Should countries with poor human rights be allowed to host major sporting events
No introduction at present. Why not write one?
Yes i think any country should be able to host a sporting event. I think this because that is not fair to the other country is not picked to hold a sporting event and the other country does get it. Take the Olympics for example it is a very hard to pick were it should be held people get mad because they didn't pick there country and start mobs. The Olympics pick the place where the climate is just rite for the events and people take that the wrong way. For winter they picked Vancouver and for summer they picked Beijing. IT goes the same for fifa world cup. KA
No, because that country may be killing its own people and then giving it the right to host an Olympic game for example would put everyone at risk.
It would be dangerous thinking to link up sporting events with human rights. Whilst a tenous link might exist between sports and human rights, the linking of human rights with hosting of sporting events could potentially lead to elimination of almost all nations with only a handful of countries having the eligibility from a human rights point of view. I for one would not want to see the football world cup held only in Scandinavia, Canada and Luxenbourg. Clearly there is plenty of scope for a diffrent approach on this issue.
In any case the awarding of hosting rights will remain with corrupt organisations such as FIFA and the IOC, which itself is material for a different debate.
It is risking Humanity
Countries with poor human rights records are a danger to humanity in general. Therefore, to allow such countries to host major sporting events is to endanger humanity. Sporting disciplines require a high level of solidarity, team work, unity, respect for each other, integrity and dignity. These values are synonymous with fundamental rights and freedoms. In any game or sport, it is obvious that individual rights of players and fans ought to be respected and the fact that it is human beings that participate in such sports as players and spectators, they need to be treated with dignity.
A country which has poor human rights record cannot guarantee the safety and security of participarts and therefore it would be risking not only the fundamental rights and freedoms of players, but even those of the lovers of the sporting events. Besides, such a country wouldn't attract enough fans for the sporting events basically because of the insecurity created by the mere that the country's human rights records are poor.
Human rights are universal and therefore, countries that do not guarantee the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, should not be associated with in any event of any nature, be it political, social or economic, because they seem to be living in the 18th century.
When in the spotlight countries will be on their best behavior. There is no chance of even the most vile dictators letting their games be marred by poor safety or security for participants. Hitler may have been one of the most vile tyrants in history but the 1933 games were taken as a showcase to the world (even if they did not prove the racial superiority of aryans as Hitler had hoped due to Jesse Owens - from the US but black so a big problem for Hitlers racial theory - winning too many medals).
The olympic games at least provide a chance to highlight their human rights problems and as shown by China's games in 2008 force the country to open up for a few months at least.
What do you think?