Zetterberg talks about Russia

[jaster]

It would be nice if the boycotts materialized - maybe not by the nations themselves, but perhaps by some of the athletes. I agree they won't happen in any serious way, though.

Many athletes in opposition to Russia's oppressive law are actually against the boycott as well. They see the Olympics as the best platform to protest against the Russian government.

EDIT: Here's an example, from Greg Louganis....

http://www.policymic.com/articles/58481/i-m-an-openly-gay-gold-medalist-and-i-reject-the-sochi-olympics-boycott

 

[crashman]

Not that I needed another reason to respect Zetterberg, but this definitely a +1.

But from what I understand, the Russian "anti-gay law" isn't as bad as the media is making it out to be. It's supposed to prevent "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations", which is certainly discriminatory, oppressive and ridiculous, but I don't see how it should have much impact on the Winter Games.

Propaganda of ANY type of sexual relations isn't appropriate during the Olympics, hetero or homo, so I don't really see what all the fuss is about. I understand why people would feel the need to protest against such a ridiculous law, but don't see why it should have any effect of the Olympics.

Having said that, I hope some athletes do find ways to protest, just because I think it's a terrible law and it would be entertaining to see the ****-show that will ensue.

 

[jaster]

Human rights are a pretty fluid thing in terms of definition, viewed differently in different times in different places. It's arrogant to assume that the view of human rights of Sweden 2013 is more valid than that in Russia 2013 or even America 2013. And yeah there's a distinction between how America views civil rights and how Sweden does, too.

That's some heavy spin. This thought process, taken to its logical conclusion, should have us think that every country's laws should be respected and deemed equally valid. Which of course is beyond ridiculous. Is there no line at all to be drawn? Should we hold up the laws of some Arab countries that stone women to death for being outside without a male escort, or that behead believed homosexuals, as being equally valid? Or those of some backwater African countries whose laws are written by warlords for their own personal gain? I should hope not. If that makes us arrogant, then arrogant we will be. I would rather be labeled arrogant while supporting fairness for all humans than be labeled humble and give tacit approval to oppression and human rights violations.

The idea of arrogance and validity in terms of the varying definitions of human rights gets us nowhere though. So it's irrelevant. Sweden's idea of human rights in 2013 is more valid than Russia in 2013 for much the same reason America's idea of human rights in 2013 is more valid than America in 1776. Some states have progressed more than others. Some are more equal and fair than others. To me, recognizing that is not arrogant. Zetterberg publicly recognizing that is not arrogant.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

That's some heavy spin. This thought process, taken to its logical conclusion, should have us think that every country's laws should be respected and deemed equally valid. Which of course is beyond ridiculous. Is there no line at all to be drawn? Should we hold up the laws of some Arab countries that stone women to death for being outside without a male escort, or that behead believed homosexuals, as being equally valid? Or those of some backwater African countries whose laws are written by warlords for their own personal gain? I should hope not. If that makes us arrogant, then arrogant we will be. I would rather be labeled arrogant while supporting fairness for all humans than be labeled humble and give tacit approval to oppression and human rights violations.

The idea of arrogance and validity in terms of the varying definitions of human rights gets us nowhere though. So it's irrelevant. Sweden's idea of human rights in 2013 is more valid than Russia in 2013 for much the same reason America's idea of human rights in 2013 is more valid than America in 1776. Some states have progressed more than others. Some are more equal and fair than others. To me, recognizing that is not arrogant. Zetterberg publicly recognizing that is not arrogant.

Exactly. Just because we disagree on what the total "package" of human rights ought to consist of doesn't mean that we need to throw out the concept. It's likely that we have commonalities in terms of what specific things we value as human rights. In this case, the rest of the western world finds Russia's concept in drastic and serious contrast to their own shared one.

When it comes to which concept is morally right, I think we can point to things like the fact that Russia's law is doubtful to maximize the well-being of everybody involved (particularly the gay people of Russia). Alternatively, we could say that Russia is trampling its citizens' autonomy and not respecting their statuses as rational people, fit to make choices about their own lives. and if we really, really wanted to, we could say that Russia's lawmakers are not being virtuous people in enacting this law, and probably also that anybody enforcing this law is not being a virtuous person either.

So we've covered all the standard moral bases. It would be pretty easy to show that Russia is acting in an immoral way. If Russia's conception of human rights is an immoral one (based on the previous), then we should be able to say:

1. some conceptions of human rights are more morally desirable than others (read: better)
2. All other moral conceptions of human rights are more desirable than Russia's.

and while I'm in the mood, arguments like yours (you seem to indicate that no brand of human rights is superior to another) really don't work in the face of the law of non-contradiction. If we've got two statements like: murder is wrong and murder is NOT wrong, they cannot both be true simultaneously. You can't have M & ~M, as it's obviously false. The point of that example is that although we perhaps cannot know which is the case, it would seem that there is a fact about the matter. If there are facts of the matter about all of those sorts of statements, then they can't possibly all be equally valid like you think they are. There are better ones and worse ones, but, again, we just don't know which are which.

 

[Winger98]

Many athletes in opposition to Russia's oppressive law are actually against the boycott as well. They see the Olympics as the best platform to protest against the Russian government.

EDIT: Here's an example, from Greg Louganis....

http://www.policymic.com/articles/58481/i-m-an-openly-gay-gold-medalist-and-i-reject-the-sochi-olympics-boycott

That's why it's better if the athletes pick and choose. I mean, the hockey guys have a lot less to lose than some random speed skater. Not to take anything away from the experience, representing your country, etc., but it's true.

I don't see protests at the games, unless it's massive and involves locals, and then some harsh (and videotaped) crackdowns, is going to get much play on telecasts. And boycotts likely wouldn't, either, unless they were notable.

 

[Zine]

Exactly. Just because we disagree on what the total "package" of human rights ought to consist of doesn't mean that we need to throw out the concept. It's likely that we have commonalities in terms of what specific things we value as human rights. In this case, the rest of the western world finds Russia's concept in drastic and serious contrast to their own shared one.

When it comes to which concept is morally right, I think we can point to things like the fact that Russia's law is doubtful to maximize the well-being of everybody involved (particularly the gay people of Russia). Alternatively, we could say that Russia is trampling its citizens' autonomy and not respecting their statuses as rational people, fit to make choices about their own lives. and if we really, really wanted to, we could say that Russia's lawmakers are not being virtuous people in enacting this law, and probably also that anybody enforcing this law is not being a virtuous person either.

So we've covered all the standard moral bases. It would be pretty easy to show that Russia is acting in an immoral way. If Russia's conception of human rights is an immoral one (based on the previous), then we should be able to say:

1. some conceptions of human rights are more morally desirable than others (read: better)
2. All other moral conceptions of human rights are more desirable than Russia's.

and while I'm in the mood, arguments like yours (you seem to indicate that no brand of human rights is superior to another) really don't work in the face of the law of non-contradiction. If we've got two statements like: murder is wrong and murder is NOT wrong, they cannot both be true simultaneously. You can't have M & ~M, as it's obviously false. The point of that example is that although we perhaps cannot know which is the case, it would seem that there is a fact about the matter. If there are facts of the matter about all of those sorts of statements, then they can't possibly all be equally valid like you think they are. There are better ones and worse ones, but, again, we just don't know which are which.

Right, but although we have commonalities as to the value of human rights, many Easterners view this outrage as reeking of hypocrisy.

Where was concern for human rights at Beijing 2008? Why no talk of boycotting American sporting events (who've committed various human rights violations)?
Regarding gay rights - 13 states still have laws on the books forbidding homosexual sex, and numerous, (I mean numerous) US allies actually outlaw homosexuality.

Again, Russia's law sucks, but, imo, Western government and media are using the LGBT cause as a tool to further propagate anti-Russian sentiment to the masses in light of recent geopolitical events. Therein lies the problem and the harsh reaction in return.

 

[Brodie]

Not true either, the law technically bans the promotion of homosexuality through speech or publication aimed at minors.

No, it's a ban on non-specified "propaganda", you know, like the hundred year ban on gay pride parades that was recently enforced by the Moscow courts. Human rights are a zero sum game, hiding behind "hey, it's their country" is just absurd... I suppose everyone should have just shut up about Apartheid and respected South Africa's right to do whatever they wanted? MOD

 

[vladdy16]

Right, but although we have commonalities as to the value of human rights, many Easterners view this outrage as reeking of hypocrisy.

Where was concern for human rights at Beijing 2008? Why no talk of boycotting American sporting events (who've committed various human rights violations)?
Regarding gay rights - 13 states still have laws on the books forbidding homosexual sex, and numerous, (I mean numerous) US allies actually outlaw homosexuality.

Again, Russia's law sucks, but, imo, Western government and media are using the LGBT cause as a tool to further propagate anti-Russian sentiment to the masses in light of recent geopolitical events. Therein lies the problem and the harsh reaction in return.

Hear hear

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Garbage laws created by garbage politicians to score political points with their base.

Good to see Z is on the right side of history.

 

[Bench]

Where was concern for human rights at Beijing 2008? Why no talk of boycotting American sporting events (who've committed various human rights violations)?

I read plenty about both of these.

For starters, Beijing took tons of criticism for their veneer that was the Olympics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2008_Summer_Olympics

Leading up to the Olympics, there were concerns about human rights in China,[1][2][3] such that many high-profile individuals, such as politicians and celebrities, announced intentions to boycott the games to protest China's role in the Darfur conflict,[4] and Myanmar,[5] its stance towards Tibet,[6] or other aspects of its human rights record.[7][8] During the games in Beijing, the city was also under a high alert because of security concerns following civil unrest in Tibet and terrorist attacks by Xinjiang separatists.[9][10][11] The levels of air pollution in Beijing also came under much scrutiny, due both to concerns about athletes' health and concerns that Beijing had failed to live up to promises it made during its Olympic bid

As for domestic, there's been plenty of outrage over the policies of golf clubs in regards to women. Augusta only recently admitted two high profile women to their membership... after years of being dogged by the media and protesters.

 

[Bench]

Keep in mind, folks, for the purposes of keeping this thread open that we all try to funnel the conversation towards Zetterberg's comments and the hockey slant at large.

For example, I'm surprised more hockey players haven't spoken out on this issue. Hockey badboy Sean Avery was the first NHL player to pubically support gay marriage, wasn't he? I know he was the first New York professional athlete, of any sport, at least.

Brian Burke also has a dog in this fight. I always liked him for that, even if he does do the blowhard routine a bit too well.

 

[tfong]

Maybe we should stay away from politics discussion Everyone is entitled to their own opinion after all.

 

[Tomas W]

Everyone is entitled his/hers opinion, if Z felt that this was important enough to make a statement around then, good for him not be afraid to speak his mind.

But I didnt like the flak that one of the columnist in the newspapers gave other players who simply wished not to make a public statement. I think people is entitled NOT to have an opinion as well. Otherwise people ends up giving public opinions that they are "supposed" to give, rather speaking thier real opinion.

 

[Mort Divine]

Maybe we should stay away from politics discussion Everyone is entitled to their own opinion after all.

People are entitled to their own opinions, yes, but not all opinions are created equally.

Anyways, glad to see Z is on the right side of things here.

 

[Heaton]

Guys, this is about Z's stance on Russia's laws, we're not going to be debating right and wrong about homosexuality. Please try to stay on topic.

 

[MrGeno101]

Like most people in Sweden i don't think Z even know what this new law actually means, if you read Swedish media you would think you are not allowed to be gay in Russia but that not what the new law says.

With that said i also think this law is kinda wierd, but western media make it look much worst than it actually are..

 

[Fugu]

Right, but although we have commonalities as to the value of human rights, many Easterners view this outrage as reeking of hypocrisy.

Where was concern for human rights at Beijing 2008? Why no talk of boycotting American sporting events (who've committed various human rights violations)?
Regarding gay rights - 13 states still have laws on the books forbidding homosexual sex, and numerous, (I mean numerous) US allies actually outlaw homosexuality.

Again, Russia's law sucks, but, imo, Western government and media are using the LGBT cause as a tool to further propagate anti-Russian sentiment to the masses in light of recent geopolitical events. Therein lies the problem and the harsh reaction in return.

I read plenty about both of these.

For starters, Beijing took tons of criticism for their veneer that was the Olympics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2008_Summer_Olympics



As for domestic, there's been plenty of outrage over the policies of golf clubs in regards to women. Augusta only recently admitted two high profile women to their membership... after years of being dogged by the media and protesters.

I don't know, Benchy. People die in a lot of these other countries, are executed, fighting for the most basic of human rights. I think there's a fair bit of hypocrisy over when and where to fight for the rights of others in foreign lands. If people really wanted to put their money where their mouths are, Olympics wouldn't even be handed out to some countries that have hosted in recent years.

 

[SoupNazi]

Keep in mind, folks, for the purposes of keeping this thread open that we all try to funnel the conversation towards Zetterberg's comments and the hockey slant at large.

For example, I'm surprised more hockey players haven't spoken out on this issue. Hockey badboy Sean Avery was the first NHL player to pubically support gay marriage, wasn't he? I know he was the first New York professional athlete, of any sport, at least.

Brian Burke also has a dog in this fight. I always liked him for that, even if he does do the blowhard routine a bit too well.

It seems to me that a lot more professional athletes are coming out and supporting or opposing gay rights lately, probably because gay rights have been in the news so much more.

I think you're right about Avery. At the time, though, I wondered if he was doing it solely to be a troublemaker, or if he really believed what he was saying.

 

[DatsDeking]

Thought this thread was going to talk about how Z was leaving for Russia or talking about it. Very glad that isn't the case.

 

[Flowah]

Again, Russia's law sucks, but, imo, Western government and media are using the LGBT cause as a tool to further propagate anti-Russian sentiment to the masses in light of recent geopolitical events. Therein lies the problem and the harsh reaction in return.

What does that have to do with Zetterberg's statements?

Is he the mouthpiece of any western government?

 

[Gyldenlove]

Right, but although we have commonalities as to the value of human rights, many Easterners view this outrage as reeking of hypocrisy.

Where was concern for human rights at Beijing 2008? Why no talk of boycotting American sporting events (who've committed various human rights violations)?
Regarding gay rights - 13 states still have laws on the books forbidding homosexual sex, and numerous, (I mean numerous) US allies actually outlaw homosexuality.

Again, Russia's law sucks, but, imo, Western government and media are using the LGBT cause as a tool to further propagate anti-Russian sentiment to the masses in light of recent geopolitical events. Therein lies the problem and the harsh reaction in return.

Federal regulations have long been in place that override state laws on sex so homosexual sex is legal in all 46 states and 4 commonwealths and DC, the fact that some states have yet to revoke outdated laws that are no longer enforceable is a testament to how broken the American legislative system is and how a complete overhaul of legislation at all levels is badly needed.

The crux of the matter is not actually the anti-LGBT law in Russia, it is the continued persecution of minorities and the increase in political and state sponsored censorship and violence going on Russia. The reason nobody boycotted Beijing is that Beijing was seen as part of a step forward for China - whereas these new laws in Russia represent a big step backwards.

International pressure on Russia is the only way to influence policies. Russia doesn't exist in a vacuum and as long as they are part of the international society there is a requirement for them to respect human rights of both their own citizens and visitors alike.

It is true that some American allies have laws against homosexuality among many other things - it is sad and regrettable that these states represent a tactical position strong enough that political demands for alliance supersedes human rights ideals.

 

[odin1981]

MOD
While it is unfortunate that whatever the law is it exists in the grand scheme of things it isn't the world is ending.

If you are familiar with countries in the second or third world this type of "law" is not uncommon. Granted parts of russia our first world the majority of the country is more imho second world status.

I do applaud Z or anyone really who speaks out on the matter. But in the grand scheme of things it is not the biggest deal. Granted I am straight so this doesn't effect me at all but really considering some of the places I have been this is a pretty tame "law" compared to others I have been aware of.

 

[Flowah]

I guess I don't understand how you determine what's a big deal or not? Frankly, few things are "a big deal" vs. concepts like global extinction via asteroid or climate change. But that hardly means nothing else matters.

This is an issue that doesn't take a whole lot of effort to exert pressure. It's very low hanging fruit. Russia is a big player in the international community and to see them treat their citizens this way is pretty disgusting. It's not even debatable to me, anymore than racism is debatable.

So good for all the athletes speaking out, good for all the countries speaking out, even if any of them have ulterior motives. Ulterior motives for a good cause that have no negative repercussions are always welcome in my book.

 

[Zine]

What does that have to do with Zetterberg's statements?

Is he the mouthpiece of any western government?

People view Z's words as reeking of hypocrisy and self righteous indignation even though his words are honorable.

What if Russia/China put forth a huge media campaign chastising the Canadian treatment of indigenous people, or Camp Gitmo by the US in the lead up to Vancouver and Salt Lake City, complete with talks of boycotts and Eastern athletes 'voicing their opinion'?

I hope it's evident how such a scenario can rub people the wrong way even though we all agree on the need for basic human rights.

 

[odin1981]

I'd say it isn't much of a huge or big deal in that they don't imprison/execute people for their lifestyle "choices". Granted the particular issue that is at hand is always gonna have a blow back level to it between the proponent and deterrent parties.

It is pretty insignificant to me in that if you looked at this threw objective eyes it is something even in first world countries activities such as this are not uncommon at all. Granted they have a written down rule that is discriminatory but it isn't something most people are unfamiliar with. Ie for americans particularly the biggest example that to a degree fits a common theme would be the jim crowe laws that if memory serves me correctly where around and active until the 60's I believe (could have ended earlier but don't quote me on this).

The particular issue at hand in this discussion is always gonna be blown out of the water in my eyes in regards to society as a whole for quite a long time due to the inheirant "threat" the deterants feel in regard to the discussion. In that they see it as something that is a threat to procreation/propagation of the species in that they feel if left unchecked it will spread to a level that will detract the human species from growing.

Now that is quite a differant discussion so I don't want to get too off topic. However the "issue" if you will has been around on some genetic level for millions of years and has not effected the human race negatively. A big # of "lesser" animal species have had this around for as long as well and it has not affected them either.

The problem in regards to this day and age is that deterrents of this issue often have "a perfect storm" of ignorance manifested in a # of ways. That usually have a common background or two in that they happen to come from a particular line of thinking that manifests quite a number of problems for society as whole on many levels threw often times unrelated issues and tangents.

However at the same time the deterrents have to a degree a "rational" in their line of thinking and perspective fear of all things not "proper" for lack of a better term. In that they believe what they do because to some degree they have a inbred "fear" of said issue due to there line of thinking that the world will stop pursuing population increases if said "issue" is left unchecked.

Granted what they feel has always been around in some degree or form and at no point in time has ever proven to be a hindrance in humanities role in the world as a species. And most people that the "proponents" of said issue do not see the "issue" of people who are in part fine with it being around.

Basically the proponents of the issue our fine with at a basic level a group of people being "happy" and content of what/who they are and do not see the harm that people cause by being happy and in what/who they are.