Olympic Ambush Watch: Athletes, Tattoos, T-Shirts and Amnesty International

Read more HuffPost coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games

We're getting down to the fine points of controlling imagery at the Olympics. The International Olympics Committee, the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (BOCOG) and all federations and players are setting the stage for tough controls across the imagery-related board -- dealing with advertising ambush, potential symbolic protest meddling with the message of the Olympics, and the dangers of languid control of media rights.

The New York Times carped at the issuance of rules concerning fans attending the 2008 Olympics who "will have a long list of rules to carry in their pockets along with their tickets." According to the Times, the Chinese Olympic organizing committee listed a set of restrictions for the 500,000 overseas visitors expected in August. Olympic spectators are being told not to bring in "anything detrimental" to China, including printed materials, photos, records or movies. Religious or political banners or slogans are banned. So are rallies, demonstrations and marches -- unless approved by authorities in advance.

In early June, the Australian Olympic Committee (the AOC) warned its athletes to beware of Amnesty International bearing gifts. The warning was issued after Amnesty was said to have given New Zealand athletes "information pack[s] on human rights abuses" to carry to the Beijing Games.

Inside the pack would be an interesting assortment of goodies: badges, bumper stickers and tattoos that highlighted Amnesty International's concerns in China. According to an AAP newsfeed, "The packs tell the stories of those who have suffered under the Chinese government, outlines Amnesty's position on the Olympics, [and] suggests ways athletes can take action..."

The Australian Olympics Committee, and its spokesperson Michael Tancred, may have been reacting to a recent epistle from the International Olympics Committee, issued in April and designed to "clarify" Rule 51 of the Olympics Charter.

Rule 51 bans any "demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda" in Olympic areas. The April IOC letter expands on the rule, saying: "The conduct of participants at all sites, areas and venues includes all actions, reactions, attitudes or manifestations of any kind by a person or group of persons, including but not limited to their look, external appearance, clothing, gestures, and written or oral statements." The Games "are not a stage for different kinds of political statements about issues such as armed conflicts, regional differences, religious disputes and many others."

Maybe it was this set of guidelines that triggered the Australian reaction. The AAP newsfeed suggested that "The New Zealand athletes are being asked to speak out, write to those jailed by the Chinese regime, sign petitions and a banner, place an Amnesty sticker on their luggage or sports bag, and put their views on Amnesty's China campaign website."

According to the Aussie interpretation of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines, athletes can express political opinions verbally or in writing in interviews in Olympic media centers or in Games "mixed zones" as well as personal websites. "Our athletes are free to comment on human rights, Tibet and any other issue -- they have complete freedom of speech at the Olympic Games at Beijing," the AOC spokesman said. Then, however, Rule 51 kicks in.

"While they are allowed to express a point of view on any issue, we wouldn't allow them to wear Free Tibet shirts, or unfurl banners inside venues or things like that."

The spokesperson brought in the significance of Chinese law: The country has "very strict laws on what you can take into the country and we wouldn't want to breach the host nation's laws." This sensitivity to the law of the host country echoes concerns in my post about evangelical strategies with respect to the Olympics.

An April 2008 speech by Jacques Rogge, the president of the IOC, tried to nestle the guidelines in human rights language and sensitivity to athletes. The talk, April 11, 2008, in Beijing, was a gentle-sounding insight into the IOC's balancing act on flag-waving and free speech.

According to Rogge:

A person's ability to express his or her opinion is a basic human right and as such does not need to have a specific clause in the Olympic Charter because its place is implicit. But we do ask that there is no propaganda nor demonstrations at Olympic Games venues for the very good and simple reason that we have 205 countries and territories represented, many of whom are in conflict, and the Games are not the place to take political nor religious stances.

If athletes genuinely want to express their opinion, that's fine. But let's not forget, there is also the right not to express an opinion. Athletes should feel no moral obligation to speak out. They deserve the right to focus on their preparations and should not be made to feel obliged to express themselves if they do not wish to. The IOC and the National Olympic Committees have the duty to protect them from any kind of pressure. In any case, I do not expect there will be many incidents (of breach of rule 51). Athletes are mature and intelligent people. They will know what they can say or not say. If they have doubts, the IOC and the NOCs are here to guide them.

Read more HuffPost coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games

Comments

[Breakwind]

I think the Chinese Olympics are going to come off like a Chinese fire drill! They should be a hoot to watch!

[JTyroler]

Tattoos in a gift bag?

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

temporary tatoos, like the fans at sports events wear on their faces.

[mcthfg]

"Athletes should feel no moral obligation to speak out. They deserve the right to focus on their preparations and should not be made to feel obliged to express themselves if they do not wish to."

I simply can't agree with that. The Olympics is about the human race, not sports, and while the people in the Olympics get to play games (and they are playing - it's sports!), many others are suffering because we as a race are very good at convincing ourselves other people's suffering is not our problem.

Some superhero's uncle once said "With great power comes great responsibility." Olympians, whether they want it or not, have great power.

It's not for you to let your fellow humans off the hook if they decide to look away from their brothers and sisters who are being tortured and killed. You can complain that this may not be fair, but that's the world we live in.

[CFAmick]

Isn't the entire purpose of political protest to subvert the establishment?

[S1m0n]

The Beijing Olympics is a political act: the nation is spending billions of dollars on a money sump with only one main motive, one that's not difficult to guess with all the imperial hoopla accompanying the torch, around the world, up Everest, etc. The Chinese government are wise investers, and their multi-billion dollar investment in these games means they expect to get at least that much back in propaganda. As the dead monks in Tibet can attest, the message (we rule here!) is not subtle.

Taking part makes every athlete and (especially) every marketer a participant in the message. In this case, silence really is consent.