Beijing muzzles athletes from around the world; let the fun begin

I have no doubt that there will be plenty of athletes who will sign the contract just to have the opportunity to compete in the Games. Only the principled ones will decline.

The Times is now running a story saying that the British Olympic Association has agreed to remove that clause from the agreement: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article3346239.ece

Simon Clegg, of the association, said that it had not intended to go beyond the requirements of the Olympic charter — which bars demonstrations and propaganda — “nor is it our desire to restrict freedom of speech, and the final agreement will reflect this”.

Did this originate from China or Britain? From the Daily Mail article, it sounds like the latter:

British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China's appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing.... [my emphasis]

The BOA took the decision even though other countries – including the United States, Canada, Finland, and Australia – have pledged that their athletes would be free to speak about any issue concerning China....

The BOA is taking a far more stringent stance than authorities in other countries. Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates said: “What we will be saying to the athletes is that it's best to concentrate on your competitions.

“But they're entitled to have their opinions and express them. They're free to speak.”

Jouko Purontakanen, secretary general of the Finnish Olympic Committee, said: “We will not be issuing instructions on the matter. The freedom of expression is a basic right that cannot be limited."

There's not even a mention in here that the clause is China's idea (it might be, but that's not what the article says). Maybe the headline, but copyeditors write headlines and mischaracterize things appallingly often.

ZNH certainly has twisted the words to make the Chinese authorities more sinister than what the article itself can prove.

@ Turtlewind: Thanks for the update.

@ Mike: You're right, the British Olympic association is/was requiring it to be signed. But one can only assume that this was suggested by China (I can't see Britain coming up with this on its own).

Cam,
"But one can only assume that this was suggested by China", nice logic, keep going.

What benefit would Britain have to bring this up on their own? Britain must have a motive for doing this, because it hasn't been required in past Olympic games.

The motive may not have been explicit: ie, the Chinese authorities may not have specifically asked. However it may have been hinted, or, perhaps Britain was trying to impress the Chinese hosts.

Bottom line, Britain doesn't just ask athletes to sign away their freedom of speech without some sort of motivating factor.

Cam,

This is better reasoning. One can, perhaps, think that this might have been suggested/hinted by China. (or self censorship?)

The motivating factors perhaps include a good few. For example, you scratch my back, I will scratch yours.

I just wonder how well it would go in 2012 if there are banners/comments/interviews/reports/protests.... of the following in London:
"Free Northern Ireland" (for DUP and UUP supporters especially),
"Free Folkland(at least better than the other name)"
"Scottish Independence",
"Detention without trial (only for a few weeks, offically sanctioned however)",
"Bug people's represetatives, (but only on those lamb eating ones)
"Return those stolen/robbed treasures",
"Apologize to and compensate those GB have tortured, slaved and murdered"
"Free Iraq"
"Blood for oil Olympics"
etc and etc.

Common sense, you do not go to somebody else's house for a party and play finger pointing games at your host on their turf. That just doesn't go well with anybody (remember "freedom fry"?). You can choose not to attend, diplomaticaly or not. You can critisize them at your home, on the street or in any pulic domain.

Cam said:

"one can only assume that this was suggested by China (I can't see Britain coming up with this on its own)."

Then why hasn't any word leaked about the Chinese government pressuring other countries? It seems that if the Chinese government formally took this idea to Britain, then it probably took this idea to other countries, none of whom have said anything about any such request (boilerplate comments "athletes are free to say what they want," doesn't indicate any official pressure).

Cam said:

"The motive may not have been explicit: ie, the Chinese authorities may not have specifically asked. However it may have been hinted, or, perhaps Britain was trying to impress the Chinese hosts."

Then that (which does seem more likely) justifies a headline like "China would prefer Olympic athletes not speak about sensitive political matters,"; which is common sense and the government's official policy. It does not justify the headline, "Beijing muzzles athletes from around the world."

Mike,

You should realise that the choice of news/report/story headline in the FREE world is part of the HOLY "freedom of speech", i.e. you speak whenever, whereever, in front of whoever of whatever you want.

teen web cams nude

teen web cams nude

web chat teen cams