Phil, Article 10 doesn't contradict my post. Why when citing the ECHR do people always post the second paragraph, which lays down limits on most of the rights, without asking what is meant? The 'protection of the reputation or rights of others' might mean the right of others to compete in the Olympics without some political prima donna screwing it up for them.
It is the British Olympian Association, the sport's governing body, not HMG that is asking athletes to sign the contract. They may well be a public authority, but we are talking here of a country, China, that is not in Europe and is not subject to the ECHR (although the UN has a Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
The ECHR was agreed in 1950, although it had been adopted earlier by some countries, but does not bind anybody. Most signatories have given some of it the force of law, but we left it until 1998 to pass the Human Rights Act which I cited.
If the BOA has issued a contract that they say abides by Section 51 of the International Olympic Committee charter, which “provides for no kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda in the Olympic sites, venues or other areas” then so be it.
I think it is a bit extreme, but we have to be careful that we don't allow the Olympics to be used as a political football as Hitler did, as the Black Power guys did in Mexico and as people did over Afghanistan. It is supposed to be about the athletes getting together to compete free from the politics of the world. I hate Communism and I think the Chinese state apparatus is terrible, but the whole point of the games is to exclude that for a few weeks.
What will happen if people start screwing up the London Olympics to make their political points?
__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.
"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008
|