Like a lot of folks, I’ve been hearing a lot recently about
the human-rights-defying anti-gay laws passed in Russia, particularly in the
context of the upcoming Winter Olympics.
British comedian Stephen Fry just wrote an open letter to Prime MinisterDavid Cameron suggesting a boycott or relocation of the games from Russia. On the other side of the issue, Johnny Weir (American figure skater, openly gay man, and sequin aficionado) has spoken out
against an Olympic boycott, saying it would just hurt people who had nothing to
do with the laws.
What are civilized people supposed to do? On one hand, going ahead with the games and
hiding behind the shibboleth that “the majesty of sport transcends political
issues” isn’t an option. It amounts to
tacit approval of gross immorality. But
would a boycott really do anything constructive? Is it even possible to change
the location of the games at this late date? Is punishing the athletes (the
folks the games are ultimately about) to “send a message” a just thing to do?
I’ve been trying to think of what an approach of creative,
constructive nonviolence might look like as a solution to this issue, based on
the reading and coursework I’ve done in this area. And I might just have come up with a
solution.
Four words: The Gayest Games Ever!
Imagine this scene: the pomp and circumstance of the opening
ceremonies is building to a climax, as Vladimir "The Shirtless Wonder" Putin looks on from the
VIP stand. The time has come for the
athletes of the world to enter the stadium for the torch lighting. And here they come . . . each nation’s
athletes entering the stadium wearing designer team outfits capturing the ethos
of their country. The crowd roars a
greeting as the skiers, skaters, bobsledders, and (yes) curlers come in. The athletes wave back, with smiles on their
faces, digital cameras in one hand, and in the other, a flag.
But not their nation’s flag.
Not the Russian flag.
A rainbow flag.
Dozens, then hundreds, than more than a thousand rainbow
flags waved joyfully in the air as the parade of nations continues.
Cut to the scowling visage of Pooty-Poot in the VIP area.
But the fun doesn’t end there. Athletes, on their own initiative, put
rainbow patches or pink triangles on their uniforms, skis, skates, etc. Again, on their own, they adopt a catchy,
simple, positive mantra (e.g., “One love!” or “Equality!”). They punctuate interviews by looking into the
camera and saying this. They mouth it
just as they have their gold medal hung around their neck. Athletes tweet this to followers, creating a
hashtag trend. Enterprising profiteers
create unofficial Olympic buttons with this emblazoned on it. Heck, maybe Trojan sends several boxloads of
condoms with the saying printed on it for distribution at the Olympic Village.
Sure, the powers-that-be, including but not limited to the
Russian authorities, commercial media outlets, corporate sponsors, and Olympic
bureaucrats, would try to stifle this.
They’d try to search out athletes carrying rainbow flags. They’d try to cut interviews off before an
athlete could shout out “One love!” to the camera. They’d threaten to hold medal ceremonies in
private if athletes insisted on displaying any solidarity with the cause of
human rights.
But none of this would work. All these efforts would just
make the story bigger. The effort to stifle the expression would end up
foregrounding it in the consciousness of those watching. And I have little doubt that Olympic athletes
are far more creative and resourceful than Russian (or Olympic) apparatchiks. It would put athletes on the side of good
against the bureaucratic, fun-hating, hate-mongering thugs. It would make equality cool and reveal
homophobia for what it is: perverse, inhuman, and dull (in every sense of the word).
The advantages of this approach over a boycott or other
official action are many. First, and
most importantly, it doesn’t punish the athletes. Second, it is the athletes themselves who
participate in it; they, rightly, are the stars of the show. Third, it is positive rather than negative. It’s not a withdrawing or silencing; it’s a positive
expression. It’s not a punishment; it’s
a celebration. And it would be based on
individual decisions of individual people coming together to express a deeply
important truth. It would not be the act
of one or more governments, Olympic committees, or other bureaucratic
entities. Least of all would it be an
expression of any sort of nationalism.
It would be what the Olympics claim to be but never are: a celebration
of the human spirit over the divisiveness of tribalism, politics, and
nationalism.
Would all athletes participate? No. Surely there are homophobic lugers just like
there are homophobic butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers (and ex-KGB-turned-sourpuss-heads-of-state). But a lot would. Enough to make it a story—in fact, *the*
story, of the Olympics.
Enough to make it The Gayest Games Ever.
Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment