The biennial tradition that is the Olympic Games has recently taken an Orwellian turn in Vancouver. I neither bemoan the nauseating abundance of corporate sponsorship nor lament the doping and corruption. Rather, it is a far more insidious offense that has ruined any semblance of interest I ever had in the international phenomenon.
Civil liberties and mega-events never particularly jive. The host wants to show the world its shiniest façade, and the world is insatiable. Nothing ruins a party like a protest. Never one to forget this axiom, China detained scores of its own citizens protesting or seeking to protest during the summer of 2008. The authorities set up “free-speech zones” miles from any venue—effectively quelling any hint of anti-anything from the Olympics. “This repression will be remembered as one of the defining characteristics of the Beijing Games,” said Reporters Without Borders. But this was China—no one was surprised.
By contrast, Vancouver is one of the most progressive cities in one of the globe’s most progressive societies. What, then, explains this recent memo distributed to the employees of the Vancouver Public Library? “Do not have Pepsi or Dairy Queen sponsor your event. Coke and McDonald’s are the Olympic sponsors. If you are planning a kids’ event and approaching sponsors, approach McDonald’s and not another well-known fast-food outlet.”
Last June, the Vancouver City Council made an agreement with the International Olympic Committee. The city would impose special “Olympic” rules on 40 square city blocks. You’re not allowed, for example, to have a sign that is not “celebratory.” (“Celebratory” is defined as increasing a positive feeling about the Olympic Games.) Another rule: If someone were to hang a Pepsi banner from his balcony, by law, officers could legally enter the residence within 24 hours to remove it. Violators could be fined up to $10,000 and jailed up to six months. One more: artists and writers operating within the city “shall at all times refrain from making any negative or derogatory remarks respecting VANOC [the Vancouver Olympics]…the Olympic movement generally, Bell and/or other sponsors associated with VANOC.”
For good measure, Vancouver added a hint of Big Brother. A few months ago, Danika Surm was leaving her class at the University of British Columbia when two “Olympic security officers” approached her. According to the CBC, the officers “followed” Danika, before stopping to question her about her apparent friendship with a professor who was an outspoken critic of the Olympics. Incredulous that these shadowy men found her class schedule and cell phone number, Danika realized that the Olympics had caused “paranoia” and a “breach in civil rights and privacy.”
In an era where we routinely face the prospect of civil repression in the name of national security, who would have thought that we’d sign away free-speech rights in the name of the Olympics? Is this an anomaly—a sudden burst of “paranoia” in an effort to impress those who did not land the vaunted Olympic bid? Or, is it all worth it, so that the Olympics operate peacefully and orderly? These questions remain unanswered. But, if we can learn anything from Orwell, “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
COUNTERPOINT: Heat is On At the Winter Olympics