Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Call to ban anti-gay countries from London Olympics

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It’s a bit late as all teams had to be submitted on Monday. Maybe he should have called for it when we won the bid years ago? Also the Olympics can act as a wheel of change with Saudi Arabia sending two women and Qatar sending 3. Banning them just justifies these countries to continue their regimes and call the games a western ideology tool. Allowing athletes from oppressive regimes the opportunity to experience freedom which maybe some day will lead to change

  2. If everyones honest though, what country can say that they are entirely for gays/lesbians? Look at greatbrits, there are still homophobes, everywhere you go someone will look at you with a discusted expression when you are openly gay. Who’s to say somewhere down then line of the gb team that someone wasnt given the opportunity to compete for this very reason. My point is, no country is completely non-homophobic!

  3. Might as well cancel the Olympics then if people cant speak freely, or choose to have their own views.

    Didn’t Peter say that he supports free speaking a while ago, and that people should be able to say what they wish? I recall something.

    1. Jock S. Trap 12 Jul 2012, 3:28pm

      Peter isn’t questioning Free Speech, he is questioning if it’s right to separate people just based on their race, gender, sexual orientation etc and discriminated against them. Of course it isn’t. That has nothing to do with Free Speech but Everything to do with the Human Right to be treated fairly, equally as well as decently and with respect.

    2. I agree entirely with you Mike. Where to draw the line? Britain itself can be seen as anti-gay.

      1. In England we don’t hang people because they are gay. We might not have total equality yet (but we are fighting for it) but there is a BIG difference in our legislation from that of countries where killing people for their sexual orientation is law.

        1. You draw the line at hanging, but some other people could draw the line at marriage, or at any other equality, human rights issues, or even at society’s treatment of its LGBT citizens. While the British society tolerates a Ghaytto Soho, everywhere else it remains an unsafe and deeply homophobic society.

          1. Just out of interest, where do you live, Beberts?

          2. Rehan

            I asked Beberts the very same question on a different story a few weeks ago, he didn’t answer then either …

          3. Do you both think people’s opinions depend on where they live?

          4. Can you only answer a question with a question – or is it possible for you to answer a direct question that is put to you?

          5. I have nothing against answering questions with other questions.

          6. No need to state the obvious (though I suppose on the whole it’s better than stating the absurd, as is your wont).

          7. It would appear you have nothing against evading answering questions with specific direct answers to questions, either, eh Beberts – makes you appear snide and have something you wish to hide – which is the appearance of many of your comments.

          8. Gary, the kind of questions Rehan and Stu are positing can be very dangerous indeed. Asking people where they live for example is not something one has to answer, particularly on an online message board like this. Now you may ask why they are asking these questions? Perhaps because when they are puzzled by someone’s opinions, they consider judging the place where that person lives as a relevant factor…

          9. Not ‘dangerous’ at all Beberts, you clearly feel you have something to hide and have consequently developed a form of paranoia – that’s presumably what makes you so wary of nailing your colours to the mast, or ‘declaring your interest’ to use a more formal term.

            Still, I’m sure in your own way you’re wise to avoid the risk of being confirmed a fool, eh? Bless.

          10. Not quite sure how naming your nationality and country/region you live in is dangerous?

          11. If the above two characters feel it is safe to post their details online, they should feel free to do so. I strongly advise them against this practice though, but they seem to be adults, so we must assume they’re responsible for their actions.

          12. Besides, paraphrasing one of Stu’s favorite lines, what is the relevance of this to the discussion at hand?

          13. It may well put some context to your bleating about various tangental issues that have no relevance to the issue in hand.

            If you feel unsafe being open about which geographic region you live in and your nationality – perhaps you could use some logic to explain why you feel revealing this would be dangerous (your word) for you.

            I could understand not wishing to give your name, address and date of birth – but region !?!?!?!

        2. And Beberts, yes, the value of people’s opinions does depend upon their experience, and slimily avoiding a straightforward question does nothing to undermine one’s belief that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. I have no qualms about anyone knowing that I live in Westminster and work in Soho (thereby perhaps being a little more capable of seeing Soho for what it is). Given the nonsense you often write I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve never set foot in London, or even the UK.

          1. (Sorry, that was addressed to Beberts in the spin-off thread above.)

        3. Jock S. Trap 13 Jul 2012, 8:56am

          Totally agree Carl but more importantly we are a country where we Can fight for our rights!

          1. Absolutely, Jock

            We can fight for our rights and those of others – and we do.

          2. Jock and Stu need to travel more. Do they have the money to do that? If they had, where would they go? Would they go together or separate? Would they choose Mykonos or Benidorm? Paris or Blackpool? Costa Rica or Cuba?

          3. In the last five years I have travelled to:

            New Zealand, Singapore, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Spain (Barcelona, Asturias and Madrid), France, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Czech Republic, Turkey (Istanbul), Ghana, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, Botswana, South Africa, Sri Lanka, India, Ireland …

            So, Beberts, your point was?

          4. Come now Stu, why waste your time asking the impossible (Beberts, point)?

            (Where do you think Beberts has travelled to, do you think he’s stepped foot outside his home village?)

          5. Lol, Rehan

          6. Stu, gay people in all those countries you traveled to are also fighting for their rights and those of others. So, in this context, you appear to be saying in the UK you are in a special situation, when in reality it is just as common and mundane as anywhere else.

          7. Beberts

            Where did I say “the UK you are in a special situation”?

            Please explain what made you misunderstand my comments to lead you to this misrepresentation

  4. Jock S. Trap 12 Jul 2012, 3:24pm

    I totally agree, all discrimination should be ousted from the Olympics.

    I do question however, why bring this up 2 weeks before the event? Why not earlier I means it’s not like he’s had several years to fight this and make an impact which is now unlikely so close to the opening ceremonies.

    It could also be said that by All those taking part they will see British values including the acceptance of our community, which would be a good thing.

    Sorry Peter but whilst your opinion is valid and most important, the timing is too suspicious. It seems you’re just wanting headlines but with no action. Had you raised and fought for this 4 years ago I would have believed you were sincere about making change and maybe would have made a big difference too.

    1. I agree, it’s too late to have this discussion. However there is room for protest, if any anti-gay athletes win.

    2. Keith Farrell 12 Jul 2012, 4:19pm

      funny enough I also made the same remarks about the commonwealth games and the LGBT discrimination and murder taking place in so called member states about a month ago at the Equality meeting in Edinburgh. It was however pointed out to me that these games are all about the money, not human rights. I have since become of the opinion that it would be better to shame the countries that do these human rights violations by refusing to play their national anthem and broadcasting the reason as their homophobic stance, as such we cannot acknowledge their country but we can acknowledge the sports person. Also no sports person would be permitted to carry his countries flag if the country has homophobic laws.
      I am totally in support of any action against countries that go against the charter of the sports, eg Olympics or commonwealth games.

    3. That was my first reaction too.

      From what we hear in the news, the Olympic organizers are in deep doo-doo because they failed to properly estimate the security needed and so the military is being called out at the last minute.

      Likewise, there was lots of time to protest discrimination at the Olympics Games…. why wait till the last minute to do it?

  5. Peter Tatchell 12 Jul 2012, 3:46pm

    I have raised these points several times since 2005 when London first won the Olympic bid. No IOC action then or now – so far.

    1. Thanks very much indeed ! God Willing if at some future date countries with homophobic legislation were really banned from this sporting event you would have strike a blow right at the hetrosexualist “heart” of their corrupt and corrupting states !

    2. Given that the IAAF and IOC are at the leading edge of institutional suppression of trans people’s right to self-determination, that’s hardly surprising. No organisation that has the interests of trans people at heart enforces hormonal interventions and surgery as a condition of participation (for trans and cis athletes alike).

      If the IOC believed in inclusivity, they’d change their rules to accommodate athletes, rather than attempting to use their not inconsiderable influence to force athletes to accommodate their outdated and clinically perverse rules.

    3. Omar Kuddus 12 Jul 2012, 10:22pm

      Peter.
      I am confused as the reference made is that the Charter states ““Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.”
      However I for the life of me cannot seem to find this in the Main Components of the Olympic Charter as revised and last updated March 21, 1992.
      Perhaps you could be so kind as to enlighten me.

      1. So am I a liitle confused ! The Olympics as the name and the history of its 19th. century revival suggests are the sucessor “games” of those contests held in Hellas by the ancients to honour their blood drinking “Gods” and cults . The sweat of the athelets was considered an offering to these “deities” . What on earth are self respecting Muslim nations doing by participating in what is fundementally a Western neo pagan organisation !

    4. Bad idea Peter. Aren’t you aware the UK is currently and strongly positioning itself against the politicization of its Olympics? We could just as well ask gay athletes to protest during the games, similar to the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics…

  6. Robert in S. Kensington 12 Jul 2012, 3:50pm

    I so agree with Peter. There should be no place for discrimination for countries that are participating. I suspect it would be an uphill battle to get them to comply. Even the UN hasn’t had any success in making that happen. I don’t see the EU taking any lead either because they don’t want to upset diplomatic relations with the offending countries and it can’t even get all EU members to comply with directives affecting equality.

  7. Pavlos Prince of Greece 12 Jul 2012, 3:51pm

    What about state visits to Buckingham Palace and Downing Street, speeches at the Westminster, party in the embassy, diplomatic relationships, tourists, students, trade, foreign marriages and, of course, membership in the United Nations? Maybe – in the future, but not now. Nice initiative, any way.

  8. Irony alert
    “The Olympic Charter prohibits all discrimination,”
    So Tatchell wants us to ban them for discrimination?
    Isn’t it wrote into the Olympic rules that it shouldn’t be used as a political tool? Tatchell will get nowhere with this and must be using it to keep his name in the media

    1. Keith Farrell 12 Jul 2012, 4:22pm

      O shame, are you hurt by or remarks against discrimination, at some time you have to take a stand, maybe this is the time to do something to shame those homophobic countries

      1. Lynda Yilmaz 14 Jul 2012, 9:19am

        I agree! It’s not just about not being selected. Some of these countries KILL gay and lesbian people. It’s a hanging offence, and at the very least they don’t do anything about hate crime and perpetrators of hate crimes get very little in the way of punishment. I agree AllOut should start one of their excellent worldwide petitions. What a scoop that would be. Imagine! How upset would Coca Cola be if half the countries they sell to were kicked out of the games.

        1. Lynda Yilmaz 14 Jul 2012, 10:02am

          Oh and whether you like Peter Tatchell and his politics and/or methods is immaterial, you can’t really deny his place in the world for campaigning for gay rights.

    2. Fighting for gay rights is not a political tool. Gay rights are human rights.

  9. It’s a bit late now.

  10. Noooo! I often agree with Pete but not on this. How on earth else can we role model the normality, achievements etc of LGBT peoples, and challenge homophobia via positive personal contact, if we ban them?? We should instead be preparing to tackle homophobia head on whilst we have them close at hand…

  11. DANGERMOUSE 12 Jul 2012, 4:28pm

    IT’S A BIT LATE NOW

  12. The IOC like FIFA is a slow to act body more interested in what financially it can gain out of the game/s and has little interest in human rights values. It is only right to raise this issue, but we will get little reaction so close to the games. Perhaps we should send out rainbow flags ,lapel badges,buttons etc to competitors that request them. They can show them off at the opening and closing events and hopefully on the medal podium too! Rainbow Flags are a fabulous visability tool!

  13. I agree with the sentiment but this type of discussion should have taken place many months ago.

  14. Perhaps Britain should be banned from the games, until it gives the Chagos islands back to their original inhabitants, pays a heft penalty, and profusely apologises for all the crimes it committed against them …

    1. And the USA gives Hawaii back to its original inhabitants and California to Mexico, and Spain gives Ceuta and the Canary Islands to Morocco, and Turkey hands over Istanbul to Greece (well, why not?) etc etc etc, eh Beberts?

      1. The Chagossians have been threatened with their lives and forcefully evicted from their homes by the British government in the early 70s. Hawaiians are still living in their homeland. Ceuta should be given back to Morocco. Gibraltar back to Spain. California, Utah, Nevada and New Mexico should welcome Mexicans with open arms. The Chagossians are still waiting to go back home, and Rehan is siding with the criminals again, nothing new.

        1. Gibraltar back to Spain but Ceuta not to Morocco: Beberts is siding with the loonies again, nothing new.

          1. Its what we have come to expect

          2. That is true. (I’d like to say it’s entertaining at least, but it isn’t really.)

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jul 2012, 12:30am

      So what next, blame the Italians, the descendants of the Romans for occupying, oppressing and subjugating Britons for over 400 years, not to mention the Vikings and the Normans? Get a grip!

      1. So when something awful happen to you, don’t blame the criminals Robert, instead just do as you suggest, and get a grip as well.

        1. Ah yes, your much-vaunted technique of not answering direct questions, eh Beberts?

          1. Evading any questions put to him and refusing to give answers whilst bullying others into answering questions he wishes to ask, appears to be the two-faced (or maybe more than two!) approach of Beberts in almost all of his interactions on PN.

          2. Indeed, one could call him Janus-faced, though perhaps Janice-faced is more appropriate. :-)

  15. OutMaturity 12 Jul 2012, 4:59pm

    I won’t go into a long posting, but rather just say “I agree”. This would be the proper course of action for the Olympic Committee to take given their charter!

    Michael
    OutMaturity

  16. Olympic ideals are lip service and BS.

  17. Unfortunately, it won’t happen. Either for this Olympiad or at any one in the near future. All sport is so riddled with homophobia, and so many countries are so deeply homophobic that it is just a pipe dream at the moment. I hope that I am wrong and that at the next Games there are no homophobic countries allowed to compete. I’m not going to hold my breath though.

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Jul 2012, 9:10am

      Indeed and worse still is the fact the next two Olympics are being held in Russia and Qatar!

      It would have served Peter Tatchell well and better had he campaigned for this years ago where he may have had a chance to make a difference rather than two weeks before the bloody games start.

      This purely has been done to put Peter Tatchell in the headlines and I for one find it shameful. This would have been the perfect opportunity to try and make a difference.

      1. Er, no Jock

        Sure the 2014 Winter Olympics are in Sochi, Russia

        The 2016 Summer Olympics are in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil

        The 2018 Winter Olympics are in Pyeongchang, South Korea

        The 2020 Summer Olympics venue is not (as yet) decided but the remaining applicants are Istanbul, Madrid and Tokyo.

        Qatar is the host of the FIFA World Cup.

        1. Jock S. Trap 13 Jul 2012, 9:34am

          Ok sorry for the mistake, mine I see but nevertheless my point remains a Very valid one.

          1. Oh absolutely, valid.

            Just correcting the error.

            Not sure how (even professionals) can be expected to play football in Qatar at the height of the summer though – hope the hospitals are ready for many cases of heat exhaustion.

            Regardless of LGBT issues – which made Qatar a totally unsuitable place to hold a major sporting tournament – there are also clear practicalities which render its suitability dubious.

  18. TWO WEEK BEFORE THE EVENT AND PETER T…. WANTS THEM BAND…WHY HIT OUT AT THE SPORTS GUYS THAT HAVE WORKED SO HARD PETER….ITS NOT THERE FAULT….ITS A BIT LIKE THE SECURITY GUARDS….TOO LATE PETER….

  19. de Villiers 12 Jul 2012, 5:52pm

    I disagree with this strongly. There should be no bans of any countries for whatever reasons.

    The games are about the individuals. Athletes from African countries with anti gay policies, and who may be gay themselves, should not be prevented from participating because of policies of their government with which they disagree.

    Second, there is always a danger that once political elements are brought into sport, the issue of bans becomes captured by particular groups and pushed for their own agendas.

    Finally, the games are about the best athletes. Few athletes would welcome being known as the best runner or swimmer of a smaller group of countries rather than being the genuine world champion – based on all the entrants of the entire world.

    1. what nonsense. If games are about individuals explain team uniforms, national committees, flag parades, medal tables, national anthems, leader visits etc etc.
      Gaes are designed around national pride.

      1. I agree, Andy h – it’s all about the least attractive aspects of nationalist prejudice. Not to mention the richest countries in the world congratulating themselves on the excellence of the athletes they’ve poured appalling amounts of money into training solely for the purposes of gross national pride.

      2. Lynda Yilmaz 14 Jul 2012, 9:55am

        Hear hear! It’s not about individuals at all. ‘Team Sumsung’ is like the symbol of everything crap about the games now anyway.

    2. You are saying it was right for the world to take part at Hitler Olympic games in 1936 because it is about the best athletes? Look up what the Olympic spirit entails first.

  20. I think it’s too late now, plus the homophobia is too entrenched in too many countries.

    I would agree for future Olympics that there be minimum sex quotas (for example for countries with at least x competitors, at least y% must be from each sex), because most countries could comply with some effort.

    For LGBTs, I think a better approach would be visibility and positive expressions of support, such as rainbow flags, Pride House (I know it was tried but failed due to lack of finances), participation in Opening & Closing ceremonies and flame relay, etc

  21. Thank you Peter, for raising this at a time when it will get maximum publicity. While the Olymics shouldn’t be used as a political tool, they either observe the charter ( with regard to discrimination) or they don’t. South Africa was banned for 20 years because of apartheid. A good decision, surely. What’s the difference now?

    1. Why should athletes who may be pro-gay rights be prevented from competing because of their government’s laws? What about the UK with its illegal occupation of Iraq and all the murders we committed? The Olympics is about equality and changing people’s attitudes.

    2. What I don’t agree with is when these countries are allowed to host international sporting events, e.g. World Cup in Qatar.

  22. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 8:03pm

    Why wait until now to make this demand Peter? Surely the countries in question have participated in discrimination prior to now?

    1. How do you know he didn’t raise it before? How do you know?

  23. Oh Peter please. If you wanted to start something like this you should have done it 4 years ago. Your timing now only looks like you are chasing headlines and not an actual viable goal.

    1. How do you know he didn’t start it 4 years ago?

      1. Jock S. Trap 13 Jul 2012, 9:21am

        Because campaigning 4 years ago with Headlines and action may have actually made a difference…. Not just talking!

        1. But as Tatchell has said himself, earlier on this thread, this is something he has been campaigning about for years. The fact that it’s only now being reported in the media is hardly his fault.

          1. Jock S. Trap 14 Jul 2012, 10:21am

            I disagree…. Mr Tatchell never has a problem getting focus for Headlines so question why two weeks before when it he knows nothng can or will be done. Why not make a scene before,… it’s something he’s good at so I don’t accept your comment there as a valid one.

          2. The concept is faulty from the start. The IOC will never get involved in political discussions. It’d be better to call the foot soldiers instead.

          3. Jock S. Trap 15 Jul 2012, 10:33am

            Beberts… respecting one another without discrimination has nothing to do with politics… It’s the one place, the one event at least that should be free from all discrimination. I’m not saying ban but I am saying respect.

            It is a shame we can’t make that a world wide thing but we can make a start.

  24. The Olympic Games are intended to be a celebration of athletics with politics set aside. In fact, the Olympic Charter expressly opposes the clash of politics and sport.

    Now, I appreciate that human rights are definitely not political in the same manner as other issues and thus it is desireable that the Olympics would take a lead on issues of equality and fairness.

    Over the years, the Olympics have served as a political forum as much as they’ve served as an athletic arena.

    Faced with a ban because they refused to allow black people to compete in the Olympics, white South African politicians accused the sporting community of playing politics. But the IOC was having none of it: brotherhood, dignity and fairness, those laudable sporting values, could not be complicit in flagrant discrimination. South Africa was prohibited from attending the Games until 1992.

    It’s not just about race. Antonio Rebollo, the paralympic archer, lit the Olympic torch with a flaming arrow in Barcelona in 1992

    1. From time to time the Olympic community has stood up for gender equality too. In 2000, Afghanistan was banned from competing in the games because of the Taliban’s brutal discrimination against women. These enforcements by the IOC have been inconsistant with minimal (if any) restrictions placed on Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Brunei – all of whom have never allowed female athletes to compete.

      There is a profound hypocrisy. With race, gender and disability we have made progress. But, nowhere in the lists of the greatest Olympian moments is there a reference to gay, lesbian and transgender rights. No gay power salute, only ten “out” gay athletes in the Beijing Games and, most shocking of all, no censure of the 84 jurisdictions that criminalise homosexuality.

      When people think about countries like Jamaica, Kenya and Ethiopia at the Olympics, they think about the incredible runners, like Usain Bolt. They don’t think about what would happen if Bolt were gay. They don’t think about the fact that

    2. he would face a ten year prison sentence for having consensual sex with an adult man. That being open about his sexual identity would be dangerous, not only because it is illegal but because the levels of homophobic violence in Jamaica are so catastrophically high. In the Maldives and Qatar homosexual acts are punished by whipping. Only eleven countries recognise marriage equality throughout their entire jurisdiction.

      Sometimes there is light in the darkness: just a few weeks ago the new president of Malawi, Joyce Banda, announced that she would overturn Malawi’s ban on homosexuality – the first African country to do so since 1994. But mostly the outlook is bleak. A few weeks ago, it emerged that four Iranian gay men are due to be executed for sodomy under their nation’s sharia laws.

      In July, London will welcome the Iranian Olympic team.

      London 2012 will be the world’s biggest sporting event, and the city has an opportunity to leave a lasting humanitarian legacy of LGBT rights.

      It

    3. is entirely appropriate for the Olympics to be the forum for the promotion of LGBT rights.

      LGBT athletes are the only ones who have the glare of attention that can be used to effect real change. If they are able to do so (safety implications at home may need consideration) they should come out and make a visible, memorable, courageous gesture for LGBT rights. They should show that they are proud to be LGBT, just as Smith and Carlos were proud to be black, when at the 1968 Mexico Olympics, Tommie Smith (a US athlete) won the 200m final in a world record time of 19.83 seconds. America’s John Carlos came third. Walking to the podium to collect their medals, Smith and Carlos wore black socks and no shoes. They each wore a black glove. As the stadium launched into The Star-Spangled Banner, Smith and Carlos bowed their heads and raised their fists into the night sky. Later Smith said, “We are black, and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight.”.

    4. The IOC Committee must ban countries where homosexuality is criminalised from competing in the Olympics. The Games are a valuable way of protecting human rights and promoting equality, a principle enshrined in the Olympic Charter itself. To distinguish between racial apartheid in South Africa, gender apartheid under the Taliban and the criminalisation of consensual sex between adults of the same gender is artificial. Countries that sanction such discrimination, and the violence that goes with it, should not be allowed to compete. Far from bringing politics into sport, this step would fulfil the values of the Olympic Charter.

      It may well be too late to achieve this for London 2012, but progress can be made during London 2012. A clear statement of intent can be publically made which states that unless clear, obvious and determined progress has been made by 2015 then such nations that endorse inhumanity and damaging integrity of the Olympic ideals of equality and fairness will be banned

    5. from Rio 2016. Hopefully the Brazilian government, Brazilian Olympic organising committee and others will take up this challenge.

      1. It won’t happen Elaine. Olympic committees won’t get involved in any political issues. The governments of hosting countries can get involved, but Olympic committees never. They’ll always accept all athletes with open arms, unless they’re taking steroids …

  25. It’s much ado about nothing now since Olympic is this close. I have always enjoyed watching Olympic for the spirit of sportsmanship. However, seeing how IOC practised its double-standard rules left me irked and ultimately, whoever wins, I just don’t want to care considering how Iran hangs young gay men and walked free. Same goes for how Uganda treats LGBT. However, I sincerely hope that openly gay athletes like Matthew Micham will score gold medals. He is an inspiration for struggling gay youth. Other than that, I am counting myself out of Olympic this year after seeing the cries of persecuted LGBT left unheard everywhere. Hopefully, other nations will look into this matter in the future.

  26. Peter Tatchell is absolutely right. There will come a day when discriminatory countries will be banned from the Olympics, as they should be, and it will be thanks to the efforts of people like Peter, and no thanks to the defeatists and fatalists. As for the dense people complaining that banning such countries would also be a form of discrimination: yes, it would. It would be a justified form of discrimination against states that commit unjustified discriminaton. In just the same way that jailing murderers is a just form of discrimination against murderers. Being opo discrimination means being opposed to UNJUST discrimination. Otherwise there would never be any sound basis for taking action against or criticising racists, homophobes or any other kinds of bullies. I do wonder whether the Pink News comments board has been infiltrated by the increasingly desperate C4M lobby.

  27. The amount of negative assumptions (about when Peter Tatchell first raised this issue) on this site is mind boggling. What’s your problem? When has he ever been on the back foot about our rights? He has been on this since the bid. Don’t you think he needs headlines and publicity to be heard? Instead of carping, why don’t you get off your arsez and do something yourselves?

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Jul 2012, 9:28am

      Yes but grabbing headlines two weeks before the games start Isn’t a great start. He should have been doing it at the start and campaigned, got the Headlines then. All it does now is make him look more and more of a attention junkie but then this isn’t the first time, look at what he did on the announcement of Whitney Houston’s death… no respect just jumped in for headlines.

      Had he Grabbed the headlines years ago and actually campaigned with this he May have made a big difference and a very timely one since the next two games are in Russia and Qatar…. somewhere where this action against discrimination would have been the best thing to happen to the Olympics.

      1. Jock S. Trap 13 Jul 2012, 9:32am

        As for your last comment it is clearly obvious that Mr Tatchell has the ability to get noticed and grab headlines better than most so your last comment becomes irrelevant since Mr Tatchell could have made a bigger impact and made a difference.

        I agree not everything should be left for one person but maybe many people didn’t think about it til reading this. Had he made a public announcement years ago he would have gotten support, enough to have changed the way discrimination in the Olympics is governed.

      2. Peter Tatchell says “I have raised these points several times since 2005 when London first won the Olympic bid. No IOC action then or now – so far.”

  28. Okay, here’s what’s funny.

    There’s this guy, Dr. Tom Waddell. Perhaps you’ve read his book, Gay Olympian? He was a decathlete in the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.

    You’d probably recognize him from segments in the documentary Common Threads about the NAMES Project quilt, because he has at least one panel, having died of AIDS in 1987, survived by his wife, lesbian activist and fellow athlete Sara Lewenstein, and their daughter Jessica.

    Why is this relevant?

    Because Dr. Waddell was the founder of the Gay Games, first held in 1982. Waddell was sued by the USOC for originally naming the event “Gay Olympics.”

    I don’t think that the IOC cares all that much about gay rights when it comes right down to it.

  29. The Olympics should not be used as a poltical platform.

    So if an athlete who has worked his whole life very hard, and who most likely will not agree with the views of his countries leaders. Your saying they should not be aloud to take part in the Olympics.

    You should be aloud to enter whatever country you are from.

  30. Its not countries that are anti-gay, its people.

    1. Its countries who criminalise homosexuality not individuals

  31. Absolutely right, Peter. The Olympic Games is supposed to be about world unity and competition in fairness.

    1. Lynda Yilmaz 14 Jul 2012, 10:01am

      No pc, you are wrong. It IS the responsibility of a State. The laws and attitudes of the religious leaders of a State are what influence the people. Campaigning for any kind of ‘right’ is a long difficult road, because even when the appropriate legislation is enacted it still takes years to filter to the population, but it DOES change society and mostly what brings about change in society is acceptance, education, law and the loosening of the hold of religion that changes things. The people are just a reflection of the State!

  32. “Any country that discriminates against women, ethnic or religious minorities, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) athletes should be disqualified from the 2012 Olympics.” I hate to say it, but that pretty much includes every country in the world, no?

    1. Given how Elaine has described above how the IOC are not consistent on issues of gender discrimination – how can we expect them to be able to get it right on LGBT issues two weeks before London 2012?

  33. Jim Fields Nashville tn 13 Jul 2012, 5:53am

    ok i goggled discriminatin, olympics and homosexuals . wanting to know exactly what the olympic charter said .. I couldnt find anything except Mr Tatchell’s article and other pieces relates to him .. I do know that at the origin of the Gay Games the olympics took the founder to court and won a victory .. that said no to the use of The Gay Olympics .. that is how it became the Gay Games they also waged a war against the founder of the games .. so have they changed the charter to include the words gblt or homosexuals and lesbians .. or we just reading into it because they say they except everyone. just want to know .have always felt the olympics were homophobia .. mainly because it is run by a bunch of white heterosexuals .. who have to keep us “deviants’ in our place . shouldnt allow us into something that started with naked greeks ..

  34. GingerlyColors 13 Jul 2012, 7:21am

    Peter Tatchell is right, the Olympics should be an opportunity to promote tolerance and harmony throughout the world. We have come a long way since the 1936 Berlin Olympics (which were probably granted to the city before Hitler came to power) and the days when South Africa got frozen out of international sport because of Apartheid. It is time to kick homophobia out of the Olympics.
    As for the Commonwealth Games which Glasgow is due to host in 2014, should the whole event be scrapped altogether as only 12 out of the 54 Commonwealth Countries do not criminalise homosexuality (15 if you count England, Wales Scotland and N. Ireland as they compete as separate countries in the Games).
    When the flame is finally extinguished in London in a few weeks time we can look forward to Rio De Janeiro hosting the next Olympiad as along with other South American countries Brazil are determined to make progress on LGBT issues.

    1. Do you also think the USA should have been banned in 1968, which would have meant no black power salutes, possibly setting the civil rights movement back years and depriving us one of the greatest moments in human history?

    2. Lynda Yilmaz 14 Jul 2012, 9:21am

      I wonder why AllOut didn’t do something about this

  35. I agree with you, Peter and as it is a bit late in coming maybe ithis could be used to heighten awareness of, and expose further, those countries that are anti-gay and thus start a momentum to ban them for the next olympics. Or put pressure on them to change. High profile publicity on human rights violations in those countries, homophobia and discrimination against the LGBT Community should be the focus of media attention. This is a good opportunity to do so, as the world focuses on Britain and the Olympics. All social media sites could be used for this to heighten awareness.

  36. This is an absurd request. It assumes we are superior to everyone else, when the truth of the matter is we (as a nation) have plenty of blood on our hands. Surely NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD would meet Peter’s ridiculous criteria?

    I wish Peter T would just be quiet sometimes. Occasionally he goes too far and thereby undermines a lot of the good work he does.

    1. It seems like Peter is transitioning from respected human rights campaigner to ultra left wing whinging party pooper. If you tantrum too loudly, people will stop paying attention.

  37. Paddyswurds 13 Jul 2012, 11:15am

    Would you all get a grip. Banning countries from th Olympics was and never is going to happen for whatever reason. Even at the worst of the Cold war, Viet Nam War, Iran kidnappings whatever it has never happened and simply wont for Gay issues no matter how liberal the host country is. |It is simply a step too far and anyway sports should not be mixed up with politics. If we were to start banning countries, where would we stop. In this particular case Even the UK would be banned from its own Olympic competition so enough already….it ain’t happenin…….

    1. Lynda Yilmaz 14 Jul 2012, 9:48am

      Well it may not happen, but since it is apparently ok for the Olympics to support world capitalist organisations, ( I mean, who the hell is ‘Team Sumsung’ – Oh! they mean the British Team! I can’t see what’s wrong with making a bit of a fuss. And since when was it not ok to campaign for something because there are other human rights issues in the world and since when was it not ok to campaign because something was a ‘step too far’? Also, I can’t see how you can compare the UK with countries where being gay is actually a hanging offence? The UK isn’t perfect many respects, but at least here we can talk and write about gay rights without fear of arrest, torture and possibly execution. I’ll tell you why it wont happen, because the corporate sponsors make zillions of dollars from countries where Coke is the acceptable alternative to alcohol!

  38. auntie babs 13 Jul 2012, 12:26pm

    for once I actually agree with Peter in principle. Also 2012 is the year that we are supposed to be challenging homophobia in sport…the Olympics is sport. The trouble is it’s too late to make a difference now.

  39. It’s particularly ironic that the Games open on 27 July – the 45th anniversary of the passing of the Sexual Offences Act on 27th July 1967.
    That was the vital first legal breakthrough in making gay men’s lives easier in England & Wales, and I hope the fuss over the Olympics won’t totally obscure our own history here.

  40. I totally agree. I am so proud that the Australian team have accepted and embraced Matthew Mitcham our Gold medal winning diver.
    He has been a great ambassador for Gay rights, Australia and the Olympic movement as a whole.
    I urge that kind of attitude to be adopted by all athletes and countries. It can only do good for the movement and the delivery of a more tolerant world.

  41. Lynda Yilmaz 14 Jul 2012, 9:30am

    I just emailed AllOut to ask why they didn’t do something about this. It’s a great idea. Maybe a bit too late to be actually doing anything about it, but certainly not to late to start talking about it. Actually, why too late? I don’t suppose it’s likely that the Olympic committee would suddenly boot out all the offending countries, but it would certainly send a powerful message to the world. If they can use the Olympic and the spirit of the Olympics to promote capitalism, they can’t really say politics have nothing to do with it!

  42. Spanner1960 14 Jul 2012, 11:06am

    Pointless bleating from an irrelevant attention seeker.

    The Olympics is nothing but a massive money-spinning operation for a select small group of individuals. Does Tatchell think that with only a few weeks to go the IOC are going to go “Oh, bloody good point Peter, we hadn’t thought of that. Let’s ban all the major oil producing countries for starters…”

    That man is a twat of extraordinary stature.

  43. I disagree with homphobia compeltely but maybe if we let these athletes come in. There is a small chance they may see our culture and values. Whos to say the Athletes are not secretly gay…

    I therefor think it would be discriminatory to disqualify those countries and they can learn fom our views and values. Lets not forget we have the vile homophobic BNP, I think all BNP and UKIP member s should be banned, as they are racist and elitists. And don’t forget the English Defence League

    1. Spanner1960 15 Jul 2012, 2:10pm

      Good to see you approve of democracy.
      Ban everyone that doesn’t follow your politics.
      Most people would call that a dictatorship.
      The whole point of democracy is everyone is allowed to come to the table; if you start banning people because you disapprove, that’s the thin end of the wedge.

      1. They are welcome to the table if they act within the law and are responsible.

        If they do and their views are putrid, then they should be exposed for their ridiculous putrid views. If however, they engage in illegal and irresponsible activity then there should be an exclusion (temporary or permanently) from the democratic process – particularly if they are a risk to the democratic process.

        This comment is meant to be generalised and not about a specific political organisation.

        1. Spanner1960 15 Jul 2012, 6:24pm

          Mainstream political parties have lots of putrid views, yet people still vote for them. Tony Blair made a career out of it.

          1. But those views deemed as putrid were exposed and people had a choice.

            I am not clear that there has been illegal actions such as inciting hatred by mainstream parties.

  44. GayChurchman 14 Jul 2012, 9:38pm

    From yammering about how wonderful Julian Assange is on “Russia Today” (propaganda for Putin) to demanding the Olympics ban countries he disapproves of Tatchell demonstrates he has learnt nothing since he handed Bermondsey to the Liberals in 1982. The man’s a buffoon!

  45. Keith Farrell 21 Jul 2012, 12:02am

    I have reread all the comments, the opinion seems well divided between what is right and fair and the people who want the status quo to continue.
    Well all I can say is if the Olympics are not a political tool, why does a countries anthem get played at the awards. surly the way forward is to honor the athlete but refuse to honor the country the athlete comes from, and that includes the USA with their anti gay stance

  46. David Skinner 30 Jul 2012, 4:51pm

    Calm down dears, calm down.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all