Black Lives Matter spreads to a place where politics is verboten: Stadiums - Politico | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Black Lives Matter spreads to a place where politics is verboten: Stadiums – Politico

Published

 on


.cms-textAlign-lefttext-align:left;.cms-textAlign-centertext-align:center;.cms-textAlign-righttext-align:right;.cms-magazineStyles-smallCapsfont-variant:small-caps;

As anti-racism protests sweep across the world, sports are finding they can’t stay out of politics.

Sporting venues have not traditionally welcomed political displays by athletes on any topic, including racism. Mixing politics with sport, the argument goes, is a distraction from the purity of human endeavor on the pitch or track — not to mention giving sponsors heart palpitations.

But such is the reach of the Black Lives Matter protests — sparked by the killing of unarmed black man George Floyd under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer — and the depth of feeling over festering injustice that, instead of clamping down, some sports are making allowance for on-field protests.

In the German Bundesliga, the first major European football league to resume action in the coronavirus era, players and teams have repeatedly paid tributes to the Black Lives Matter movement — to applause from senior figures in the sport.

“For the avoidance of doubt, in a FIFA competition the recent demonstrations of players in Bundesliga matches would deserve an applause and not a punishment,” said Gianni Infantino, the president of FIFA, world football’s governing body, in response to the political messaging.

Jadon Sancho, the Borussia Dortmund star, was shown a yellow card in a match at the end of May for removing his shirt to display a “Justice For George Floyd” T-shirt. But senior German football officials later clarified that the caution was standard for removing his shirt and “did not have anything to do with the political message.”

A top German official later issued more full-throated backing for protesting players. “These are targeted anti-racism campaigns by the players, which are committed to values for which the DFB also stands and always stands for,” said Anton Nachreiner, chairman of German football’s control committee. “Therefore, no proceedings will be initiated, even with comparable anti-racism campaigns, in the next few weeks.”

For Germany, this marks a change in sporting race relations. In 2018, footballer Mesut Özil retired from the national team, accusing German football chief Reinhard Grindel of failing to back him when he suffered racist abuse after posing for a photograph with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

“In the eyes of Grindel and his supporters, I am German when we win, but I am an immigrant when we lose,” Özil said at the time.

“I find it very good when someone sets an example and shows that the topic [of racism] is not irrelevant,” Karamba Diaby, a German MP of Senegalese descent, told the RND network earlier this month. He said that while there were clear cases of racism in football, clubs and fan associations were also standing against abuse.

In England, where football’s Premier League is due to restart next week, authorities have said they will take a “common sense approach” to any anti-racism displays by players, indicating that they would not issue sanctions for political protests — as has been the case with NFL players in the U.S.

But for some commentators, a separation of stadium and state is usually preferable.

“I hope that sports return and give us the ability to remember the sense of community and escape they have always provided,” said Shane Owens, a psychologist. “Sports should be a place where we focus on the rivalries that bind us more than they drive us apart.”

That sentiment is still the guiding principle for the Olympics. The yearlong delay to the Tokyo Games due to the coronavirus has not shielded the event’s organizing body, the International Olympic Committee, from questions about its own hard-line position on athlete protests.

The event has a long history of political gestures, including possibly the most famous sporting protest in history at the Mexico City Games in 1968, where U.S. sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists on the medal podium in a Black Power salute.

Nevertheless, the IOC endorsed guidelines in January that ban competitors at the summer 2021 Games from kneeling, fist-raising or other forms of demonstration. Despite a new report that the IOC may be preparing to row back on that stance, the policy remains in place for now.

An IOC spokesperson denied that there were plans for blanket punishments for protesting athletes. He confirmed that any disciplinary action by the Olympic body against rule-breakers will be taken on a “case-by-case basis.”

That has angered athletes. Tianna Bartoletta, an American three-time track and field Olympic gold medalist, accused the IOC of double standards.

“They say sport is a human right but oppose sport being a vehicle to fight for human rights or other pertinent global issues,” Bartoletta told POLITICO. “They tell us it’s a celebration of human accomplishment while telling us to shut up and know our place after fighting our way to the podium. They are hypocrites and I’ve had enough of the lip service.”

Gwen Berry, a hammer-thrower who was sanctioned by a U.S. body for protesting at the Pan American Games last summer, accused the IOC of being a “dictatorship” whose instinct is to keep corporate sponsors happy. The sporting utopia of the Olympics is a mirage that papers over the problems athletes face when they come home, she said.

Jules Boykoff, professor at Pacific University and the author of multiple books on the Olympics, accused the IOC of hypocrisy. “The way the International Olympic Committee organizes the Games is political to the core, just in ways that reinforce the status quo and benefit the IOC itself. By publicly proclaiming inflexibility, the IOC is choosing one side of history, and it’s not the right one,” he said.

Rob Koehler, director general of the Global Athlete movement, said that the public profile of competitors gave them the power to encourage positive change. “Silencing athletes should never be tolerated,” he said.

“Athletes are influencers and they can only help with social injustice and assist in making the world a better place,” he added.

Joshua Posaner contributed reporting.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights

Published

 on

 

CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.

The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”

Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”

He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.

Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.

Flip-flopping on Florida

On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”

Trump on vetoing a national ban

Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”

This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”

‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban

Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.

He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.

In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.

At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.

Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women

In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.

“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.

Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.

IVF and contraception

In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.

In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.

Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.

Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.

During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.

As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |

Published

 on

 

Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.

Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.

Election day is Oct. 28.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version