The protests against China and the Olympic flame have fascinated me on many levels.
On the one level I am in awe of the passion people have in protesting (my protesting days are well in the past). On another level I am horrified by some of the comments against the protesters that members of the IOC have been saying.
Kevin Gosper an Australian on the IOC has been scathing of the protesters, saying they are full of hate and they are diminishing the validity of the meaning of the Olympics.
How dare Kevin Gosper get all high and mighty, after all it was he who pulled strings so his daughter could carry the Olympic flame on its way to the Sydney 2000 Olympics!
It's not just a theoretical ethical discussion, we are talking about people being murdered, forced into labour camps and being denied natural (or any) Justice for that matter by the Chinese Government.
I am always told when you are protesting or arguing you must have a realistic outcome, in this case there are realistic outcomes. The outcomes we want involve China accepting basic human rights in places like Tibet.
Yes the Olympics is supposed to be a non political sporting arena (in theory anyway). In practice the Olympics is a highly politicised world event where one country competes against another and one ideology competes against the other.
I don't agree that China should not have been awarded the Olympics, I believe that by letting China host the Olympics the world is focusing on their terrible Human Rights record. And I strongly believe that the protests and the world's attention may have a positive impact on Chinese policy.
The world is not a vacuum and by simply have the world's attention placed on the Human Rights abuses things will change.
For things to change sometimes people must protest (I am not an advocate of violence) but sometimes blood must be split for a revolution to happen.
Just think of the gay Rights movement, blood has been split in the name of change.Labels: politics