Should countries boycott the Olympic games due to human rights concerns?
The Olympic games represent the unity of countries. However, the picture it presents only masks horrendous human rights violations in a number of participating, and sometimes hosting, countries. People need to be more informed about these violations, and a widely publicized boycott of the Olympic games would do much to spread awareness.
I support boycotting the Olympics due to human rights concerns, because it sends a clear message to the rest of the world one country's stance on how another is behaving. Studies continually show that people in other countries react to how they are perceived by other countries, and this could inspire them to make some changes.
In general, disputes between nations should not be enough to justify Olympic boycotts, given the role of the games in fostering international goodwill. And yet this very insulation from the rough and tumble of regular geopolitics suggests that the games provide a crucial opportunity for making a diplomatic and public relations protest against extreme human rights abuses. To refrain from boycotts in such cases is, in effect, to give a green light to oppressive governments that their actions are beyond the notice or serious judgment by the international community. Yet it is only when international condemnation is loud and consistent, as exemplified by an Olympic boycott along with many other levels of pressure and protest, that the government engaging in human rights abuses is apt to be motivated to change its policies.
The Olympics are an appropriate venue. Human rights violations place a country's standing in the international community in jeopardy. When countries look the other way the abusing country knows it can continue to get away with its actions. Now the Olympic organizing committee fails when it selects a country like China to host, but shunning the nation is an acceptable way to express disapproval.
Few events are as global and wide-reaching as the Olympic Games. Although it would be much more desirable to leave politics out of the Games, that is an unfortunate impossibility. So when a country decides it wishes to boycott the event due to human rights concerns involving another country, it is well within its rights to do so.
How authoritarian contries can represent the values of such an event. The olympic games have been made to "Democratiz?" The benefits of sport for the public at large and to celebrate humankind. Don't you think that there is an fondamental paradox with that ? Communist countries have always enjoy the use of the og to glorify their political system. Altough it is well-attested that they use to cheat in sport as in politic .
When you want to make an international statement, this is one of the few easy ways to do so. Since the Olympics are one of the few international events that are attended and viewed by people the world over, boycotting them for just such a purpose will bring international attention to your point.
The olympic movement was set up and still exists as a sporting movement. Whilst i do not advocate human rights abuses that are occuring in some countires, i don't feel that the IOC nor any other sporting institution has the legitimacy to regulate the political situation in host countries. We have seen the exclusion of certain countries from the Olympics before, for instance, Germany and Japan in 1948 but i do not feel it justified for a sporting organisation to indulge itself in politics.
There are human right concerns every moment of every day. Most Americans are unaware of them because they choose to not be educated, and the media picks and chooses what human right issues are acceptable to air. The Olympics is a time to bring people of differences together. Young athletes train for years to be able to compete at this level. I do not feel they should be punished for someone's political agenda. With this said, if individuals chose to boycott, then that is totally up to them.
Per Amnesty International, America is nearly as bad as China in its violations of the human rights of its citizens, as well as non-citizens within its borders, and the state of Arizona rates worse than China for human rights. So, if it is to be used as a platform for a boycott protest, many countries, if not for the ire it would cause within the US, would do themselves well to boycott future Olympics held in the US.
Better to act out protests differently with the Olympics, since they can be a more effect force for change when everyone participates.
When Jimmy Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, nothing was solved, except to deny athletes their chance at an Olympic medal. The Soviets didn't pull out of Afghanistan until years later, so the boycott solved nothing. Let athletes play their games, and don't make them pawns in world politics.
We shouldn't boycott the games because of human rights concerns. Participating in the games may make it possible for some of these people hosting the games to have jobs and a decent living. This is the way to help poor people. We can still address our concerns to the hosting country. Boycotting would only make it worse for the people of the hosting country.
Handing the world stage that is the Olympic games to habitual human rights violators is simply condoning their morally wrong actions. Olympic games provide cover for the state that commits the human rights violations and allows them to sweep their crimes under the rug while the world focuses on the good that is the games.
I don't think countries should boycott the Olympic Games by keeping their athletes from competing. Let them find other ways to express the outrage. For some of these competitors, its the only time they will ever have the chance to compete in an Olympics. These are athletes who have trained for years, some of them almost their entire lives, for this chance to participate. They should be allowed to compete, and to represent their country. It ought to be about the athletes and the competition; there should be other means by which to address the human rights concerns.
The games which are played and compited by athletes all around the world every 4 years take up a very high responsibility in serving his/her country.the athletes train for years and put in all their will power to show the world stage what the are capable of doing.this is where the fundamental human right law which is right to life comes in.in order for me to justify my point i would say if the olimpic games are boycott by countries thus indirecty the goverment of the country is not just in making the right step for the good of the people.there for inconclusion iwill like to re-enforce my point by saying i clearly DON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I don't think human rights issues plays much of a matter into who hosts the Olympic games at all. Many years ago when the games were truly about the sports, then yes, it would matter. These days the Olympics are merely an economically driven event that's sole purpose is profit. Therefore, by providing this event in poorer countries, that country will profit and may be able to treat their citizens better.
Imagine that you're a citizen of a country with human right violation. You did not vote for the current government, you are against current policy. And you get incomplete Olympics for your country just due to your government, that you don't like. That's like punishing a diseased person for his disease. Ordinary citizens should not suffer from Olympic boycott.
The Olympics is a venue to display nation and the best of a country in specific events. The Olympics is not the proper place to boycott over human rights concerns because the Olympics are not political in nature and should not be used in that way. The Olympics foster connections between countries and should not be used as a place to create more problems. Networks created at the Olympics can provide an outlet for discourse over such issues, but should not be the place.
Countries should not boycott the Olympic games due to human rights concerns because all countries have human rights problems. U.S. leaders should not use the Olympics as a platform to try to teach a lesson to other countries in the name of democracy. I don't think the Olympics should be used as a platform for the U.S. to express their unhappiness at other countries' dealings in human rights when our own country has their own social problems. The Olympic games are pure and simply a sporting event, not a place for political agendas to be touted.
Countries should not boycott the olympics due to human rights concerns because it is not the appropriate venue to approach such serious topics. The olympics are by design an athletic event to bring nations together in the arena of fair play and sportsmanship, not to divide nations based upon their stance on a given area of human rights.