If a water company announces that they will donate water to the needy using profits gained from sales, however it became known that the water they donated were not treated for human consumption. What would you do? If you chose boycott this water company then you should boycott the olympic games as well.
When someone (such as the IOC) openly declares (in their charter) that they denounce violations of human rights and they promote all the moral values of social freedom, love, and human rights, then the products of these people (such as the Olympic games) should be boycotted and denounced.
Olympic games is not chosen as the boycott venue because it is a convenient way to reach as many people as possible. However, because it is the product of the IOC thus, unfortunately for the innocent athlete, boycotting the IOC means boycotting the games. At the same time, what does it say about the athletes who chose to train and compete for the good will events held by people with such ill will?
Most of the concepts behind the No's in this debate are about how the Olympics is not a venue for politics. However, this debate is not about politics. This debate is about human rights. This is when a government's policy infringes on the people's basic rights as a human being. Is it ok to support IOC's decision to award games to governments who are gross violators of human rights, whose policies are basically saying that certain citizens in their society are not good enough to live with basic human dignity?
I know that there are plenty of people in the world that feels it is ok to others as if those who are different are not worthy to live as a human being. But
Everyone watches the Olympic games right? So if a country was to boycott the games because of a reason the world will know about it and put a stop to it. So using the Olympic games is a good thing because it gets more attention and get solve the problem better.
If the US boycotts any events that take place in these countries, it will shed light onto these horrible situations. There is no way to totally solve the problem of human rights violations all at once. We cannot completely make violations of human rights go away immediately, but what we can do is to raise awareness and start taking steps towards having a world that has less violations of human rights.
Boycotting is the way to go because it will shine a bright spotlight on this problem, and countries will learn about this problem. We cannot fix a problem that is going on all around the world if people do not know about it. Currently not enough light is being shed on these horrible situations, but by the US being a world superpower, boycotting these events will be making a statement to not only the country that is violating human rights, but we will furthermore be making a statement to all of the other countries that also participate in the event.
You would think a country that supposed to be a 'super power' would have dragged itself out of the dark ages by now. Why on earth would any athlete wish to visit a country and compete when they are at serious personal risk just because they are gay ? So stupid ....
A large number of Olympic athletes are gay. There is no guarantee for their safety or protection under this disgusting "propaganda" law. If world governments don't boycott the 2014 Sochi Olympics, I encourage individual athletes to boycott as a stand for their own human rights.
Send a loud, clear message to Russia and its ignorant, self-hating laws "We are mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
There is a real need for governments of smaller nations to maintain cordial relations. Atletes need their chance at Olympic gold. What each of us can do is not consume the games. Do not travel there, do not buy any merchandise or watch the broadcasts. Spend nothing that would go into the coffers of the superpower host or the accursed IOC
It's not the right place to fight for Human Rights !!! Let's look back and see if there was a boycott that really helped to improve the sitaution in the country where there were HR troubles? !! I believe there exist more effective means to fight for Human Rights issues.
Has boycotting a country ever made a difference? How did boycotting Cuba go? Still a communist dictatorship, aren't they?
So most Russians (60-something percent I've read) are against homosexuality. Will foreign attempts to meddle with their nation's laws and culture really inspire them to change their minds? More likely it will make them even more likely to reject foreign influence. For the laws to change, the change has to come from within the country. It will likely be a long and slow struggle, and I believe that, if anything, getting on a high horse and shouting at Russia to change will likely slow the process down. If the rest of the world alienates Russia, it just alienates Russia from the rest of the world's ideals.
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.
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.
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.