In a recent post, I wrote about the amount of ‘boot-licking’ a host city has to do in order to continually keep the IOC on its side. From the original bid document, through to the tearful farewell and wrap-up in Spring 2010, this city has been hosed, charged, and demanded-to from these officials to the point where we are now unsure of who actually this month-long (don’t forget the Special Olympics) festival. O.K., it is the largest one of it’s kind on the planet and, if they intend to make money from it in the future, any host city should be ready to invest. However, when items dictated to by the organisers start to cross certain lines, is it not up to the city to hold up a hand and argue it’s corner? Two cases in point raised in the last month argue this.
Every Olympic host city also presents a Cultural Olympiad for the arts that shows the best of your city, country, and extends a hand to other Olympic country travelling exhibits and troupes. Imagine being a winter sports fan, and taking a week out of your life to go to a welcoming town in a different part of the World, see the World’s best athletes compete in your favourite sports, then spend the evenings taking in fabulous artistic and cultural artists. If I had the odd hundred grand sitting around, I’d do it! Well, in a recent guideline handed down, it appears that these artists must contract to perform without making negative comments or the like concerning Olympic sponsors and the IOC! For dancers and opera singers, this may be OK, but perhaps not for you if you are a comic, painter, or actor. These people see a different view of things as a perfect point worth bringing up, but if someone gets excited and ad lib something along these lines in February or March 2010, their performance can be immediately stopped.
In a related issue, no negatives are allowed to be ‘presented in written form’ in public view. While designed to stop negative graffiti and posters in camera view of the globe’s TV viewers, this has been extended to the interior of businesses and residences! This means that if I have a “No to Visa” sentiment in an upstairs window of my house, a representative from my local city council (I live in a host suburb.), has the right to enter my house and take it down.
Now, in both of the above cases, we would have to be in an extreme situation for punitive measures, I understand this, but haven’t the IOC been told that this country has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantee free speech, and personal property rights? The IOC that aren’t putting these rules in place to protect itself – they are designed to keep negatives away from their sponsors. The largest global corporations on earth have the ability to order this, through the organisers. A soft drink company has the right to complain to an IOC rep, who will tell the local organiser, who will pass onto an elected local official to do the dirty.
I see the day when these games will only take place in totalitarian states – they may be used to taking orders blindly. How did Norway, Japan, and the US ever stand for this?
More on the torch relay to come – I have received a few enquiries about it – unless someone has a problem with that, and will block my internet link. Blogging may become an ‘undesired activity’ in Olympic cities.





Recent Comments