pole vaulter, France) who are encouraging the use of the Olympic venue as a forum to speak out, or to display symbols of awareness and protest, however discreet. It is because of this kind of thoughtful action that I am reminded of a couple of important teachable moments relevant to these issues.
Dryden’s points about the need to take the entire Olympic Charter document under consideration is a valid and important one. Perhaps Dick Pound should heed that advice and consider more than the few lines of Rule 51, Subsection 3 about what is not acceptable at the Games and recall Rule 2 which outlines the Mission and Role of the IOC that Dryden cites. But there are more lessons here than simply those for Dick Pound.
Yes, the Olympic Charter should be cited more thoroughly in relation to the headline news events brought on by flashmob attacks on the Olympic torch relay, or reports of violent outbreaks against demonstrators in Tibet. Rule 2, sections 4 and 6 of the Charter are relevant here. They state that the mission and role of the IOC is to “cooperate with the competent public or private organisations and authorities in the endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby promote peace” and “to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement.”
While it may be difficult to note the direct relevance of these Charter mandates to these cases in particular, what should not be lost is the fact that people have been sufficiently motivated to take action to raise awareness of important socio-political issues. Governments have been sufficiently motivated to use extreme force to subdue discontented populations. And still larger, more widespread hunger, poverty, homelessness, violence and unrest goes relatively unmentioned. For many, the thought of even the most peaceful Games and their concomitant elaborate, excessive spectacles are hard to take when there is still so much suffering and inequality in the world.
It may sound like a novel concept, but we may need to be reminded that while the Olympic Games may be a celebration of human excellence, the mandate that it be done to such excess does highlight the fact that it is indeed nothing more than a decadent excess in contrast to the real living conditions of countless around the globe. Maybe, just maybe, we could reappropriate the Olympic ideal of celebrating human sporting excellence of an elite few and actually direct our efforts more towards a global humanity, and this might still be as glorious when the finish line is crossed. Perhaps even the avid fan of the Games could get a similar inspiration knowing that a greater good was being done, even at the expense of a fast run, high jump, or heavy lift.
The other teachable moment is found in Kingston’s reference to the “black power salute” by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. Pound’s stern warning that anyone breaking Rule 51 “will be dismissed” has historical precedent. Smith and Carlos were given a mere 48 hours to leave Mexico following their powerful gesture on the medal podium. Despite repeated attempts to intimidate them by the U.S.O.C. and the U.S. coaching staff, they did not break from their mission to make their statement.
You see, theirs was something more than a mere desire to “advance political beliefs.” They were at the heart of a much larger movement (Olympic Project for Human Rights) with an extended family including such notable figures as: Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), Elvin Hayes, Bill Russell, Bob Beamon, John Wooten, Jim Brown, and Muhammad Ali—all of whom were actively involved at the height of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.. Racial inequality in America at that time was a ‘serious’ issue and theirs was an incredibly powerful display made at great personal expense. For this to be recounted as a reason not to use the Games for political purposes 40 years later, I think the opposite effect might be the result.
Also worth noting is the fact several athletes have made political statements in the past without censure. 
Some have even been cause for various forms of celebration. “Canadian” (Mohawk) kayaker Alwyn Morris had an eagle feather on the podium in Los Angeles as a tribute to Aboriginal people in Canada, and to the lessons he learned from his father. “Australian” Cathy Freeman ran victory laps draped in the Aboriginal flag before adding the Australian version for good measure. Why are some of these symbolic acts punishable and not others? It can only testify to the complexity of global (political, economic, and cultural) power relations in and between nations.
As Harry Edwards, the organizer of the 1968 Olympic Boycott/Project for Human Rights reminds us, “the Olympic games are political, if nothing else. The fact that all participating nations do not compete under a single flag, the Olympic flag, but under their respective national flags, heightens their political flavor.”
To those athletes and citizens to whom Pound made his address, do not be intimidated by a hollow threat of dismissal by the IOC. This posturing is indicative of a paranoia that a tarnish will be left on the Games. I think we all know that what has gone on already can assure us that these Games are not innocent or unblemished. Regardless of where you stand on these broad and specific issues, you will be confronted with having to make a choice. Whatever decision you reach is a deeply personal one, and only you will have to live with the consequences. Smith and Carlos may have been sent home and not given NFL offers immediately after those ’68 Games, but who else do you remember from that year? Who else has become as ubiquitous a symbol for resistance and change? Who else made a difference?
You can shut up and stay home if you want. Or you can stand up, and show us what citius—altius—fortius really means when talking about the human spirit, not just bodies. The choice is yours, not Dick Pound’s.
