How 'bout the US Bridge team in China–getting punished for free speech?
NYTimes (Today): In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.
At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”
By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”
“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the United States Bridge Federation, the nonprofit group that selects teams for international tournaments. “There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.”
Not so, said Danny Kleinman, a professional bridge player, teacher and columnist. “If the U.S.B.F. wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition,” he said by e-mail.
I don’t get it. It sounds to me like the American Bridge players were trying to improve international relations.
But I have not read the article and don’t know any of the why’s what was going on’s and other background information so who knows? Certainly such a little sign is not treason or sedition. Do those angry email-writing Bridge-players even know what those words mean? Sounds like the story should be about their intolerance or ignorance, not what somebody wrote on a menu.
On the other hand, I have always advocated a non-political policy for our unicycling organizations. As a personal rule (but not an official IUF policy), for example, I will never overtly mix politics with international unicycling events. If we’re going to put the flags of our countries on the wall, we have to realize that some of those countries are likely to have disagreements with each other. My policy is to remember the focus is on unicycling; the thing that brought us together, and should not be on stuff that would otherwise keep us apart.
So for the Bridge players, if there had been a policy in place by their organization, it may have been inappropriate for them to make their little sign (again depending on the situation; formal event? random meal?). Otherwise, it’s something I might have done myself to get along better with the other Bridge players at the event.
yea but atheists from my personal experience are less likely to be homophobes as well as racists than Christians. true, there are always some, but modern homophobia pretty much originates from the bible today, i dont know about racism though.
maybe because you come from the state with the biggest Atheist Gay membership, but generally, homophobia is pretty evenly (and widely) distributed, I think.
Hi John,
The Bridge players are facing stiff punishments, including a year suspension, 300 hours of community service, snitching on the person who first came up with the idea, all at a minimum if they all accept responsibility fast. You can google it easy.
What would happen if the UNICON were in some foreign land, and USA unicyclists were photographed wearing tee shirts with PEACE symbols, or anti-war slogans, or anti-bush (or pro-bush, pro-war) slogans? We do have a rather vague policy which could be used to censor this stuff, right? The operative policy phrase is “offensive.”
This is the bit about this story that really puts me off.
I understand the inclination when being among such an international crowd that is so curious and skeptical about U.S. motives for its international actions to want to distance oneself from the government’s actions. But at the same time I’m not sure I don’t believe that a private organization has the right to enforce certain codes and standards of behavior including limiting speech when one is a member and acting in the capacity of a representative of that organization.
But requiring those guilty of infractions to snitch on each other just smacks of McCarthyite witch hunt tactics and should be avoided whenever possible.
And as for the rest, I’d just like to say that New Jersey stands proudly among states with large and active atheist, gay, atheist gay, and gay atheist communities. Not to mention out pagan bisexual, wiccan transsexual, and zoroastrian pansexual activist enclaves.
I’m glad you include pagan, wiccans, and Atheists among the religious groups who support homosexuality. (There is a deviant crowd out there who don’t give Atheism ANY credit as a religion…).
But those aren’t the only religions supporting homosexuality. The last NYC Gay Pride Parade was led by leaders of a GLBT Jewish Temple and a GLBT Church, and both were grand marshalls of the parade (you can google it). Of course, Gay and Lesbian Catholics have always celebrated Mass in Dignity, the Gay Catholic Organization.
In the NYC zoroastrian pansexual activist enclaves, there’s been talk of a tattooed zoroastrian pansexual activist unicyclist hanging out in the New Jersey enclaves. Is that YOU??
What would happen from what source? If you mean the U.S. government it’s hard to guess these days. To which my reply would be “What, did you help pay for my trip, or support this sport, or something else I didn’t know about?”
The IUF has no policy on this stuff, though I hope people would take the idea as a guideline. Even if there were one, the “reaction” would depend on the context of the situation. Opening Ceremonies, or dinner out, for instance? One is a little more sensitive than the other.
Interesting. Are you suggesting some people are saying: God hates homosexuals, and even though I personally am OK with homosexuality, I am obligated to go along with GOD on this one?
Cuz if you’re not, then those homophobes are carrying the burden personally, too.
Just like Raphael and his gay-supporting religious groups carry their gay support personally, even though their GOD (or no-GOD) and the other members of his organization also feel the same way.
Feel free to elaborate on that.
Raphael-Raphael’s one-trick pony remark reminds of people who see me unicycling down the street, and say: Do a trick!
If you ask me (I know, you didn’t), people who use the Bible as their reason to persecute homosexuals are doing it because the idea of it makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps they are worried they might become one also if it’s socially acceptable. Or they they are for some reason afraid of people thinking it’s “okay” to be gay. In any case, they are afraid.
But what about the homophobes who have no Bible, like the Atheist homophobes? Would you say they are also worried they might become one if it’s socially acceptable? Or they they are equally as afraid (as the homophobic Bible thumpers) of people thinking it’s “okay” to be gay?
Is there ANY significant difference between these two groups of homophobes?
Is hate the place where these two groups find common ground?
Billy please note that not being a native speaker I have sometimes problem to understand what you say…
I meant that: I suspect many homophobes to be anguished by their virility. So if they are religious they can invoke a proxy named God to justify themselves.
If they have no such proxy they have to face directly their anguish.
For sure I may over-generalize: other people may have just cultural “built-ins” against homosexuality; but I usualy noticed that those are more easily prone to change their advice when they discover that a dear child is not “standard”.
That happened to a friend: he was (and still is) deeply catholic and, as such, against homosexuality, but after the shock of discovering is own son was “gay” he also applied the teachings of charity and heart and learned to live with it.
