Sochi Olympics: Rogge asks Russia to clarify gay law

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

The head of the International Olympic Committee has asked Russia to explain how its new law on gay propaganda might affect next year's winter games.

Jacques Rogge said in Moscow that Russian written reassurances over the Winter Olympics needed clarification.

"We don't think it is a fundamental issue, more a translation issue," Mr Rogge added.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23630868

[Politicalboi]

1. They either need to cancel the Olympic's with Russia

Or we have one hell of a protest on closing day. Rainbows EVERYWHERE, people marching in the streets.

[dipsydoodle]

2. I think you're the first here who has alluded to actually going there.

.

[another_liberal]

6. Excellent idea!

That is a plan with legs. Such a demonstration would force the hosts to either give it television coverage or bring shame on themselves for using heavy-handed techniques to stop it. Either way it would be a huge win for the demonstrators.

[ashling]

12. How about the opening?

imagine every delegation in the opening ceremonies carrying a rainbow flag.

[another_liberal]

13. Also excellent.

In fact, I think that would be even more effective.

[awoke_in_2003]

17. And it would help...

if all civilized countries did this. Let Russia know where we stand.

[Sotf]

18. You won't get all...

... but I expect to see this law tested to the extreme in ones and twos...

[another_liberal]

20. Yes!

Participants would not necessarily need to be gay themselves, they would simply be standing with their LGBT brothers and sisters. It could help open a lot of currently closed minds.

[markpkessinger]

3. The big issue isn't Russia's treatment of Olympic athletes . . .

. . . It's the human rights violations of LGBT persons in Russia generally. The IOC -- or failing that, the U.S. and its allies -- should be taking a strong stand against the human rights violations against Russia's own LGBT population, regardless of any assurances the Russian government might give about gay athletes!

[DeSwiss]

4. +1000

[dipsydoodle]

5. Subject is the games themselves : not the athletes.

.

[markpkessinger]

11. The subject is human rights, not Olympic Games or athletes n/t

[Bully Taw]

7. The IOC has no credibility

They had the games in Beijing despite many human rights issues there. This is all for show. No real substance.

[Amonester]

8. It's all for show, as long as the tons of cash will keep on landing in their deeppies...

Plutocrats Reign $upreme

And they all know it so well.

[Bully Taw]

9. exactly! n/t

[David__77]

14. You think only Western-style democracies should host Olympics?

If the IOC took that position, there would cease to be a truly global olympics; instead, we could have "Democratic Olympics," and "Islamic Olympics," and maybe "Eurasian Olympics," for Russia, China, Vietnam, and other republics in that region.

[Bully Taw]

21. no, not at all.

forget human rights. Lets have the next Olympics in The Congo, then maybe North Korea, and Jamaica after that. Because we don't want to offend those countries that celebrate oppression.

[DinahMoeHum]

10. The IOC has never met a repressive regime it didn't like.

Having said that, I think boycotting Sochi is a huge mistake. In the words of John Carlos, Olympic sprinter (1968) who knows a thing or two about human rights and sports:
". . .if you stay home, your message stays home with you,. . .If you stand for justice and equality, you have an obligation to find the biggest possible megaphone to let your feelings be known. Don't let your message be buried and don't bury yourself. To be heard is to be greater than a boycott. Had we stayed home, we'd never have been heard from again."

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9522926/gay-rights-sochi-boycott-movement

The Sochi Games are just begging for a Tommie Smith/John Carlos moment, right out there where the whole world can see it.

[Igel]

15. Some Russian sources find it amusing.

The IOC is unable to find somebody to properly translate a law.

It's here, by the way:
http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%BE%D1%82_30.06.2013_%E2%84%96_135-%D0%A4%D0%97

There's a problem word or two in there to translate, but this isn't a translation issue. When studying interpretation I was told that I might be in the position of being blamed when things went badly in communications even though I was spot-on with my translations. This was not uncommon and the professional thing to do (at the time, at least) was to simply repeat the accusations of interpreter incompetence in the other language. General rule: The translator/interpreter is not present and has no voice.

What the text says is clear enough, however goofy it is. How it's going to be enforced, what the courts will say the text means, that's not so clear. And there's more than a bit of paranoia and false claims on both sides.

[davidpdx]

16. Dear IOC

Please grow a pair of balls. It's not a translation issue, it's a human rights issue.

This is going to get swept under the carpet because. Hey they are Russia and they can do anything the fuck they want.

[Alamuti Lotus]

19. How is this for clarification?

"Our growth levels are flat-lining, and stoning the homos is easier than addressing the key issues behind our plummeting population"

[Posteritatis]

22. No, Rogge, I'm pretty goddamn sure it's a fundamental issue. (nt)