You are here:   Dame Kelly Holmes > On Track: The Great Olympic Cover-up
 

Dame Kelly Holmes, the double Olympic gold medallist, believes that Britain's hosting of the 2012 Olympic Games provides a unique opportunity to address discrimination against women at the highest levels of sport. "At the Beijing Olympics, there were 165 events for men and only 127 for women (with 10 mixed). Despite the IOC claiming in 2004 that ‘our ultimate goal must be 50-50 participation and the introduction of women's boxing in time for London', there will still be more events for men during the 2012 Games. Many countries still send many more men than women, and some, such as Saudi Arabia, have yet to send a woman athlete."

Why does the IOC make an exception for the headscarf? After all, in the Beijing Olympics French athletes were not even allowed to wear a badge with the slogan "for a better world" — a quotation from the Olympic Charter.

Athletes belong to many religions and hold varied political beliefs but rarely attempt to break the Olympic rules. That is what made the actions of African-American medallists Tommie Smith and John Carlos in Mexico in 1968 so extraordinary. Standing on the podium waiting to receive their gold and bronze medals for the 200 metres, they each raised a black leather-gloved fist in the Black Power salute. Shoeless to represent black poverty, the US athletes walked off the podium to booing from the spectators. Carlos also wore a necklace of beads, which, he said, were "for those individuals that were lynched, or killed and that no one said a prayer for, that were hung and tarred."

The IOC President at the time, Avery Brundage, deemed the actions of Smith and Carlos to be a political statement unfit for the apolitical, international forum of the Olympic Games and ordered the men to be suspended from the US team and banned from the Olympic village. When the US Olympic Committee refused, Brundage threatened to ban the entire US track team. This threat led to the two athletes being expelled from the Games.

The IOC's stance on political symbolism should not be confused with a lack of commitment to human rights. Four years earlier, in 1964, the IOC had taken the courageous step of banning South Africa from the 18th Olympic Games in Tokyo over its policy of apartheid. The IOC said the decision could be overturned only if South Africa renounced racial discrimination in sport.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
MarylinC
July 18th, 2012
12:07 PM
I've never felt comfortable about women having to cover up. The issue of choice masks the fact that many Muslim women are 'choosing' to cover up because they still feel under intense pressure from their Country to make their rulers look good. Their families, the Mosques they attend and the laws they live under, which are heavily influenced by male religeous doctrines, all heap even greater pressure on women. One only needs to look at Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. Many women immediately started leaving home without their headscarves. If I felt women were making a completely free choice to wear a headscarf I would welcome that but it's very clear to me these are, in no way, free choices.

QUINTILLAN Ghislaine
June 6th, 2011
9:06 AM
Je partage tout à fait les points de vue présentés dans l'article "The Great Olympic" de Julie BINDEL. Il est très important que le mouvement Olympique ne cède ni aux injonctions et chantages des intégrismes ni aux sirènes des marchands du temple. Il n'y a absolument pas besoin de modifier la Charte Olympique. Il suffit que le CIO fasse respecter l'application de l'article 51 de sa Charte. Toute perspective de modification présenterait le risque de voir la Charte adaptée pour satisfaire aux désirs des Etats non respectueux de la dignité et de la liberté des femmes comme des hommes. Les fédérations sportives internationales édictent des règles vestimentaires pour leurs compétitions qui, en principe(*), sont établies pour permettre la meilleure qualité et sécurité de mouvement et de pratique. A ces fédérations et au CIO de faire respecter ces règles. (*) Certaines règles vestimentaires, notamment pour les sports féminins, cf Beach volley et badminton, destinées à rendre les joueuses plus sexy et donc plus attractives pour les médias, sont elles aussi à condamner.

Ian Townson
June 5th, 2011
5:06 PM
The West Knows Best pontificating on liberal/radical values for the uncivilised world. The same values that now have muslim women arrested in France for wearing a veil.

Bernice Dubois
June 5th, 2011
4:06 PM
Former comments have made it sufficiently clear that there is no islamic requirement whatever for wearing even the smallest head scarf, let alone anything else. Given this fact, and it is a fact, the Olympic Committee is in flagrant contradiction with its own Charter. (In fact, even if their were any religions requirements for dress, the Olympic Charter would not allow their being applied in the Olympic stadium. So their kowtowing is sheer cowardice and political "correctness". It makes a mockery of Olympic principles and we should not allow these to be so flouted.

Ian Townson
June 5th, 2011
2:06 PM
It doesn't follow that women who wear the hijab, niqab or burqa are necessarily oppressed. Look at what has happened in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen. Many of the active participants in the revolutions are women who are not in the least inhibited or obstructed in their activities by wearing headscarves or veils. In Yemen women revolutionaires are actively pushing the men for not being revolutionary enough! The muslim women I have met in this country struck me as being lively, intelligent, well-educated, opinionated and playing an active part in social and political life. These are not the hall marks of oppression. We should think again about propagating 'universal' values from the West-Knows-Best perspective. After all 'Enlightenment' values in France now see muslim women resisting arrest and fines for wearing the veil of their choice. This is about human rights not just about sexual inequalities. It is up to those women to make their choice not up to us to pontificate and the struggle for sexual equality for me can only happen alongside wider struggles for freedom and liberty not in isolation. As for the Olympic Games being non-political. Come on. Every time a flag is raised this is one Nation State proclaiming its determination to compete and defeat its enemies. To paraphrase George Orwell "War without the bullets."

Anonymous
June 1st, 2011
7:06 PM
Wearing the hijab is not essential to the faith. The Koran only requires that women AND men dress modestly. That does not require the hijab or even a headscarf.

sem
May 28th, 2011
8:05 PM
Interesting article. This is a tricky one, IMO the determining factor is whether wearing the hijab is essential to the faith. If it is, then insisting an athlete remove it, is itself a political statement. For the record wearing a crucifix is not a requirement of Christianity.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.