Protest and The Olympics Games go together like moisture and electronics. At least that has been the view of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which has tried to keep political demonstration out of the Games since at least 1975, when it instituted its so-called “Rule 50” of the Olympic charter. To wit: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”
Today, the rule strikes many as tin-eared to the historical moment, and pushback has been fierce – prompting the IOC to make small tweaks and concessions, relaxing enforcement of the rule somewhat. The gestures have been far too lame and tepid, many feel – among them were five KPE faculty who supported a petition opposing any limits to the freedom of expression in Rule 50.
With Beijing 2022 looming, how will the IOC’s protest-management chops be tested?
— Peter Donnelly
What happened in Tokyo? What kind of protesting did we see, and did the IOC back off of its enforcement of Rule 50?
Peter Donnelly: Several women’s soccer teams and rugby teams (including Canada) took a knee before their first games; that was allowed within the new “relaxed” parameters of Rule 50. An American shot-putter, Raven Saunders, made an X with her arms on the podium, and was immediately investigated by the IOC — who decided not to sanction her at this time when they discovered that her mother had just died. An American fencer, as he received his medal, revealed an X written on his palm. And a Costa Rican gymnast incorporated a BLM gesture into her routine. I haven’t heard whether any investigation has followed.
Bruce Kidd: I think the pandemic restrictions put a damper on any statements or protests we may have seen in the Village or the media zones, so it’s not clear whether the liberalized rule made any difference.
Janelle Joseph: We saw a few racialized athletes use the podia for political protest, but what we also saw at these games were Black women standing up for their personal rights and protecting their mental health. Simone Biles withdrew from several gymnastics events, though she was considered a favourite going in. Though hers wasn’t a protest in the traditional sense, Tokyo 2020 will be remembered as one of the Games where athletes said “enough!”
Read more about how Black women athletes ruptured limiting beliefs at the Tokyo Olympics
The news out of China this week — harsh “justice” for two Canadians held in prison — has cranked up tensions between China and the rest of the world over human rights violations in the country. Did the odds of a mass boycott of the 2022 Olympics in China just spike?
Peter Donnelly: It’s going to be interesting. I think the best we can say at this time is that there may be a diplomatic boycott; some countries may opt to not go. I suspect some major international sponsors are mulling whether being connected to these Games will hurt their brand. But it’s likely “the Games will go on” — unless there’s another major COVID spike. That could force their postponement – or give the IOC a convenient excuse to pull the Games from China. In any case, expect to see a major increase in media focus on China's human rights and sovereignty violations over the next six months.
Janelle Joseph: Several human rights organizations are calling for mass boycotts, equating attending the games with supporting China’s repressive policies. But we know that Olympic Game boycotts are largely ineffective and China would certainly win more medals in the absence of winter Olympians from Canada. This might only embolden the Chinese government.
Bruce Kidd: I don't think there’ll be a mass boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing. That would only put athletes in an untenable position — dealing them a second blow after these pandemic games. The IOC appoints most of its own members and is pretty much immune to political pressure. A better idea than a boycott, I think, is to put pressure on the IOC to endorse human rights and to allow full freedom of expression among athletes, with a full intercultural exchange right in the opening ceremonies.
Simon Darnell: I agree with my colleagues that a boycott is unlikely, and would also be ineffective in terms of medal counts, or in actually forcing a change in Chinese policy. But I also think it’s important to remember that the power of activism is often precisely symbolic. Activists send a message of non-compliance, and activism rests on a sense of conscientious objection. Activism does not require a particular outcome to be effective. Given the current actions of the Chinese regime, I think the symbolic power of a boycott remains attractive.
Read more about how boycotting the Beijing Olympics will hurt athletes
Even if athletes do show up, is it reasonable to expect them to keep their politics in check? (Or at least their expressions of dissent this side of “disruptive”?)
Peter Donnelly: I suspect that a number of athletes will find novel ways to protest China's human rights violations. If the response by Chinese authorities is too heavy-handed, or if the threatened sanctions for violations of Rule 50 are too heavy-handed, there could be collective action by athletes.
Janelle Joseph: Even within the bounds of Rule 50, athletes are allowed to share their political views on social media or within press conferences. I imagine many athletes will use their platforms, if not their podia, to draw attention to human rights violations.
Bruce Kidd: Remember, protesting at the Olympics has been around as long as there have been Olympics. (There was even an attempt to hold a “counter Olympics” in 1936 instead of sending athletes to Hitler’s Games.) You can’t keep the human conscience out of the athlete – nor do you want to.
What should the IOC do now — besides (in a perfect world) throwing Rule 50 over the side?
Bruce Kidd: I believe it’s the IOC’s obligation to protect athletes’ right to free expression and warn the Chinese that there will be huge reprisals, including the cancellation of the Games and the suspension of China from future Games if they try to suppress free speech.
Peter Donnelly: A lot of us remember the 2008 promise by Chinese authorities and the IOC that the Beijing Olympics would lead to greater human rights in China. Exactly the opposite happened. The IOC must be very worried about “the brand,” with a repressive Olympics following so closely on the heels of a pandemic Olympics.
Janelle Joseph: If the IOC stands by its own principles of Olympism, including promoting the “harmonious development of humankind,” and the Games “must go on,” at least they could be an opportunity to apply pressure on the Chinese government to change its practices and/or draw the attention of the world to these issues. The IOC claims to be non-partisan; however, it should not stand in the way of athletes sharing a pro-human rights message.
Simon Darnell: I think the IOC should acknowledge, either privately or publicly, that political activists of all kinds almost never wait, nor ask, for permission to speak their minds. Trying to regulate such behavior is a fool’s errand.
Bruce Kidd: When someone tells athletes not to do something, that becomes an invitation!