German president to boycott Olympics in Russia over human rights
edition.cnn.com
edition.cnn.com
I live in Germany and I wouldn't have been able to name him.
All in all we've been lucky with our presidents. Von Weizsäcker, Rau, Herzog, all of them good people.
I'm still not sure about Gauck, he seems very secluded and withdrawn to me.
So... you think the Olympics are a bad idea. no judgment, I'm not a fan of nationalistic dick measuring and governments lighting money on fire either.
Also for that matter, what about the gay athletes how the hell are they supposed to not be involved in this type of stuff?
(2) Elite sports is already big politics and big business.
(2) Unlike in the US, a lot of Olympic sports (boxing, figure skating) specifically focus on NON-professionals (i.e. people who don't earn money doing what they are doing).
As soon as there is big money involved (which is definitely the case with the Olympic Games), sports and politics are always mixed. Countries have to spend billions in order to make the games happen. This is not just a few people doing sports for just the sports.
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/no-maoris-no-tour-po...
If you have something to prove, then prove it at the Olympics. Use it as an opportunity to change people's perceptions.
Could you imagine what was going through Adolf Hitler's mind when he saw Jeese Owens during the 1936 Olympics? Or, back in the US, where racism was commonplace and African-Americans were treated as "inferior".
Interesting fact about Jeese Owens: He was never acknowledged for his achievements until President Dwight Eisenhower.
(Not making a point, just remarking.)
> Could you imagine what was going through Adolf Hitler's mind when he saw Jeese Owens during the 1936 Olympics?
For the curious, we actually know what Hitler's reaction was. This is how Albert Speer, who was in the box with him at the time, described it:
"He was highly annoyed by the series of triumphs by the marvelous colored American runner, Jesse Owens. People whose antecedents came from the jungle were primitive, Hitler said with a shrug; their physiques were stronger than those of civilized whites and hence should be excluded from future games." [Inside the Third Reich, 1970]
The nature of the relationship between Hitler and Jesse Owens is quite different from the relationship between FDR and Jesse Owens.
Points of comparison would either be a hypothetical successful German Black athlete and how Hitler would treat that person (not allow him or her to participate is the answer to that) or a hypothetical successful non-US black athlete and how FDR would treat that person.
As is quite obvious from your quote, Hitler still perceived Jesse Owens (and black people in general) as sub-human and was very outspoken about that. There is racist ideology oozing out of that statement. It’s consistent with everything else he has said about race.
FDR was obviously also racist, no question about that, but there is a difference between Hitler’s and FDR’s racism.
Jesse Owens’ own focus was very understandably on his own and others’ Blacks troubles they were facing in racist segregated America at the time.
And we're talking about an actual war, not some political disagreement. Those athletes would probably try to kill each other the next month or so.
It's really sad that people take advantage of such a great event to gain attention for different causes, even if those causes are right. It happens every single time.
Countries will always have disagreement no matter what. Save those for a later time. Not the Olympics.
At the moment, nobody really wants to disrupt this summer's World Cup in Brazil by threatening drastic measures like withdrawing from FIFA. After that, who knows.
There will be a lot more noise from fans, for sure. I don't know whether that will translate into action at a national level. The sport really doesn't need such a bloated and corrupt governing body, and if you get just a few of the major nations from Europe and South America agreeing to go another way, FIFA could quickly collapse.
The reason I ask is because the linked article http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/01/world/europe/russia-gay-ri... about the law has the quote "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations around minors." which sounds reasonable to me.
Please note I don't want to see analysis of the law (as everything I saw while searching seemed biased), I want to see what it actually says. I want to see the other side of the argument before I cast any personal judgement over this.
Please note I am not homophobic, or against non-traditional relationships, I just want to hear the other side of the argument, especially when it would appear based on what I saw that the majority of Russians agreed with it.
"Here is what Article 6.21 actually says:
Propaganda is the act of distributing information among minors that 1) is aimed at the creating nontraditional sexual attitudes, 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive, 3) equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations.
If you’re Russian. Individuals engaging in such propaganda can be fined 4,000 to 5,000 rubles (120-150 USD), public officials are subject to fines of 40,000 to 50,000 rubles (1,200-1,500 USD), and registered organizations can be either fined (800,000-1,000,000 rubles or 24,000-30,000 USD) or sanctioned to stop operations for 90 days. If you engage in the said propaganda in the media or on the internet, the sliding scale of fines shifts: for individuals, 50,000 to 100,000 rubles; for public officials, 100,000 to 200,000 rubles, and for organizations, from one million rubles or a 90-day suspension.
If you’re an alien. Foreign citizens or stateless persons engaging in propaganda are subject to a fine of 4,000 to 5,000 rubles, or they can be deported from the Russian Federation and/or serve 15 days in jail. If a foreigner uses the media or the internet to engage in propaganda, the fines increase to 50,000-100,000 rubles or a 15-day detention with subsequent deportation from Russia."
I think that this says that advocating for equality is a crime. Scary.
[1] http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-la...
I can see how advocating for equality can be listed as a crime based on what's listed there though. Its interesting that the word "propaganda" is used which leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. Point 3 is the sore point it seems, although I can see why its in there as you would not want to equate child-adult relationships which this would prevent. It all hangs on the word "nontraditional"
I find the organisation fine interesting. Could you use this to fine Focus Features for distributing the film "The Kids Are All Right" in Russia?
EDIT - The linked article actually points out that the key words are propaganda and nontraditional. I still want to see the whole law though as those should be defined somewhere.