Noted actor, athiest spokesman and gay activist Stephen Fry

[KhorTose]

My admiration for Stephen Fry continues to go up and up.  He has written a very direct and personal letter to David Cameron about not attending the Russian Olympics.  I only wish his sentiments were echoed in the USA.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stephen-fry/stephen-fry-open-letter-to-david-cameron_b_3718389.html

[Guest fountainhall]

I agree it is superbly written and splendidly argued. But we should be clear that Fry is going much further than merely calling for Cameron not to attend the Winter Olympics: he is calling for Cameron, the IOC and others to ban them.
 
He cites Emund Burke -
 
"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
 
- and then asks, "Are you, the men and women of the IOC going to be those "good" who allow evil to triumph?"
 
As we would expect, he picks his one example of Putin's ban on discussion of homosexuality with care. Historically, Tchaikovsky is one of Russia's most famous artists, a composer whose music and ballets are known by more around the world than almost all the rest of the country's composers put together. Tchaikovsky was gay. Whilst the manner of his death at the age of 53 remains in some doubt, there is a growing body of evidence that he was forced to commit suicide or suffer 'outing' as a homosexual. As the New York Times wrote back in 1981 -
 

The issue, briefly, is this: did the Russian composer actually die in 1893 of cholera, as biographers have assured us for generations? Or was he, as some serious students of Tchaikovsky now contend, forced to commit suicide by a ''court of honor'' made up of his former classmates at the College of Law in St. Petersburg?. The composer may have acted out of fear that he and especially his family would be disgraced if the fact of his homosexuality were made public. The Czar already knew, and Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky's idol, might learn of it any day. So runs the argument for suicide. Russia, then as now, was a stern and unpermissive mother.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/did-tchaikovsky-really-commit-suicide.html

[NIrishGuy]

Whilst of course I like most other right thinking people am disgusted what is currently taking place in Russia I'm also amazed that more people aren't reminding straight people that here in Britain until both the year 2000 in Scotland and 2003 in England and Wales and until the repeal of section 28 that almost exactly the same law was in place in the UK i.e

 

"that a local authority ( i.e. Councils or Schools etc) shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"

 

That's almost word for word the same as what's happening now in Russia, so whilst it's terrible that it's happening again now there and we should of course campaign against that with all out mite the straight world here in the UK and beyond should perhaps remember ( or be reminded occasionally when the ask why are the gays always complaining and marching in Gay pride parades etc) that they too inflicted the same pain and harm on gay people here for many years - lest they forget !

 

Thankfully here in the UK things are moving on and improving, slowly but surely, but when one looks at the fight required just to secure equal rights re gay marriage and the very fact that the likes of Stephen Fry HAS to write a letter asking for society to stand up and stop this sort of behaviour ( and be fairly much either ignored or lambasted for having the "cheek" to do so) it shows that we've still a way to go in terms of being seen as equals in this straight world that straight people believe they graciously allow us to live in - just as long as we don't annoy them to much or be "to gay" where we might offend their precious sensitivities !  

[Rogie]

Opinion was split whether there should be a boycott of the 1936 Olympic Games. That's well before anyone reading this can remember. I don't know about Britain, but in America there was quite a fuss. 

 

“...Sport is prostituted when sport loses its independent and democratic character and becomes a political institution...Nazi Germany is endeavoring to use the Eleventh Olympiad to serve the necessities and interests of the Nazi Regime rather than the Olympic ideals.” —Committee on Fair Play in Sports, New York, November 15, 1935

 

Soon after Hitler took power in 1933, observers in the United States and other western democracies questioned the morality of supporting Olympic Games hosted by the Nazi regime. Responding to reports of the persecution of Jewish athletes in 1933, Avery Brundage, president of the American Olympic Committee, stated: "The very foundation of the modern Olympic revival will be undermined if individual countries are allowed to restrict participation by reason of class, creed, or race." Brundage, like many others in the Olympics movement, initially considered moving the Games from Germany. After a brief and tightly managed inspection of German sports facilities in 1934, Brundage stated publicly that Jewish athletes were being treated fairly and that the Games should go on, as planned.

Many American newspaper editors and anti-Nazi groups, led by Jeremiah Mahoney, president of the Amateur Athletic Union, were unwilling to be duped by Nazi Germany's hollow pledges and lies regarding German Jewish athletes. But Avery Brundage maneuvered the Amateur Athletic Union to a close vote in favor of sending an American team to Berlin, and, in the end, Mahoney's boycott effort failed.

 

 

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/olympics/detail.php?content=boycott&lang=en

 

As we all know many black athletes, the best-remembered one being Jesse Owens, rubbed Hitler's nose in it, making a mockery of his belief in Aryan superiority. 

 

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/olympics/detail.php?content=aa_athletes

 

Back to the present. Should the winter Olympics be boycotted? Fry is quite entitled to write to the PM. Anybody can. What will the athletes be thinking? Do they support a boycott or not? Rather than put Britain's PM in an invidious position, I would suggest the decision should rest with the athletes. If they favour a boycott by a democratic 'show of hands' then so be it.

[NIrishGuy]

But surely as those athletes are there to representing our / their Country that Country ( through their Government) should then have a say as to whether or not they WISH us all to be represented at Games such as this and if not and the athlete choses to continue then that then should only mean then continuing to compete as an individual and not as a Representative of their Country ( which isn't currently allowed of course) .

 

But leaving the athletes personal views aside for a moment or even what the Country prefers to happen how it terrible it must be for them for all this to be kicking off right at the end of their years of training and them working so hard to earn their place in their representing their Country in the first place, I'm sure they're gutted about the whole thing either way.  

[Guest fountainhall]

Whilst I am in sympathy with Fry's proposal, I have major doubts it will have any effect whatever in changing what is happening in Russia. We may not be old enough to remember Berlin, but surely many of us remember the US boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow? This, let's recall, was a purely political decision, a direct result of Cold War tensions which had been exacerbated by the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. The withdrawal of the US team was one of a package of measures protesting the action. 65 countries joined that boycott, including Japan and West Germany.

And what did that achieve? Absolutely nothing! Did the Soviets withdraw? No! The covert ferrying of US arms to the Mujahideen eventually achieved that with the Soviets finally departing with their tails between their legs in February 1989.

But let me withdraw that “nothing” comment. For the US action directly led to millions of Afghans taking refuge in the mountain regions of Pakistan, where many remain today. It also directly led to the rise of the Taliban and the warlords – and we know the consequences of that! Another “unfortunate” incidence eerily similar to an unexpected result of the US undeclared war on Cambodia a decade or so earlier – the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge!

But that 1980 boycott was a purely political decision, one that had nothing to do with individual athletes. Surely the UK’s position over that boycott was the correct one? It supported the boycott but allowed its athletes to participate if the National Olympic Committee approved – which it did. Athletes from the UK and many other countries then marched at the opening ceremony under the Olympic rather then their national flags.

One main concern about the present situation in Russia must be that it could affect gay athletes who might be subject to demonstrations and even harassment. Yet, Putin is a strongman leader and will certainly have every organ of the State primed to ensure that absolutely nothing happens to embarrass his country before and during the Games. Of course, that does nothing to change the situation in Russia. But like the Berlin Games, they are likely to proceed without incident.
 
Meanwhile, though, the anti-Russia bandwagon continues in smaller ways. Change.org has issued a petition to the august Metropolitan Opera in New York urging that it dedicate its 23 September opening night of Tchaikovsky’s opera Eugene Onegin to gay rights. The petitioners point out that the evening’s conductor, one of the most sought-after of today – Valery Gergiev, is good pals with President Putin, as is, we are told, the star of the production, soprano Anna Netrebko.

The Met has issued a statement affirming its proud history as a creative base for LGBT singers, conductors, directors, designers and choreographers – a comment it would be difficult to counter. It adds –
 

“As an institution, the Met deplores the suppression of equal rights here or abroad. But since our mission is artistic, it is not appropriate for our performances to be used by us for political purposes, no matter how noble or right the cause."

 

Photo: Associated Press from the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-metropolitan-opera-putin-petition-20130808,0,2906036.story

[Rogie]

I signed one of Change.org's petitions a while ago. Now I am on their mailing list so get a new one in my inbox every so often. I don't know how they decide which ones to send me as I probably only get a fraction of those currently happening.

 

I thought I would check and see how many petitions there have been. I don't know how many there are but I would be concerned that if anyone can launch a petition (which is the whole point anyway) the really good ones will be diluted by many less worthy ones.

 

Sorry! ignore this 'quote' box!

 

Be that as it may, here is one relevant to this thread.

 

In Russia, it is basically illegal to say that you are gay. You cannot kiss your partner in public. You can’t have a rainbow flag in public. You can’t even acknowledge that you are gay, or else you face possible imprisonment and fines.

 

Russia is becoming one of the most anti-gay places in the entire world. But it’s also going to hold the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, where the world is supposed to come together in a spirit of community and togetherness. But how could LGBT people and their families be welcome, when they run the risk of being thrown in jail or fined just for being who they are?

 

RUSA LGBT, a Russian-speaking American association for members of the gay community, says that LGBT athletes and spectators will not be safe during the 2014 Olympic games. And given the Russian government’s recent actions toward LGBT people -- including violent crackdowns on gay rights rallies and arresting members of the LGBT community -- how could anyone feel safe during these Olympic games?

 

That’s why I’m asking the major sponsors and partners of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games -- Coca-Cola, Panasonic, Samsung, Procter & Gamble, and Visa -- to condemn Russia’s anti-gay laws, which are some of the most repressive laws in recent history, and pull their sponsorship from Russia’s Olympic games. Do these companies want to be tied to an Olympics where LGBT athletes and spectators are likely to face harsh violence, prison, and brutality?

 

It’s time for these companies to put their support for LGBT people first, and send a message to Russia that their anti-gay laws are not only contrary to basic human rights, but fly in the face of the spirit of the Olympic Games, which celebrate human dignity and community above all else.

 

 

 

 

https://www.change.org/petitions/stand-against-russia-s-brutal-crackdown-on-gay-rights-urge-winter-olympics-2014-sponsors-to-condemn-anti-gay-laws

 

The author asks whether athletes and spectators can feel safe? Feeling safe is not the same as actually being physically unsafe, but whatever the degree of unsafety anyone may experience it is clearly unacceptable. I  agree with Fountainhall that in practice the Games will go ahead with Russia very eager to avoid any embarrassment being beamed into every Game-viewer's living room. I would expect however, the Russians will be embarrassed at some stage. Remember the black power salutes?

 

Going off at a tangent, here is a report concerning an extremely nasty 'trend' in Russia:

 

Russian Neo-Nazis Allegedly Torture Gay Teens In 'Anti-Pedophilia' Campaign

 

A well-known group of Russian neo-Nazis has been luring gay teens who respond to personal ads, then beating them, humiliating them, and forcing them to come out on video, reports Spectrum Human Rights Alliance. The skinhead group then proudly posted photos of the assaults on Facebook. 

 

Reportedly leading the homophobic attacks is infamous Russian nationalist Maxim Martsinkevich, also known as "Cleaver," a former skinhead who claims he's launched a national campaign to root out "pedophilia" in Russia. But Martsinkevich and his cronies in the group called "Occupy-Pedofilyay" are reportedly targeting LGBT teenagers between the ages of 14 and 16 with personal ads hosted on Russian social networking sites advertising gay dates, according to the U.K.'s Pink News. When the teens respond to the ads, they are captured, often bullied and tortured, then forced to come out as gay on videos intended to be shared with their friends, family, and community members. 

 

Human rights activists began circulating the graphic image above of one teen who they say was captured, covered in red paint, then forced to kneel and hold a sex toy while the antigay militants proudly posed alongside him. The photo was posted to Facebook Wednesday.

 

 

 

That poor kid!

 

http://www.advocate.com/news/world-news/2013/07/26/russian-neo-nazis-torture-gay-teens-anti-pedophilia-campaign

[NIrishGuy]

More annoyingly after Stephen Fry writing his long and eloquent open letter to the Prime Minister of the UK I see he's just had his reply  - saying screw you we're going basically - but BY TWEET !!!   I mean REALLY and they complain that standards in schools are dropping etc, if the bloody Prime Minister can't reply to a letter on a serious topic other than with a bloody Tweet I despair. 

 

And I'd look over it if it was some knee jerk instant response from David Cameron whilst on a train or something, but this short "we're going anyway" response took days to be concocted and was no doubt mulled over by half the PM's press team with meetings and focus groups ascertaining the best PR method of reply with the chance of least damage limitation and the best they could come up with for the PM of the UK to reply to such a serious heartfelt was was to send a TWEET ! :-(  Bloody insulting to the gay community if nothing else.  

[Rogie]

Do we know the contents of the tweet? Was it short and sweet or long-winded? As a fan of traditional means of communication I would say the correct, or at least preferred, thing to do is to reply in a similar way. So if someone sends you a letter, write back. Ditto phone calls, e-mail, text message etc. However,in the sphere of communications, as in many things, change happens, so the old order is stood on its head and becomes a recipe for confusion. If I am writing to my MP, whereas I used to post him a (word-processed) letter, now I send him an e-mail. However, thus far he has replied by letter. If he responded by some 'lower' form of communication I wouldn't take it too well.

 

When all's said and done, surely the best thing is to steer well clear of this tweeting malarky. I assume you need some sort of account, so, if you don't have one then nobody can send you a tweet! (or maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, maybe tweets aren't personal? perhaps they are supposed to be seen and lapped up by anyone . . . like lots of stupid little sound-bites . . )

[Bob]

Obama yesterday took some swipes at the Russian government's treatment of gays and lesbians but said he didn't support any call for a boycott.  He mentioned that there were are lot of young American athletes who've been training hard for years for these events and, although unsaid, it appeared he supported them having the opportunity to go and compete. 

 

I'm all for reacting in some manner to countries who criminalize homosexuality or do other things in violations of basic human civil rights; however, boycotting the Olympics doesn't seem to me to be the appropriate response and doing that ultimately destroys the overall good the Olympics accomplishes (including the likelihood that some openly gay Olympians show the fucking Russians how to win a few medals!). 

[NIrishGuy]

You've got it in one there  - the use of a Tweet was for sure designed to go out to as many "cool" people as possible ( as Stephen Fry has a massive group of followers on Twitter).

 

It was also used I have no doubt as a Tweet can only contain a maximum of 140 characters ( subject to tweaking your text a bit)  which thus negates and prevents the need or possibility of sending a better, longer more comprehensive answer to what is ( but shouldn't be) undoubtedly a very difficult situation for the PM and one which I'm sure Cameron would rather not be getting into right now with Russia, thus he ( think's ) that he can maybe get away with just a few brief lines in two Tweets to reply to such a serious issue - thankfully Stephen fry has played it right back at him via Twitter by tweeting  

 

"PM, you may be right. Would that have been true in 1936? But is there nothing we can DO? Putin grows and grows in confidence". thus re-opening the debate - without any reply to date from the PM , he has also asked that atheletes if they DO attend they make an "X" type gesture with their arms across their chests during the games as a sign of solidarity with the gay community in Russia .

 

Just your info Cameron's ( two ) tweets ( or at least those of the Press officers who wrote them for him) were as follows:

 

 

‘Thank you for your note @stephenfry. I share your deep concern about the abuse of gay people in Russia.

 

and 

 

‘However, I believe we can better challenge prejudice as we attend, rather than boycotting the Winter Olympics. DC

 

 

Thank you for your note indeed !  Bloody ridiculous, two lines of text to reply to such a serious issue and in response to an open letter which is supported by many if not all of the gay (and also str8) community - and worse still delivered as a Tweet just to appear "cool" but in a medium that upwards of 70% of the population can't even read or use !

 

I don't know which Press Officer advised him on this one but they need a lot more ( or perhaps a lot LESS ) media training and I'm delighted to see that gay protesters are already protesting outside Downing Street about this right now ! 

 

I just hope that Obama doesn't send us any important letters anyway soon as I don't think he has a twitter account so GOD knows what Cameron would do to reply to HIM  ! :-(

[Rogie]

The idea of a tweet seems perfectly harmless, in itself. A nice succint reply or comment on something -  heaven knows there's enough hot air and verbosity clogging the airways and cyberspace - is fine, but when it's used as an excuse for a 'proper' and fully-considered reply that to me counts as a cop-out so I agree with you NIrish it's nowhere good enough. I suppose if someone does reply to your letter via Twitter then you'll probably feel a bit insulted so either 'give up' as a lost cause or as you say NIrish play along with his 'little game'.

 

So far in this thread we have concentrated on 2014, but I am rapidly finding this tiresome; it seems there is no end in sight! After 2014 we have 2018 then four year's further down the line we reach the fiasco of 2022. For anyone not familiar with 2022 there is an excellent thread here in the Beer Bar.

 

http://www.gaythailand.com/forums/topic/7012-soccers-governing-body-mired-in-corruption-allegations/?do=findComment&comment=50016

 

 

In the meantime, have a read of this . . . 

 

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/fifa-may-suspend-anti-gay-laws-russia-qatar-during-world-cup140613

[Guest fountainhall]

KhorTose has opened up quite a sizeable can of worms in this thread for, as Rogie points out with his references to earlier threads, the issue of discrimination against the LGBT community – allied to almost certain massive corruption – covers not just the forthcoming Winter Olympic Games, but also the award of the Soccer World Cups to Russia in 2018 and the tiny Emirate of Qatar in 2022.

The latter have to a certain extent already been discussed, partly by me, on GB’s forum. However, a summary here might be useful. I happen to love the game of soccer and I loathe the stench of corruption that surrounds its controlling body, FIFA, and its snake-like President Sepp Blatter, a man who was once the President of the World Society of Friends of Suspenders, an organisation which tried to stop women replacing suspender belts with pantyhose! Indeed, many wish he had never left that job! However, as this post is lengthy, I suggest those with no interest jump to the next post or next thread.

 

Size = Cash

 

The quadrennial Summer Olympics and World Cup Competitions are by far the world’s two largest sporting events. From their origins as a celebration of youth and sport largely confined to one city or country, the advent of satellite communications opened them up to a huge world audience. And with that audience came multinational corporate sponsors and their cash.

I remember talking to the head of DHL in Asia about DHL being the ‘Official Courier’ for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics (boycotted by the Soviet States in retaliation for the US and others boycotting the Moscow Games four years earlier). He told me that for an ‘investment’ of US$250,000 of free courier services, not only did DHL have the use of the Olympic Rings for it’s advertising, it gained worldwide TV exposure for weeks – and DHL had to be used by all the official Olympic committees, and paid for, once the $250,000 had run out. End result: a huge win-win situation for DHL which made a major profit out of the venture.

Where oodles of cash are being raked in, though, there is the consequent temptation for some to dip their fingers into the till. Not surprisingly, over the decades the very amateur officials and committee members who reign over these events – sometimes very senior ones – have been accused of such chicanery, publicly denounced, stripped of their positions – and yet hardly anyone has been jailed! For these now-multi-billion dollar organisations are their own little fiefdoms, answerable virtually to nobody but themselves.

The Olympics have, I think, put their house largely in some decent administrative and financial order, following the end in 2001 of the 21-year reign of its President Juan Antonio Samaranch under whose watch rampant corruption was a fact of life. FIFA, the worldwide Federation based in Switzerland and headed since 1998 by an alleged “crook” named Sepp Blatter, is a totally different kettle of rotting fish.

I use the word “alleged” because, despite a mountain of accusations by senior FIFA officials, despite a Swiss court ruling that his predecessor had accepted millions in secret kickbacks, despite proof of endemic corruption within the organization across the globe, several TV exposes into payments to offshore companies, and all manner of committees set up to investigate nepotism and alleged major fraud – including, laughably, FIFA’s own “Ethics Committee”, somehow Blatter himself has just hung on. The worst verdict to date is that he has been “clumsy”!

As the New York Times wrote three months ago, the representatives of the 208 national associations who are the members of FIFA, “should call upon their president, Sepp Blatter, to step down.” It then adds that they won’t because it is the handouts from World Cup profits emanating from Blatter’s strictly controlled office in Switzerland that keeps them in power.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/sports/soccer/08iht-soccer08.html?_r=0

Awarding of the Events

Whilst initially it was the flood of sponsorship funds which helped promote the tide of corruption in both organisations, soon it was backhanders and brown paper packets to those Committee members whose job it was to award the events every four years. The economic, PR and a vast array of other benefits accruing to host cities/nations became so great that the greasing of a few palms and the parting of a few tens of millions of dollars was nothing in comparison.

World Cups in 2018 and 2022

The awarding of World Cup host nations had generally taken place without much controversy. The tournament is always held in the summer during the time when European Clubs traditionally have their summer breaks. Not so those from many other countries who have to adjust their domestic league programmes to accommodate it.

There was also an agreement, albeit unwritten, that the host countries would alternate between Europe and the Americas – meaning Central and South America until 1994 when the USA won the bid. Whilst that award raised eyebrows, its declared aim of helping promote a newish sport in the land of Baseball and American Football resonated – with some. And it seemed to work, so much so that in 2002 the Cup was awarded jointly to Japan and Korea where soccer was again a relatively new sport in international terms. South Africa in 2010 also broke new ground, although this was allegedly steered through by Blatter in return for a large chunk of votes from African delegates on his committee to keep him in power.

Russia 2018

So opening up new territories should not have come as a major surprise when the voting was underway for 2018 and 2022. And the selection of Russia for 2018 seemed understandable, given that this is a soccer mad nation with a flourishing domestic league. Yet FIFA’s own technical committee had stated that the bids from Russia and Qatar were “the riskiest” of all nine bids. That same committee had given accolades to England as being almost certainly the best bid. England had not held a World Cup since 1966; yet its delegate had voted against Blatter’s reelection as President and the BBC had run a major documentary on corruption within Blatter’s FIFA. From then on, England’s bid stood no chance.

Qatar 2022

It was the award to the tiny state of Qatar for the summer of 2022 that raised an increasing chorus of disapproval leading to outrage. Its total population is less than many of the world’s medium-sized cities. It has only one stadium of a size and standard suitable for a competition which requires between 10 and 12. It had none of the massive infrastructure required of bidding nations – and it had intense summer heat which FIFA’s own inspectors had declared “a potential health risk for players, officials, the FIFA family and spectators.”

 

Qatar: Gays and Alcohol

 

Not only that. Qatar is an Islamic nation where the principles of Shari’a law hold sway. Like it or not, the drinking of alcohol in public is part and parcel of attending a World Cup. That is banned in Qatar. Flogging and stoning remain on the statute books as punishment for certain crimes. Homosexuality is illegal and punishable by between 1 and 3 years in prison.

Initially Blatter shrugged off such concerns. When asked at a press conference about gay people wishing to attend the Cup in Qatar, Blatter was unable to keep a straight face when he said –
 

“I would say that they should refrain from sexual activities"

 

An outrageously fatuous comment he would later regret with attempts to backtrack. "Time will sort everything out" is his way of dealing with such serious issues. Yet, two and a half years after that vote was taken, the issues are coming back to haunt him, so much so that he now wants the two countries to suspend their laws, according to GayStarNews following a meeting with Blatter in June. But how that would – or could – work remains a total mystery.

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/06/14/2161911/fifa-suspend-russia-qatar-gay-laws/

Summer Heat

Again initially shrugged off by Blatter as an inconvenience which would be circumvented by the new Qatari stadia being built with innovative temperature and humidity controls, it is now agreed that on climate grounds alone, Qatar’s bid should have been ejected. After a few months, there was talk of switching the time of the Cup to winter. The European nations – the world’s largest and richest – cried foul. In the last few days Greg Dyke, the new Chairman of England’s Football Association, has added his voice to this growing chorus. More will join. And if the Cup is switched to winter, then the only proper way to handle the issue is to reopen the bidding – for the original bid specifications were for the tournament to be held in summer, as usual. Will that happen? No way!**

Blatter’s reelection in 2011

For Blatter, though, many of the rules are there to be adapted to his desires. And those who stand in his way quickly find themselves ostracized and kicked out of FIFA, if not facing a judge in some law court. Four of the Executive Committee members who voted for Russia and Qatar in December 2010 suffered just such a fate and are now FIFA history. One is Mohammed bin Hammam, the delegate from Qatar who had helped swing Arab votes for Blatter’s reelections. And in a supreme irony, bin Hammam had announced in 2011 that he would run as a candidate for FIFA President against Blatter that year. Is it any surprise than the gentleman resigned from FIFA a few days prior to the election and was then banned for life from FIFA for bribery and vote buying? Sheik Blatter was reelected unopposed!

For those who have read through to the end of this long post, let me leave you with a quote from a long article about FIFA which highlights the odious corruption surrounding the world body controlling what many call “the beautiful game”.
 

The past four World Cups to be awarded, representing 16 years of FIFA's work and tens of billions of dollars in revenue, have charted a line straight down the Democracy Index, from South Africa (30th place) to Brazil (47th) to Russia (107th) to Qatar (137th), where political power is hereditary and homosexuality is a crime. FIFA demands a byzantine range of legal and tax immunities, for itself and its sponsors, from countries that want to stage its marquee tournament; South Africa, where more than half the population is below the poverty line, collected no tax on the $3.5 billion the soccer group inhaled from the event. It's not that liberal democracies are unwilling to make similar concessions. But when you're accustomed to being bribed, exempted, accommodated, and indulged — when you never want to pick up the check — in some ways the worse the partner, the better.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6861161/corruption-murder-beautiful-game

 

 

* Interestingly, Switzerland had no legislation against corruption until the year 2000. Despite the tightening of the corruption laws in recent years, these still do not apply to international non-profit sporting organisations based in the country! Any chance of FIFA basing itself elsewhere? Stupid Question! 

 

** It is estimated that oil rich Qatar will spend around US$200 billion to stage the 2022 World Cup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23644250

 

[Guest fountainhall]

The evidence of some form of dirty dealing in the awarding of a Summer World Cup to Qatar continues to dribble out. FIFA's own Vice President (in the job only since 2011 and so after the vote was taken) speaking on a BBC domestic radio channel yesterday –

 

acknowledged that, before it voted in 2010 to award the event to Qatar, Fifa did not fully consider the implications of playing there during the summer, when temperatures can reach 50C. "I personally believe this should have been considered at the time. I accept that this should have been considered"

 

– but then he unnecessarily adds –

 

"that's hindsight"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23654191

 

Oh, really? Another blatant example of one of Blatter's repeated efforts to rewrite history. What of the concerns about the effect of Qatar's heat on both players and fans raised by FIFA's own inspectors prior to the vote being taken (see the grantland.com link near the end of post #13)? No doubt these were brushed aside with the same speed as the petrodollars were greasing FIFA's pockets!