Allow me to think aloud a bit about the question of boycotting the Sochi Olympics or of asking foreign athletes to perform some act of civil disobedience. You wrote in your response to the Dissent of the Day:
The reason this may be the best form of civil disobedience is that it would have the maximum television exposure and therefore the maximum visibility…. It would also be against Olympic rules. But if the issue became one of athletes versus the IOC as much as athletes versus Putin, so much the better. The IOC needs a kick in the ass for its blithe acquiescence to authoritarianism.
This statement raises some interesting questions – about the target of the action and about the goal of the action, and I’m not so sure that they can be collapsed in the way you do above.
If the purpose of any protest, whether boycott or civil disobedience, is to affect Russian society and Russian law, then I’m not sure that the type of civil disobedience by foreign athletes that you and Frank Bruni are advocating would have much effect. The Putin regime is more than prepared to withstand a little global embarrassment. In that sense, a boycott, which has real (if limited) economic effects, might be more effective.
I also think it highly unlikely that Putin would risk a global incident by arresting lots of foreign athletes who perform such acts of civil disobedience, especially when the harm to Russia is so minimal, little more than a public shaming (this is different from the Snowden issue in the sense that it would likely not merely target the U.S.).
On the other hand, Putin might be prepared to retaliate against Russian LGBTQ people and activists in the aftermath of such protests. And Russian nationalists, their national pride harmed, might be likely to act out with even greater violence against Russian LGBTQ. In advocating such acts of civil disobedience (or, for that matter, a boycott), especially from the comfort of afar, one must consider not just the potential risk that the foreign athletes are taking, but also the potential backlash against Russian activists and the degree to which civil disobedience might be counterproductive for the Russian LGBTQ rights movement.
If the purpose of the protest is to expose the hypocrisy of the IOC and the Olympic movement, then it might have more effect. The Olympic movement, as you note, prohibits political expression, but it also takes as one of its core values a commitment to human rights. Waving a rainbow flag during the opening ceremony is thus an act of civil disobedience against the IOC, one that exposes the tension between the stated commitment to human rights and the prohibition on political expression when that political expression is itself a show of commitment to human rights and a protest against the systematic violation of human rights. Such public shaming is likely to have a far greater influence on the IOC than it is on Russia. It could also be a powerful challenge to the IOC, to have it live up to its stated ideals. But, again, is that protest against the IOC worth the potential backlash against the Russian LGBTQ movement that it might trigger?
In making such calls for civil disobedience, I think that we also need to make it clear to the athletes themselves that in doing so they are assuming the risk of punishment – and, according to theories of civil disobedience, must be prepared to accept that punishment. That punishment might come in the form of arrest by Russian authorities. But it might also come in the form of expulsion from the Games or being stripped of their medals.
Finally, I would be interested to hear more Russian voices in this debate. I’m hearing a lot from American, British, German, French LGBTQ rights and human rights activists, but Russian voices seem few and far between. Before we start to advocate protests that are in large part designed to make us feel good, I would hope that we would try to find out what Russian activists want – that is, to truly be their allies.
Thanks for letting me think aloud a bit.
The Dish 