AOC, athlete freedom of speech, and the Olympics

ABC 730 Report: John Coates, President of the Australian Olympic Committee, discusses the Beijing Olympics, the torch relay, and clears up some confusion regarding freedom of speech for Australian Olympic athletes

On Wednesday night’s 730 Report on the ABC Kerry O’Brien spoke with John Coates, President of the Australian Olympic Committee. In this interview Coates cleared up the confusion surrounding freedom of expression of any athlete’s personal views through internet blogs during the Olympics Games. It’s good to hear Coates say that athletes are “entitled to express an opinion and we've said that they can do that on Tibet, on human rights and other such issues.” Furthermore, on the issue of freedom of speech in press conferences, Coates was very clear that any athletes “who come along to a press conference and want to say two their two bobs worth on Tibet, it's fine by me.”

What continues to remain shrouded in confusion is what the repercussions will be if athletes are to wear a t-shirt expressing a positive message for human rights, or even a badge. Coates stated that “what we do want [the athletes] to respect though is the Olympic charter restriction on not having physical demonstrations at the Olympic venues or in the Olympic Village and that comes down to wearing T-shirts that might be anti-Tibet or whatever.” Although physical or political demonstrations would be in breach of section 51.3 of the Olympic Charter, wearing a human rights badge would not. Human rights are not political, they are universal, and hence promoting them is not political, it is simply an embrace of the beauty of humanity and the universal human spirit. That surely would be in line with the uniting messages of the Olympic Charter.

Other interesting points during the interview were that Coates had expected to torch relay to be ambushed, and that he felt there will be a very high level of security and bureaucracy for the Beijing Olympic Games. Coates suggested that he expected the relay would attract human rights activists, whether specific or general, but that the Tibetan protests were so well organized that China was caught off guard. China has reacted firmly to the Tibetan protests, and added government layers of bureaucracy to the running of the Beijing Olympic Games. Two grossly different figures were presented for the number of security personnel who are to be present at the Games; O’Brien suggested 500,000, and Coates suggested 110,000, although acquiesced that O’Brien’s figure may be correct.

If so many security personal are to be present, and China itself has very strict rules against protesting about human rights or any other ‘sensitive’ issue, the only possibilities for athletes to express personal views without personal risk may well be through blogging and media interviews. Therefore, the statements by Coates that such freedoms of speech have the OK by the Australian Olympic Committee are very welcomed. Hopefully at some stage before the Olympic Games Coates will clear up lingering confusion about what support Australian athletes will receive if they are to wear a general positive human rights badge and feel the wrath of the security forces under Chinese law. After all, athletes should have the freedom to express their support of human rights without risking having their own stolen away.

Michelle Engelsman

china AND human rights AND Olympics