IOC and the bloodstained playing fields of China

A powerful article on the indifference to the appalling human rights record of 2008 Olympic Games hosts China is offered by Rick at Jesus was a liberal.

Let's be honest. The games were awarded to Beijing as China has markets that offer great money making opportunites. Those who voted for Beijing feeling that the games would mean advances in human rights have been shown to be foolish. Clearly the IOC response to the Tibetan hunger strikers shows how shallow is the IOC's concern regarding human rights. After all if the Olympics were seriously an answer to the problems of human rights abuse, a Baghdad Games could have undermined the case for the recent war. And of course we would be considering whether the 2012 Games should go to Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia. Stuff of nonsense of course!

I think that at this late hour, we should be examining the possibility of a boycott of the Beijing Games if the internal Chinese human rights situation fails to improve or if China fails to demonstrate repentance in its brutal repression of Tibet. And if this damages the London Games of 2012, then so be it. I, always, had a feeling that the celebrations at the success of the London bid, might well lead us to turn a blind eye to the victims of the very regime that not so many years ago flooded the streets of its capital city with the blood of its students who dared to believe in freedom.