There is a debate now in Poland whether Ukrainian part of the EURO 2012 championship should be boycotted due to the treatment of Julia Tymoszenko. Putting aside the validity of the claim itself (personally I think it is rather tenuous - Tymoszenko is a very shady person herself and there are several different factors at play here - not least of it being that a boycott like this would push Ukraine into the waiting arms of Russia and away from the EU integration - which may or may not be in European interest but should be taken into account here), there is a certain group of people who claim that "politics should not interfere with sports" and, consequently, such calls for boycott are (presumedly) never right.
Do you agree? What is your view on the matter?
No
Depends.
You Poles and Ukes need to settle this on the battlefield.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 04, 2012, 04:17:19 AM
You Poles and Ukes need to settle this on the battlefield.
:lol:I said Pole
I don't care either way.
Yes. The cricket and rugby boycotts of South Africa were right. But it should be up for sporting bodies not politicians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2012, 05:21:59 AM
Yes. The cricket and rugby boycotts of South Africa were right. But it should be up for sporting bodies not politicians.
Not sure I understand that sentiment. Sure, we all know politicians are crooked and corrupt but at least they are (in theory at least) answerable to the public. Officials in UEFA or FIFA or the International Olympic Committee are not less crooked and corrupt, but they answer to noone. Why the hell do you believe them more competent to make that decision? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 05:30:39 AM
Not sure I understand that sentiment. Sure, we all know politicians are crooked and corrupt but at least they are (in theory at least) answerable to the public. Officials in UEFA or FIFA or the International Olympic Committee are not less crooked and corrupt, but they answer to noone. Why the hell do you believe them more competent to make that decision? :lol:
I meant national sporting bodies. It's a fair point about FIFA and the IOC but I don't think they'd ever support a boycott of one of their lucrative money-making opportunities/magnificent sporting events - the one exception I can think of is that I think the worldwide Rugby Union banned South Africa from the World Cup. But I think it's for, say, the FA to decide whether or not to send a team to the Euros not for No. 10 - though it's difficult to know whose omnishambles is greater.
It is simply a question of liberty. The British government (for one) has no right to impose a boycott on any of our national sporting organisations. But that doesn't mean that the organisations themselves can't choose to impose a boycott.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 04, 2012, 04:17:19 AM
You Poles and Ukes need to settle this on the battlefield.
Cossacks vs hussars.
Also, another Marty poll? WTF?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2012, 05:38:17 AM
It is simply a question of liberty. The British government (for one) has no right to impose a boycott on any of our national sporting organisations.
Similar in Germany. If politicians decide to make a political statement - be my guest. In the end every person/entity need to decide for themselves.
At any rate, the 2008 Beijing Olympics would have been a better target than Ukraine. Ukrainian politics are a mess, and I'm not sure I like EU politicians taking sides like that, esp. since I'm not sure all facts are known in the Timoshenko case.
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 04, 2012, 04:16:10 AM
Depends.
"Depends" means "yes".
No it doesnt.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vamworld.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2Fdepends.jpg%2F169661655%2Fdepends.jpg&hash=eac83bf82ff0665b5913d9e2d93007e489a6f244)
Quote from: 11B4V on May 04, 2012, 04:17:19 AM
You Poles and Ukes need to settle this on the battlefield.
Actually, most Poles (and Polish politicians) are against the boycott. I'm also against it but I hate the argument that one should not "mix sport with politics". I just think that Timoshenko is a seedy person and we should not get embroiled in Ukrainian power faction plays.
Also, since 1638, we are not big fans of meeting Ukes on the battlefield.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2012, 05:21:59 AM
Yes. The cricket and rugby boycotts of South Africa were right. But it should be up for sporting bodies not politicians.
Yes, because sporting bodies have such a great record in these matters. World cups 1934, 78 Olympics 1936 etc
International sports teams represent their contries, not their sporting organisations.Since thhose bodies are generallty representative of nobody, they have no moral right to make such decisions, only a government does.
Sporting bodies haven't done well but I don't know that governments would do any better. I think governments would be more likely to boycott over political points at rivals - like 1980, or I could imagine an Argentine government boycotting the UK - than a moral point like the campaigns against tours in South Africa. Sporting bodies can also be put under greater pressure by campaigners than governments, I think, because they don't have to balance offence caused with other considerations.
But sporting bodies do often get it wrong, especially if they're as purely mercenary as the FIA.
I was watching the news yesterday, saw that the fact the Saudi team is the only Olympic participant that doesn't allow women was rubbing some people the wrong way. I don't see the Brits blocking the Saudis, though.
It is counter to the IOC charter, however.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2012, 05:34:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 05:30:39 AM
Not sure I understand that sentiment. Sure, we all know politicians are crooked and corrupt but at least they are (in theory at least) answerable to the public. Officials in UEFA or FIFA or the International Olympic Committee are not less crooked and corrupt, but they answer to noone. Why the hell do you believe them more competent to make that decision? :lol:
I meant national sporting bodies. It's a fair point about FIFA and the IOC but I don't think they'd ever support a boycott of one of their lucrative money-making opportunities/magnificent sporting events - the one exception I can think of is that I think the worldwide Rugby Union banned South Africa from the World Cup. But I think it's for, say, the FA to decide whether or not to send a team to the Euros not for No. 10 - though it's difficult to know whose omnishambles is greater.
Ok I see what you mean. I thought your point was that politicians shouldn't be making the kind of choice the German politicians are making now (e.g. not to attend sport events in Ukraine).
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 07:32:26 AM
Ok I see what you mean. I thought your point was that politicians shouldn't be making the kind of choice the German politicians are making now (e.g. not to attend sport events in Ukraine).
Oh no. That's entirely for politicians to decide. I think Sarko refused to go to 2008.
Hey Sheilbh, why do you have Adam Sandler as an avatar?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2012, 07:44:28 AM
Hey Sheilbh, why do you have Adam Sandler as an avatar?
<_<
It's Thom Gunn, sadly under-rated poet - though his stock's rising:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/thom-gunn
There are targeted boycotts/embargoes all the time--Iran for example. I don't know why sports should be excluded from potential action--especially since they can generate emotional angst without significant economic discomfort (or worse) on a population.
I don't get the argument of "you shouldn't mix politics with sports".
They're only sports. 22 men kicking a little ball around. Why the hell shouldn't sports be subject to politics?
I'm all for sports boycotts. I think in this particular case it's an excellent way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian government.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2012, 05:38:17 AM
It is simply a question of liberty. The British government (for one) has no right to impose a boycott on any of our national sporting organisations. But that doesn't mean that the organisations themselves can't choose to impose a boycott.
The US Government forbids me to do all sorts of things for political reasons, like do business in Iran, I do not see any pariticular reason they cannot do the same to a sports body.
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 08:57:47 AM
I don't get the argument of "you shouldn't mix politics with sports".
They're only sports. 22 men kicking a little ball around. Why the hell shouldn't sports be subject to politics?
I'm all for sports boycotts. I think in this particular case it's an excellent way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian government.
The problem is that in this case a boycott just plays into Russia's hands. Timoshenko was a Russian crony and a boycott at this time will simply mean Ukraine gets pushed further into Russian hands.
Not to mention, I think the whole debacle is just an excuse for the countries who are against Ukrainian EU accession to score a few points.
Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2012, 09:24:10 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2012, 05:38:17 AM
It is simply a question of liberty. The British government (for one) has no right to impose a boycott on any of our national sporting organisations. But that doesn't mean that the organisations themselves can't choose to impose a boycott.
The US Government forbids me to do all sorts of things for political reasons, like do business in Iran, I do not see any pariticular reason they cannot do the same to a sports body.
Thinking about it I reckon we all have more or less arbitrary lines which we feel that government should not cross. For me it makes sense that our government prevents us from selling weapons or nuclear technology to Iran. Banning all trade I'm not so sure about. Preventing British citizens from visiting Iran to kick a ball about seems a step too far to me. There is a spectrum of restrictions here and people will favour different positions on that spectrum. In general, I feel that nowadays government pokes and pries far too much into matters that should be the province of other areas of society, such as the individual, family, sporting association etc etc
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:09:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 08:57:47 AM
I don't get the argument of "you shouldn't mix politics with sports".
They're only sports. 22 men kicking a little ball around. Why the hell shouldn't sports be subject to politics?
I'm all for sports boycotts. I think in this particular case it's an excellent way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian government.
The problem is that in this case a boycott just plays into Russia's hands. Timoshenko was a Russian crony and a boycott at this time will simply mean Ukraine gets pushed further into Russian hands.
Not to mention, I think the whole debacle is just an excuse for the countries who are against Ukrainian EU accession to score a few points.
:yeahright:
I have no doubt Timoshenko is somewhat crooked - she is a Ukrainian politician after all. But everythign I've read had Timoshenko and Yuschenko as being more western-oriented, while Yanukovich was more Russian-oriented. Now since taking power Yanukovich has on the one hand being playing the role of an eastern european authoritarian very well, he has been cautious about getting too close to Russia.
But the entire case against Timoshenko has been a blatant political process throughout.
That was my understanding as well, though in place of Western oriented I would say anti-Russian.
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:17:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:09:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 08:57:47 AM
I don't get the argument of "you shouldn't mix politics with sports".
They're only sports. 22 men kicking a little ball around. Why the hell shouldn't sports be subject to politics?
I'm all for sports boycotts. I think in this particular case it's an excellent way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian government.
The problem is that in this case a boycott just plays into Russia's hands. Timoshenko was a Russian crony and a boycott at this time will simply mean Ukraine gets pushed further into Russian hands.
Not to mention, I think the whole debacle is just an excuse for the countries who are against Ukrainian EU accession to score a few points.
:yeahright:
I have no doubt Timoshenko is somewhat crooked - she is a Ukrainian politician after all. But everythign I've read had Timoshenko and Yuschenko as being more western-oriented, while Yanukovich was more Russian-oriented. Now since taking power Yanukovich has on the one hand being playing the role of an eastern european authoritarian very well, he has been cautious about getting too close to Russia.
But the entire case against Timoshenko has been a blatant political process throughout.
Timoshenko and Yuschenko are sworn enemies - Yuschenko testified against her during her trial, and he actually was the first (while still in power) of accusing her of treason/doing exactly what she was sentenced for (i.e. giving too much to Russia in gas supply deals). So this is more complicated than that.
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:17:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2012, 10:09:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 08:57:47 AM
I don't get the argument of "you shouldn't mix politics with sports".
They're only sports. 22 men kicking a little ball around. Why the hell shouldn't sports be subject to politics?
I'm all for sports boycotts. I think in this particular case it's an excellent way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian government.
The problem is that in this case a boycott just plays into Russia's hands. Timoshenko was a Russian crony and a boycott at this time will simply mean Ukraine gets pushed further into Russian hands.
Not to mention, I think the whole debacle is just an excuse for the countries who are against Ukrainian EU accession to score a few points.
:yeahright:
I have no doubt Timoshenko is somewhat crooked - she is a Ukrainian politician after all. But everythign I've read had Timoshenko and Yuschenko as being more western-oriented, while Yanukovich was more Russian-oriented. Now since taking power Yanukovich has on the one hand being playing the role of an eastern european authoritarian very well, he has been cautious about getting too close to Russia.
But the entire case against Timoshenko has been a blatant political process throughout.
Timoshenko and Yuschenko are sworn enemies - Yuschenko testified against her during her trial, and he actually was the first (while still in power) of accusing her of treason/doing exactly what she was sentenced for (i.e. giving too much to Russia in gas supply deals). So this is more complicated than that.
Yes, I knew that Timoshenko and Yuschenko were one time semi-allies, and now sworn enemies.
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2012, 10:17:45 AM
I have no doubt Timoshenko is somewhat crooked
Wasn't she the one in charge when they stole Europe's gas supply coming out of Russia because the Russians wouldn't sell them any?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2012, 10:12:51 AM
Thinking about it I reckon we all have more or less arbitrary lines which we feel that government should not cross. For me it makes sense that our government prevents us from selling weapons or nuclear technology to Iran. Banning all trade I'm not so sure about. Preventing British citizens from visiting Iran to kick a ball about seems a step too far to me. There is a spectrum of restrictions here and people will favour different positions on that spectrum. In general, I feel that nowadays government pokes and pries far too much into matters that should be the province of other areas of society, such as the individual, family, sporting association etc etc
I don't really disagree with most of that, with the caveat that I would have to say that different degrees of "interference" are reasonable depending on the exact nature of the regime being boycotted. And I have very little faith in the ability of Western governments to find the "correct" degree in any given situation.
If we can go to a Nazi Olympics...we can go anywhere.
I am all for cutting Poland from the world wide web.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2012, 05:21:59 AM
Yes. The cricket and rugby boycotts of South Africa were right.
:huh: Wrong.
QuoteBut it should be up for sporting bodies politicians not politicians.
Don't you think your statement here is a little absurd?
When it comes to soccer, rugby, cricket and other assorted Euro-sillyness they should all be boycotted by everyone, from fans to coaches to players and organizing committees.
Also
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2056%2F2403957312_247d108ea9.jpg&hash=ab64dc50378c16c87920dda8087c588dd5fb24ca)
God, I love that photo.