why use sport to grandstand political agendas?
This is exactly my opinion. The only comments I've heard from sportsmen on this also reflect this sentiment. One guy made a comment that if this particular Olympic games becomes a political no-holds-barred, then the athletes start coming under pressure to comment, or run the risk of being drawn as not caring, or even supporting whatever political issues they're refraining from commenting about. Most of them just want to train, travel, & compete.

If the political issues are so important (and for all the talk about "the spirit of the olympic games", it's always endeavoured to be politically neutral) then the athletes should boycott. I think refusing the invitation is a far more appropriate means of action than to accept the hospitality of the host, then attack them about matters entirely unrelated to sport.

what?

NZOC had this order in place for 8 years.
had it when they went to athens.
why start complaining now?
why not protest on the rights of new zealand athletes last olympics?
because it wasn't china
noone's scared of greece.*
having spent time in greece, china, and new zealand
there's no question in my mind that new zealand is the most screwed up of the three
and the most hypocritical in your expectations of the rest of the world

i assume the apparatus you speak of is your so called free speech democracy? protests that are ignored? an electoral system dominated by two main parties in the pocket of big business? and a propaganda system that's been attacking communism for over fifty years.

this available apparatus was designed to allow freedom of speech. a gag from the NZOC against talk of politics, religion etc isn't just re: china, it's a gag on talk about politics religion etc of any country, including our own.

robsta implies countries playing at the olympics should introduce all manner of laws including slavery, to be in the spirit of ancient greece. what a load of free speech.

protests mean nothing if you don't get results. hollow protests. new zealanders turned the impotent protest into an art form. the last 25 years of NZ government turned these hollow protests into a street parade.

because your prisoners have drugs, TV, cellphones, sex, that places where things are harder, are a violation of human rights.

i'm more interested in the rights of the law abiding citizen to walk safe streets
the right to tell that shopkeeper how much YOU think that pair of socks is worth
than to complain about how another country treats those who break it's law.
your human right is to be told how much to pay.
there are miscarriages of justice in every system

but we all know how safe the city streets are late at night in the respective countries.
people aren't afraid of your justice system
it's an easy ride.
summary execution of a tagger by a member of the public...
is what it's come down to

i mean foal30, what are you pressing for here?
for our country's sports heroes to be the world whinge police?
if you wanna attack the NZOC, why not attack the fact that we have the two best single skullers in the world
and can only send one to the olympics
that's a joke.

if the judge states the language a criminal used is relevant in prosecution
then finding other reasons just seems to be a denial of the simple fact that people are being prosecuted for words
you say he was in the wrong joint. but the judge said he used the term rapists.
being one eyed about this kind
does more harm than good
you're either pro freedom of speech or against it
and seems to me, from talking on these boards 4 years
that most people aren't pro freedom of speech
they invite and justify the regulations on freedom of speech
just as you justify the police fining a guy more for calling all police 'rapists' than he would be fined for speeding, because he was in the wrong joint.
i don't equate these rights

NZ wants to change the school leaving age to 18
and they want to offer amnesty as if we're criminals
that loan they made me sign off on when i was 17
really, the time has ended for talking about human rights in any country except new zealand.

that's mainly for robsta.

i mean sure foal, you want to make an issue of how another country treats it's criminals, when there's been 592 people sentenced to home detention since October 15, and the prison owners, sorry home owners aren't even notified or given a say.
your government is using NZ's homes, NZer's possessions as prisons, as tools, as it's own property. and you wanna complain about someone's human rights halfway across the world?

get off the grass

and why shouldn't it be the result of china being awarded the olympic games 8 years ago? we knew about the chinese 'mandate of heaven' 800 years ago.

the fundamental difference in the cultures and ideologies was i think you'd agree foal largely apparent to all by the year 20AD
free speech, as a courtesy, and socalled harbinger of civilization, can be used to dictate terms if we want to use it that way.
but whole purpose of free speech as i see it is to aid in the perpetuation of our own system. that seems to be the main aim to me. 'protect our way of life'.
and i don't see how pissing off another system much larger than ours, works.regardless of who our friends are.

they haven't to my knowledge taken issue with the new zealand prison system as far a i know, at least in the last few years
it'd be a little too lowest common denominator.
prisons aren't really the frontline on the battle for human rights or civility anywhere
to address the rights of the minority before deeply considering the rights of the majority, kind of takes the ''human' out of the phrase human rights.

i agree. and you know me foal, i'm a free speech cub scout. but this is not a free speech country. they've seen a million and one wannabe marco polos come and tell them what changes they need to make to 'fit in'. but the one's that make any difference, first learn the communication protocols. like any culture. rewi alley as the classic example.

here's some contemporary westerneyesd china for the kid:

the phrase in the middle may be more useful to the NZ athletes than the NZ media trying to whip up a sandstorm to 'protect' their NZ freedom of speech in a country i doubt most of those athletes even speak the language of...

i'm talking energy efficiency
a country that was closed off to world access for 20? 30? years
finally invite us in
and new zealand media starts whinging about what rights they're not gonna have when they get inside.
seems to me a simple lack of respect.

you praise john minto

i have some answers for his questions

"This is an outrage. Why should New Zealanders' freedom of speech be constrained when they travel to represent this country?"

- it's the law of the country they're visiting

"Why should they be gagged because the host country for the Games has such little respect for human rights?"

-obeying specific laws of a country and pontificating on human rights are separate issues

"Must we lower our democratic standards to the Chinese level?"

No John. the government is simply asking you to follow their current laws just as you would expect athletes visiting new zealand to follow your current laws.

"But it seems clear the policy was put in place eight years ago for the very reason that Olympic officials looked ahead and saw the China human rights disaster looming."

i think they just looked ahead and made allowance to respect the law of the country the games were to be held.

"The question remains as to why athletes from around the world will be free to speak their minds, but New Zealand athletes will sign censorship contracts."

it's respect for their law

"Why is it that the sensitivities of the Chinese regime resonate so strongly in New Zealand? "

because our countries have a good relationship

Why are we virtually alone in gagging our athletes?

because we are a respectful and worldly nation
there's no apartheid in China Mr. Minto
there are problems like anywhere, and in this case, protest or breaking their law will not bring the desired result
again. Rewi Alley

"It seems clear that one of the reasons is that among the crowd of countries attending the games, only New Zealand is negotiating a free-trade agreement with China."

i enjoy eating mainland vintage cheese.
our countries go way back

"This agreement is seen as a coup by the Clark government. It has been several years in the making, with negotiations finally ended and just a couple of months remaining while all the complex details are checked and rechecked before a classic photo opportunity is organised for Helen Clark to sign away yet more quality New Zealand jobs at the altar of the free market with the Chinese Premier."

if Helen Clark has done what John Minto accuses her of doing to our country. then that's on her shoulders. a negotiation is a negotiation. it's nothing to do with the Chinese speech regulations

"It would be a disaster from the Government's point of view if this went off the rails because a Kiwi athlete stirred controversy by pointing to the elephant in the room which is China's abuse of human rights."

potentially.

"It was 1968 in Mexico at the height of the civil rights struggle in the United States. Black US athlete Tommie Smith won the 200m sprint in a world record time. When he stood on the winner's podium alongside bronze medal winner John Carlos, they raised black gloved fists in a powerful symbol of resistance to racial oppression. Smith also wore a black scarf to represent black pride and black socks (no shoes) to represent the poverty of blacks in racist America. The iconic image of this brave duo will resonate down the centuries after their athletic prowess is long forgotten."

an example from a nation where there aren't laws against wearing black scarves or gloves. to solve the problems in their own country. tenuous relevance.

and he ends strangely with this;

"we should encourage our athletes to use their freedom of speech to actively support those in China who are denied the same rights. That is what we should expect a good athlete to do."

john minto is basically saying, we should encourage new zealand athletes to break the chinese law and risk the chance of facing first hand some of the abuses to which he refers they should protest against.
and that's what we should expect a good athlete to do

i disagree
http://stuff.co.nz/4405823a1861.html
OS conflict

your angle is not so much the respect for human rights, but your hatred for big business. that's noble. but not the issue. why shouldn't chinese have the right to purchase GE, Coke, and mcdonalds, you can. just as further up, AC mentioned the new zealander who criticized mcdonalds had done something very illegal. it would also seem the 'free speech' democracy, plays second fiddle to legislation set up to protect business, hence 'industrial espionage' being quite illegal in your 'free' nation.
while i'm watching the extended machine gun advertisement that is rambo 4.

Why should a country not have the right to dictate it's own system?
and again i'll ask that foal
Why should a country not have the right to dictate it's own system?
why must you insist that all systems are your own?
and how passionate are you really about helping the chinese people, from new brighton?
or are these just general personal values you think the whole world should embrace.

chinese eat alot of meat. rat, dog, lizard, turtle, donkey, whatever you like
it's who they are
it's not who you are
you'd change it if you could
but they wouldn't change you
the arrogance of imperialists

chinese people are well aware the rest of the world hate their system
they already know you hate their system foal.
they feel unloved
they feel that they are too harshly judged as people, on the mistakes of their administration
cos generally westerners who've never been here's first instinct when thinking of china is a negative one
they want a chance to entertain you.

accusations against rewi alley. but then i would ask why is there a prominent bust of rewi ally inside our countries chinese embassy? you know? clean your own backyard first before going next door to refit your neighbour's backyard to be like your own, you've already got one, why do you need another? the world thrives in it's diversity. his work here, to help chinese still stacks up against yours and john mintos. regardless of what laws he did or didn't break.

it's a blind imperialist slogan
"easy access to small boys"

because without giving even a little more information
such as
whether this was consentual or not,
by contemporary New Zealand standards the judgement you're passing on him, maybe far greater the context allows
it implies he's a rapist by NZ standards, because NZ doesn't allow us the basic human right to consent to sex, until we're 16.

and that is
the most basic
and fundamental human right of all.
it's the right of life, of nature.
and so, with a fundamental so obviously ignored.
on the heirarchy of what consitutes 'human' rights
where a law like that makes perfect sense to you, as it would seem to from your slogan
used to cast aspersions
it's more of a judgement of your own perception of what it means to be human
they had kids marrying all the time in bible. i'm sure there must have been a bit of a dating scene too

western democrafiles, seem to have some obsessive compulsive disorder leaving it near impossible not to think our country's system should be imperially, colonially uninvitedly adopted, it's the sad primitivism of dogs trying to spray another's territory. permeated almost exclusively by white people. this is a fact.

the issue is not freedom of speech
the issue is disrupting a media blitz
chinese people aren't afraid to discuss these issues you bring up
they just have a different taste in what's constitutes a suitable platform for discussion

you're thinking about your human right to disrupt their one time gig
they're thinking about their right to hold that gig without the heckler.
in this case.
you're thinking barroom
they're thinking concert hall

there are other avenues and means for whatever it is you hope to achieve
big business is everywhere foal. live with it.

you mention 6th of june on one side of the line chinese people discuss it on another, i can mention November 5 too, 1600 of our constabulary invaded the town of parihaka and killed a heap of new zealanders, in direct comparison to a sudden migration of between 3 and 5 million people into this capital demonstrating against the government. i would say 3-5 million people could be enough of an army to bring a government down. i'm guessing there'd also be a magic number of new zealanders demonstrating for an extended period of time in wellington before people started to get shot. 1 million? 2 million? i can't imagine that. prevention of a coup or revolution is a priority for most governments, so i gotta say i understand it on that level. it seems silly to me too. you make sense.

but i don't see a whole lot of dutch* people wandering round lighting up hooters, in any country just cos it's their right back home
it's not about freedom of speech, people speak freely
it's about freedom of media
that's not a human right

http://stuff.co.nz/4407087a11.html

nice post foal.
i know what you're saying re: 'exploitation and enslavement of millions' .
but i really am not convinced that the rural poverty is a form of enslavement
for 1000 years + it has been the norm.
so all the evils you speak are not thrust on the people in the unobjectionable way they may have been in NZ
they are an alternative, to this 1000 years old standard which still exists.

"And access to the broad principles of "freedom of speech" should enable less killing as people converse as opposed to oppress."

200,000 dead iraqis refute that claim
as do 4000 US dead serviceman.
guantanamo, and the undisclosed evils
perpetrated against POWs, and terror suspects
by our allies
in the name of freedom of speech.
refute that
in no uncertain terms
quite publically
war crimes
"sorry madam, you're going to have to wait outside, we're just commiting war crimes, won't be long."

i rationalize tibet as we rationalize New Zealand
it's a done deal..
you can find points of divergence
but i can find untold similarities in the cases.

come down to the bone here.
you know i agree with what you say almost always foal
but as i said earlier, i think it's about ways and means of spreading your message.
our country exports tonnes upon tonnes of cheese, butter to nations far and wide
you have a message to send to the nations of afar?
why not petition the cheese maker the farmer the dairy or the cow, to print little messages on their pats of butter
a message that hits home
on how freedom of speech improves lives
and how dissension benefits society.

TONY SMITH, sets the stakes high with the 'extraordinary Halberg'

http://stuff.co.nz/4407814a1823.html

what does Murray Halberg have to say?

fully willing to take the country's money
fully willing to buy the country's products
and fully willing to egg athletes on
free iraq

http://stuff.co.nz/4411052a1861.html

over to you robbo

yeah, just mentioned the AIT, because they're your closest allie's closest allies, on the topic of prisons, thought i might bring up the freedom of speech league's selfless and well publicized contribution to humanitarianism and over the last decade. and just how useful freedom of speech is at curbing atrocities in the great transparent western model that others are encouraged to adopt.

mainstream journalism suddenly taking an interest in NZ athletes battling for human rights?
albeit against a country that probably wouldn't see their opinion as worth thruppence
compared to say your allies the states or somewhere, where the protest would be less of a cultural affront
and inconceivably more likely to achieve desired aim, or at least be tolerated

cos' it's not like any protest that is made, is gonna be seen as much more than another strike by the imperialist water torturers's sub.

and it's not like china's is a culture where naked people running through sports events is a regular occurrence.

one size fits all.....