Stephen Fry's Letter Protesting Anti-Gay Russia

[Chicken bones]

I love Stephen Fry, have for years and years. This is an awesome letter to the IOC about the anti-LBGT regime in Russia and the upcoming Olympics. Like all his writing, worth a read.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/07/st ... d-cameron/

[Artemis]

I love this letter.

He is so right, I wish I knew a way to support him.

[Chicken bones]

I love this letter.

He is so right, I wish I knew a way to support him.

I suppose letter writing campaign to our IOC reps and sports association heads?

[Blahblah]

Is there no online movement supporting this already? I have to check Stephen Fry's website and if I can find anything I'll repost here.

ETA couldn't find anything. Did find a Daily Mail article asking why Mr Fry, given his sphere of endeavour and influence, didn't also call for an artistic and cultural ban on Russia given the number of artistic endeavors by Brit companies involving Russian plays and planned tours of Russia. Fair point really.

[Ariel]

Stephen Fry's argument is very convincing. The comparisons to the Berlin Olympics are very apt. But I keep going back and forth. I can't decide if an all out boycott is better than participating in the Olympics and actively protesting while there. Boycotting is certainly the safer (no athletes getting beaten/arrested) choice, but definitely not popular.

I would hope that as a second term president Obama would have the balls to at least threaten a boycott.

[canbritam]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e13641678/

According to this article about George Takei's stand on it, there is already an online petition on change.org.

[FakePigtails]

I don't know what the solution should be, but I do know I won't be watching the Olympics this year unless they're moved out of Russia (I'm not saying that's even a feasible solution, just that that's the only way I'd watch).

I completely agree with Stephen Fry and George Takei that if this were an issue of laws against religions there'd be no question of major changes to the games. And there'd certainly be no question if the laws were about skin color. It really bugs me when people have a nonchalant, or relatively nonchalant, attitude about homophobia when they'd be unquestionably disgusted if whatever offensive statement had been aimed at a religion or skin color (or sex, etc etc). That's what I'm seeing here.

ETA: What do you all think of the arguments about the athletes working hard therefore we shouldn't cancel or boycott the Olympics? It just doesn't convince me much. I do feel bad for the athletes but not enough to overlook human rights violations.

[Ariel]

ETA: What do you all think of the arguments about the athletes working hard therefore we shouldn't cancel or boycott the Olympics? It just doesn't convince me much. I do feel bad for the athletes but not enough to overlook human rights violations.

That's such a tough question. With the nature of athletics, there are some athletes who are in their prime now but due to age may not be able to participate in 2018. Considering that the Olympics is the pinnacle of an athlete's career for most sports, it seems cruel to take away what may be some athletes' only opportunity. But I agree, human rights are more important.

Something else to consider is the sense of international unity the Olympics create. I think that's more important than the athletics alone.

This would be so much simpler if the games were held elsewhere, and the IOC could just ban countries with human rights violations like Russia. Of course, The US has been accused of human rights violations with Guantanamo, so that's a slippery slope.

[crazyforkate]

...

This would be so much simpler if the games were held elsewhere, and the IOC could just ban countries with human rights violations like Russia. Of course, The US has been accused of human rights violations with Guantanamo, so that's a slippery slope.

Agreed, and who's determining which human rights violations are bad enough to take the Olympics out of a country? Okay, that question makes no sense, but I don't think banning countries is really the way to go. A better choice would be to leave it up to individual sponsors and countries, IMO. If someone big like the US pulls out like before, then the message comes across loud and clear. And the Olympics are even bigger as a cash cow now than they were back then - just imagine the loss of all the American tourists, companies, etc involved.

As for the athletes working hard, I've had this argument with my mom every day this week. (We have a family friend who competed in 2012, and I think she's all too quick to put herself in his shoes.) Frankly, it's an awful disappointment for the athletes involved - but do we spare the feelings of a few thousand, or effectively put a powerful (symbolic if not economic) sanction against a country perpetuating real and harmful persecution?

ETA: Fully aware that I'm saying this as the person moving to Russia soon...and I am pretty conflicted about that. Not to mention some of my friends have been kind enough to point out what an evil Putin-lover I must be. You know, the same people who will gleefully tell me how barbaric the US is and then happily go shopping in Spokane :angry-banghead:

[Arete]

The IOC is a nasty piece of work, and I have no expectation of them doing the right thing. While it would suck for the athletes if their countries pulled out of the games, they do not get any consideration from me in comparison to the human rights of people who have to live in the country.

It is going to be up to individual countries to boycott. The IOC is a business and their business interests come first, last, and always. No problem whatsoever with banning a country from Olympic participation. South Africa's very well deserved pariah status helped tip the scales for change there.

[crazyforkate]

It is going to be up to individual countries to boycott. The IOC is a business and their business interests come first, last, and always. No problem whatsoever with banning a country from Olympic participation. South Africa's very well deserved pariah status helped tip the scales for change there.

Yes, but South Africa never hosted the Olympics (can't remember if they were ever slated to do so). I'm sure the IOC wants to avoid pulling out of Russia and all the assorted logistics and financial loss that would come with it. They're not going to sanction something that will cause them that much trouble unless the situation really escalates. Maybe a ban starting in 2016 would do it?

[Arete]

There is no way in Hell-o Kitty that the IOC is going to ban the Russians after these games. Straight up? Gay rights just do not matter enough for those fat cats to take a principled stand. Gay people will continue getting beaten on the streets by neofascist thugs, they will continue to be erased from public life, and they will be so deep in the closet that their plight won't be visible to disturb all the moneymakers in the IOC.

This thread is really depressing me. :(

[wtylcf]

This topic has fallen out of the news in the past few days, but I wanted to chime in as someone who worked on Olympic projects for Vancouver previous to the 2010 Olympics: there is no way it would be possible to re-commission even the most recently built facilities for Olympic use. Olympic-sized speedskating tracks have been converted to community ice rinks; curling sheets of ice have been converted to classrooms and community centers. No one's going to spend money demo-ing the legacy stuff and re-installing the Olympic components, and the facilities need to be tested by the international sporting federations of each sport, usually by holding events there, a year prior to the games. While I absolutely support Stephen Fry's argument that holding the Olympics in Sochi is tantamount to accepting human rights violations, the proposed relocation solution is not viable. A boycott is the only reasonable solution I can see being realistically implemented, even though it would be heartbreaking for the athletes. Apologies for making this depressing thread even more depressing.

[louisa05]

It is absolutely not feasible to consider moving the games at this point. It is only 174 days away.

Also, to those saying other human rights violations would never be tolerated by the IOC and participating sports federations or countries, the 2008 Summer Games were in Beijing with very little talk of boycotts. A lot is tolerated.

[crazyforkate]

This topic has fallen out of the news in the past few days, but I wanted to chime in as someone who worked on Olympic projects for Vancouver previous to the 2010 Olympics: there is no way it would be possible to re-commission even the most recently built facilities for Olympic use. Olympic-sized speedskating tracks have been converted to community ice rinks; curling sheets of ice have been converted to classrooms and community centers. No one's going to spend money demo-ing the legacy stuff and re-installing the Olympic components, and the facilities need to be tested by the international sporting federations of each sport, usually by holding events there, a year prior to the games. While I absolutely support Stephen Fry's argument that holding the Olympics in Sochi is tantamount to accepting human rights violations, the proposed relocation solution is not viable. A boycott is the only reasonable solution I can see being realistically implemented, even though it would be heartbreaking for the athletes. Apologies for making this depressing thread even more depressing.

Agreed, not to mention that most Canadians really do not want to be stuck with another multibillion-dollar bill after just four years. There's a reason they rotate that stuff around besides prestige, guys.

[louisa05]

Agreed, not to mention that most Canadians really do not want to be stuck with another multibillion-dollar bill after just four years. There's a reason they rotate that stuff around besides prestige, guys.

You also bring up the fact that hosting is not all that lucrative as the cost is typically way more than the economic benefit.