Olympic champion Callum Skinner believes that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will not be able to prevent athletes from taking the knee when the postponed Tokyo 2020 Games finally get underway in a little over three months’ time.
Instigated by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick in 2016, when he knelt during pre-game renditions of the US national anthem to protest against police brutality and racial injustice, the practice has been adopted by athletes worldwide to show solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.
Just last week, one of the most striking images of it was widely shared on social media when the entire Arsenal team took the knee ahead of their Europa League quarter final return leg in Czechia while opponents Slavia Prague – whose player Ondrej Kudela is serving a 10-match ban for racially abusing Glen Kamara of Glasgow Rangers – remained on their feet.
There had been calls for the IOC to modify its Rule 50, which bans athletes from participating in any type of “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda” during the Olympics.
However, this week the organisation announced that following a consultation launched in June last year to which 3,500 athletes around the world responded, it would not be modifying the rule, saying that the majority supported it.
In response to that announcement, Skinner told The Times that it appeared that the IOC was “intent on exercising control when they don't have any.
“If an athlete wants to take the knee, they will take the knee,” he said.
“People get frustrated by 'Black Lives Matter' because they see it as a political movement,” he added.
“But at its core it’s fighting for equality and that is something the Olympics should 100 per cent stand behind.”
The Scot, who won gold in the team sprint at Rio in 2016 and added silver behind fellow Team GB rider Jason Kenny in the keirin, retired from cycling in 2019.
He is athlete lead of the Global Athlete movement, which on Wednesday said that the IOC’s “archaic approach to limiting athletes’ rights to freedom of expression is another sign of an outdated sport system that continues to suppress athletes’ fundamental rights. The competitors are humans first, athletes second.
“We acknowledge that the IOC conducted a survey among athlete groups. Global Athlete had the IOC’s survey independently reviewed by several social science research experts that concluded the research methodology was both leading and flawed.”
Another of the group’s members, the Irish karate athlete and world champion kickboxer, Caradh O’Donovan, said: “One cannot survey how people feel about human rights and freedom of expression.
“These types of surveys only empower the majority when it is the minority that want and need to be heard.
“Once again, the IOC has favoured suppression over expression,” she added.
Global Athlete’s statement continued: “Today’s recommendations further dictates when, where, and what athletes can speak. This is the opposite to freedom of expression.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right includes freedom to impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’.
“The Olympic podium is a media of communication to the world, and the Olympic frontier cannot be a barrier to human rights.
“Global Athlete hopes every athlete attending the Olympic and Paralympic Games uses the United Nations Human Rights Declaration to guide their decision on when and where to exercise their right to stand for social and racial injustice,” the group added.
“Do not allow outdated ‘sport rules’ to supersede your basic human rights.”
Add new comment
38 comments
So were John Carlos & Tommie Smith virtue signalling at Mexico '68?
I think you should add Peter Norman to that list. His allyship are an important lesson for many of us who don't just want to be observers.
Absolutely - I just couldn't remember his name when I posted. His story is relevant because he also faced sanctions and consequences for his allyship. Australia was incredibly racist when he did that
or the need to show support for others who may be less fortunate than themselves. Much better to look on silently. Maybe tut in private.
thank you for saying this more eloquently than I could.
👏
"Virtue signalling", "BLM is political" are all code for I'm entitled and see no reason to change even though others aren't so lucky. Either unconsciously or consciously the people making those statements are part of the problem.
How presumptious and naive of you, to assume someone can't support others that are less fortunatue, unless they kneel. It also sounds like your friend below is calling me an un-caring biast racist, because I simply won't play the childish kneel game. How sad. Your parents and teachers have clearly failed you.
It's a shame you got personal. But could it be that in fact you are the one that has been failed? Or have you and I both been failed in different ways?
If you refuse to see the significance of athletes choosing to take a knee, even when they know it may bring sanctions by a governing body, deselection or worse, then it's hard to understand why anyone would think it is virtue signalling.
If athletes wish to take a knee then they are making a strong statement; it's your view that it is childish and/or virtue signalling. But how do you know it is either of these things?
You don't have to agree with it, of course, but it's a pretty unambiguous statement. Why is it childish? Is any type of individual public protest therefore childish? Was Gandhi childish? What about Muhammad Ali? Or even the IRA hunger strikers in 1981? Were they all childish?
Nobody's forcing you to kneel dude, entirely voluntary, and cq didn't suggest otherwise. A rather petty response to a reasonable point.
Pages