Politics and UNICON

“Alberto Ruiz” <alberto@taino.net> wrote in message
news:007001c00cb8$4715ca20$20374a3f@taino.net… [Alot about the Peace for
Vieques banner]

My opinion is that the banner was political. While I definitely support the
cause, I feel banners or signs like this have absolutely no place at an
international event like Unicon. I hope we don’t need a rule about it; people
should refrain. Whether you call it “Political” or not is immaterial. It is
non-unicycling, non-Unicon, nothing to do with any sponsor, therefore it has no
place. Imagine how it would look if every single club in that whole ceremony had
a banner proclaiming their favorite (peaceful, just and “good”, of course)
cause. Imagine this at the Olympics. It’s out of context and has no place.

                             Respectfully,
                                 Nathan

Re: Politics and UNICON

Greetings

In message “Re: Politics and UNICON”, Nathan Hoover wrote…
>“Alberto Ruiz” <alberto@taino.net> wrote in message
>news:007001c00cb8$4715ca20$20374a3f@taino.net… [Alot about the Peace for
>Vieques banner]
>
>My opinion is that the banner was political. While I definitely support the
>cause, I feel banners or signs like this have absolutely no place at an
>international event like Unicon. I hope we don’t need a rule about it; people
>should refrain. Whether you call it “Political” or not is immaterial. It is
>non-unicycling, non-Unicon, nothing to do with any sponsor, therefore it has
>no place. Imagine how it would look if every single club in that whole
>ceremony had a banner proclaiming their favorite (peaceful, just and “good”,
>of course) cause. Imagine this at the Olympics. It’s out of context and has
>no place.

I agree with this in principle. In practice, I don’t think any harm was done
at Unicon.

> Respectfully,
> Nathan
>
>
>
>

Stay on top, Jack Halpern, IUF Vice President Website: http://www.kanji.org

Re: Politics and UNICON

In article <sq88jrart91168@corp.supernews.com>, “Nathan Hoover”
<nathan@paper2net.com> wrote:

>“Alberto Ruiz” <alberto@taino.net> wrote in message
>news:007001c00cb8$4715ca20$20374a3f@taino.net… [Alot about the Peace for
>Vieques banner]
>
>My opinion is that the banner was political. While I definitely support the
>cause, I feel banners or signs like this have absolutely no place at an
>international event like Unicon. I hope we don’t need a rule about it; people
>should refrain. Whether you call it “Political” or not is immaterial. It is
>non-unicycling, non-Unicon, nothing to do with any sponsor, therefore it has no
>place. Imagine how it would look if every single club in that whole ceremony
>had a banner proclaiming their favorite (peaceful, just and “good”, of course)
>cause. Imagine this at the Olympics. It’s out of context and has no place.
>
> Respectfully,
> Nathan

wot he said, and i wasnt even there !

– Rob.

… Rob
Stone, Psychology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD. 01904 433161 chat about
BJC2k and BJC14 at http://www.bjc2k.york.ac.uk/

Re: Politics and UNICON

----- Original Message ----- From: Nathan Hoover <nathan@paper2net.com> To:
<unicycling@winternet.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 4:14 PM Subject: Re:
Politics and UNICON

> “Alberto Ruiz” <alberto@taino.net> wrote in message
> news:007001c00cb8$4715ca20$20374a3f@taino.net… [Alot about the Peace for
> Vieques banner]
>
> My opinion is that the banner was political. While I definitely support
the
> cause, I feel banners or signs like this have absolutely no place at an
> international event like Unicon.
>
Thanks for your opinion, which I respect. I am replying direct because I don’t
think it belongs at the NewsGroup. Unwillingly, John made a favor to the Vieques
cause by giving me the opportunity to explain it. That is much more exposure
than what we did or expected at Beijing.

Despite John’s instigation for people to answer there has been only three, and
all three believe that what the Puerto Ricans did was minor and did not offend
anybody. You are one of the three. I am another because I believe that politics
should not get involved, I just believe that this is not politics. Jack Halpern
was the third.

For us, Puerto Ricans Vieques is not political, although we realize that it has
taken political connotations (not only at UNICON X). Ricky Martin is not a
politician, yet he dedicated his granny, in the 30 seconds he had on National TV
to the Vieques cause.

Tito Trinidad is not a politician. Yet when he went to the ring to fight Oscar
de la Hoya his second had a sign.

Both Ricky and Tito are considered pro-statehood. They did not learn to do this
from Fidel Castro or Mao Tse Tung, but from the US Constitution, which I admire.

I believe that John should lighten up, drop this subject, and concentrate in
developing unicycling and presiding the IUF, which I believe he is capable of
doing. I would also like to concentrate my energies in positive things and not
in this stupid and unnecessary controversy. All the sign said was Peace in
Vieques. Everything else was too fertile imaginations at work.

Alberto Ruiz

> I hope we don’t need a rule about it; people should refrain. Whether you call
> it “Political” or not is immaterial. It is non-unicycling, non-Unicon, nothing
> to do with any sponsor, therefore it has no place. Imagine how it would look
> if every single club in that whole ceremony had a banner proclaiming their
> favorite (peaceful, just and “good”, of course) cause. Imagine this at the
Olympics.
> It’s out of context and has no place.
>
> Respectfully,
> Nathan
>
>

RE: Politics and UNICON

> Thanks for your opinion, which I respect. I am replying direct because I don’t
> think it belongs at the NewsGroup.

I am not sure what you meant there, but I am simply ‘replying to all’, which
includes unicycling@winternet.com.

> Despite John’s instigation for people to answer there has been only three, and
> all three believe that what the Puerto Ricans did was minor and did not offend
> anybody.

I also think it was minor, and I was only offended in that I don’t believe we
should mix politics (or religion) with our sport.

> You are one of the three. I am another because I believe that politics should
> not get involved, I just believe that this is not politics.

I do think we need a policy on this, as a limitation of liability on our
directors, and because we have different views of the meaning of politics.

> Ricky Martin is not a politician, yet he dedicated his grammy, in the 30
> seconds he had on National TV to the Vieques cause.

Same idea. I consider this a gross misuse of the Grammy stage and taking unfair
advantage of his position in front of the cameras. But perhaps the Grammys don’t
have a rule against it. He is an artist, being recognized for his art, and being
presented with an award. It is his moment to reply and he at least has the
“floor” for those 30 seconds. I would equate this to a Freestyle performance at
UNICON, where you are free to express yourself.

> Tito Trinidad is not a politician. Yet when he went to the ring to fight Oscar
> de la Hoya his second had a sign.

Same thing. If I were involved in that sport, I would ask for a ruling
against it.

> I believe that John should lighten up, drop this subject, and concentrate in
> developing unicycling and presiding the IUF,

I believe it will benefit unicycling if we avoid mixing it with politics or
religion, and that our sport can be damaged if we do. Case in point, the entire
US Olympic Team in 1980. And the entire Soviet Team in 1984. That was politics
poisoning sport, to the point of ruining some athletes’ careers. I don’t want it
to ever happen to us.

I have asked John Hooten to write something about this, as he and his wife were
part of that 1980 US Team; directly affected by politics mixing with sport, and
denied the ability to compete.

Please remember, this discussion is not about Vieques, but about a future policy
on not mixing politics (and/or religion) with IUF events. The Vieques banners
work as a good example, as they were not highly controversial, and did not
overtly offend anyone. However if our policy is to allow such advertising (or to
say nothing, which is the same thing), it opens the door for far more
controversial and potentially damaging things along the same lines.

I am not mad at anyone on the PR Team for displaying their banners, as they were
not in violation of any existing rule or policy. But it reminded me that there
is a potential danger if we don’t guard against mixing ourselves with things
outside of our sport.

Nathan Hoover wrote:
> > I hope we don’t need a rule about it; people should refrain.

Unfortunately we do need a rule, because people may not see their causes as
being political or religious. Basically if it’s not related to unicycling, it
does not belong.

> Imagine how it would look if every single club in that whole ceremony had a
> banner proclaiming their favorite (peaceful, just and “good”, of course)
> cause. Imagine this at the Olympics.

Exactly. So from this point on I would just like us to provide a gentle reminder
to future IUF event attendees that we are not a forum for unrelated causes.

We can do better than the Olympics of 1980 and 84, if we start now with a
no-politics, no-religion policy and are able to stick to it as we grow.

Stay on top, John Foss President, International Unicycling Federation President,
Unicycling Society of America (reply to jfoss@unicycling.com)
http://www.unicycling.com

Re: Politics and UNICON

>
> I have asked John Hooten to write something about this, as he and his wife
> were part of that 1980 US Team; directly affected by politics mixing with
> sport, and denied the ability to compete.
>
> I am not mad at anyone on the PR Team for displaying their banners, as
they
> were not in violation of any existing rule or policy. But it reminded me that
> there is a potential danger if we don’t guard against mixing
ourselves
> with things outside of our sport.

Well, I am offended by your insistence on blowing all this out of proportion and
even comparing it to the USA decision of boycotting the Olympics. I don’t plan
to use my energy to fight among ourselves.

I guess I will stop doing all that I am doing and wait until John Hooten, his
wife, and you run your agenda and see where it leads to.

Let me know when you finish and plan to do some positive things.

Alberto Ruiz

RE: Politics and UNICON

I wasn’t at unicon so I kind of feel as if I’m only catching half of this
discussion. I have however been disturbed by some of the things that have been
brought up on the newsgroup.

I feel that it would be bad if the iuf were to pass rules banning expression of
ones political or religious beliefs.

The only way that change is going to happen is if people voice their
opinions. It is our job to tell the politicians what it is that we feel is
wrong. If the iuf passes rules limiting or banning this right, it takes it
away from each member.

To me, part of the appeal of unicycling was the broad diversity of all the
people. limiting it all to unicycling only would ruin this.

> I do think we need a policy on this, as a limitation of liability on our
> directors, and because we have different views of the meaning of politics.

Just because people have different views doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be able
to express them.

> We can do better than the Olympics of 1980 and 84, if we start now with a
> no-politics, no-religion policy and are able to stick to it as we grow.

I feel that this no-politics, no-religion policy would be a serious blow for the
iuf and unicycling in general.

Thanks for taking time to listen Peter Nyflot

Re: Politics, UNICON and control freak mentalities

There’s a certain perverse irony in an american (John Foss in this case)
advocating a ban on certain forms of speech for no other reason than he thinks
it’s inappropriate to unicycling events. Will it be merely signs and/or banners
that are prohibited? Or possibly T-shirts, stickers, or any and all forms of
“speech” or “expression” John and his ilk consider “political,” “offensive” or
“inappropriate?” From my POV, it’s the first step down that proverbial “slippery
slope.” That such a suggestion comes from an american, who’s foundng fathers
fought and died to establish and institutionalize the very concept of freedom of
speech, and who went so far as to include it first and foremost in The
Constitution of The United States, only makes it that much sadder. It is said
that tolerance is the hallmark of an enlightened mind, what does that say about
those who desire to limit and control the peaceful behaviour of others? We often
forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most
despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us. The
cure for offensive speech is not prohibitions on speech, but more speech. To
paraphrase Voltaire, “I may not agree with what the Puerto Ricans had to say,
but I will defend to the death their right to say it!” IMHO, unicycle
organizations should concern themselves with unicycling and naught else. I only
hope there are other freedom-loving unicyclists who agree and will resist the
seductive temptation of censorship. Should such a narrow-minded rule come to
pass, I’d suggest that those who displayed the banner in question change the
name of their club to “Peace for Vieques Unicycle Club.”

    peace - AU

"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the
 guilty."
           -- Jessica Mitford

In a message dated 8/24/00 9:04:03 AM, you wrote:

>In article <sq88jrart91168@corp.supernews.com>, “Nathan Hoover”
><nathan@paper2net.com> wrote:
>
>>“Alberto Ruiz” <alberto@taino.net> wrote in message
>>news:007001c00cb8$4715ca20$20374a3f@taino.net… [Alot about the Peace for
>>Vieques banner]
>>
>>My opinion is that the banner was political. While I definitely support the
>>cause, I feel banners or signs like this have absolutely no place at an
>>international event like Unicon. I hope we don’t need a rule about it; people
>>should refrain. Whether you call it “Political” or not is immaterial. It is
>>non-unicycling, non-Unicon, nothing to do with any sponsor, therefore it has
>>no place. Imagine how it would look if every single club in that whole
>>ceremony had a banner proclaiming their favorite (peaceful, just and “good”,
>>of course) cause. Imagine this at the Olympics. It’s out of context and has
>>no place.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Nathan
>
>wot he said, and i wasnt even there !
>
>-- Rob.

RE: Politics, UNICON and control freak mentalities

> american, who’s foundng fathers fought and died to establish and
> institutionalize the very concept of freedom of speech, and who went so far as
> to include it first and foremost in The Constitution of The United States,
> only makes it that much sadder.

AU, thank you for sharing your views.

This is not about freedom of speech. It is about having large groups of
international people gather in countries which have varying levels of freedom of
expression. Some countries are less tolerant than others. UNICON and the IUF
were never intended as free speech forums.

If you will, imagine yourself in the position of being an IUF director. Using
China as an example because we were just there, imagine this:

After months of negotiations, the convention hosts have gotten permission for us
to do a big event in Tiananmen Square. They supply us with our own UNICON subway
train to get there, and several hundred unicyclists, peacefully gathered from
around the globe, arrive with smiles on their faces. The international press and
TV are there to see us, and the convention organizers are very proud to have
made such an amazing event a reality.

Suddenly, one group of riders produces large signs with pictures of a guy on a
unicycle confronting a tank. They also produce a huge paper mache Statue of
Liberty and start to parade around with their props, chanting a message. It
doesn’t matter what the message is (most of us don’t speak the same language
anyway). Let’s assume their message is simply an attempt at humor. They don’t
perceive themselves as being political in any way, they’re just making a joke.

Continuing along in this scary scenario, we have to imagine what might
happen next.

SCENARIO 1: We can grit our teeth and let them “express themselves”. Very
embarrassing to the convention organizers, the IUF officials, to the other
riders, and especially to the Chinese government in general. Downright insulting
to the hosts, who have put this event together in good faith, and to their
government, who have allowed them to do it. As a result, the government never
allows large groups of unicyclists to perform in public again, the hosts are
unable to organize any more large unicycle conventions, and IUF is no longer
welcome in China.

SCENARIO 2: Chinese police officers run out and confiscate the signs and statue.
The riders, convention hosts, and IUF officers get a legal slap on the wrist.
Same likelihood as above of ever doing a similar event there. How can they
possibly do this? Don’t forget what happened in 1989.

SCENARIO 3: Chinese police arrest the “expressionists”. This still makes
everyone look bad (especially them, depending who’s side you’re on).

SCENARIO 4: Chinese police arrest expressionists, convention hosts and all IUF
officers/directors present. They are interrogated, required to sign statements
of apology, and released one month later.

SCENARIO 5: Worst case - There is a press blackout on the event, and several
people never make it home. Nobody knows what happened to them.

In the China of today, scenarios 3, 4, and 5 are highly unlikely. That’s today,
not a few years ago. Scenario 2 is the most likely. Remember, I personally had
police come running to stop me when I rode there in 1993. Running!

End story.

As an IUF director, I don’t want the above scenario to happen. That’s an extreme
example, but the same applies to milder versions. Not only will it make the IUF
look bad, but it will potentially cause problems for the convention that’s going
on, and possibly lead to riders or organizers being imprisoned.

One person estimated that, including everybodys’ travel costs, the last UNICON
cost about $1 million. That’s a lot of time, energy, and money focused on a
singular event. A lot of people converging from the far corners of the Earth to
be part of it. Surely the hosts and organizers should have the “right” to choose
what we do, and what don’t do there. It’s their party, and the unicyclists are
the guests.

> It is said that tolerance is the hallmark of an enlightened mind, what does
> that say about those who desire to limit and control the peaceful behaviour
> of others?

Sometimes we must enforce tolerance itself, by asking people not to engage in
behavior that can hurt our convention hosts, or hurt peoples’ feelings. We need
rules for this because some people may not think of it on their own.

I would not attempt to define what is offensive. Someone will always get
offended, no matter what you do. But there is also the concept of politeness or
self control. Tolerance goes both ways. Not only should one be flexible when
confronted with unusual ideas (especially when in a large group of international
people), one must also strive to keep from freaking people out, assuming you are
trying to be polite.

That’s why you might avoid walking down the main street of an Amish town wearing
nothing but your Speedos. Or a woman might wear a veil when out in public in
Saudi Arabia. This is your own effort to be tolerant.

> IMHO, unicycle organizations should concern themselves with unicycling and
> naught else.

I’m glad you agree. This does not mean to disallow scooter riders, bicyclists,
jugglers, etc. But what we would like to do is provide the suggestion that our
conventions are not political or religious forums. We get enough politics within
our organizations themselves, we don’t need to bring in more.

> Should such a narrow-minded rule come to pass,

Please don’t call it narrow-minded until a rule has been proposed. So far it
hasn’t, partially because we don’t want it to actually cause limitations on
people within the context of our sport.

> I’d suggest that those who displayed the banner in question change the name of
> their club to “Peace for Vieques Unicycle Club.”

I would be fully in favor. As a unicycle club, it’s completely on-topic; whereas
otherwise the message would be unrelated to unicycling. The riders should be
respected for their choice of a club name. On the same subject though, if the
“Folsom Unicycle Club Kids” got too creative with their banner, I would not feel
like Big Brother if I asked them not to display it. That’s right, censorship.
Shouldn’t they know better? Yes. But if they don’t, you need a policy to explain
why you’re annoyed at them. Their political message is one about language. Again
our convention is not the appropriate forum for addressing it.

Again let me again repeat that our work on an upcoming proposal has nothing to
do with events that happened at UNICON X, or earlier. There has been no policy
or rule, so it could not have been violated yet.

Now back to the freedom of speech. The United States guarantees freedom of
speech in the first amendment. Does that mean Americans can all say whatever
they want, whenever they want? Not at all.

  • You cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater.
  • You cannot yell much of anything in a crowded theater, without being told
    to shut up and being removed by the management if you don’t. It’s not
    your theater.
  • You cannot go on most TV shows and say whatever you want. They have rules,
    designed to limit offending people (not to stop it).
  • You cannot go on and on about religion or politics on this newsgroup, unless
    it is unicycling-related. You will be asked to stop or possibly be banned.
  • You cannot stand in Bill Gates’ front yard with an anti-Microsoft banner. You
    are trespassing.
  • You cannot build a sculpture in the middle of Yellowstone National Park. Even
    though the park is public, they have rules.
  • You cannot print whatever you want in the New York Times, even if you pay for
    a full page ad. The paper has rules and editorial limits on what it contains.
    It’s not your paper.
  • You are not free to express yourself with a gun by shooting it all over the
    place (though the US comes pretty close), or even carrying it in most places,
    especially in public.

The fact is, in most countries you are not allowed to completely express
yourself in an unlimited fashion.

And if the IUF says so, you cannot use completely unlimited freedom of
expression at IUF events. You must play by the IUF’s rules, and also the host’s
rules. Hopefully you will also keep in mind the local customs and cultures. This
may or may not include Freestyle performances, though we can still ask people to
use common sense and good taste there as well (especially IUF officers who
should know better).

For full freedom of speech (or expression), the venue usually has to be public.
Even then, there are still plenty of restrictions and limitations. With all of
our freedoms, the United States is a long way from being an anarchy. The IUF is
perhaps closer to anarchy, but we still have rules.

If you’re at a UNICON and want to express yourself, you can do the same thing
you’d do most places. Step outside to someplace “public”, and express all you
want. What we’re saying is don’t involve the convention hosts, the IUF, or your
fellow riders unless they are part of your cause.

This soap box is getting crowded…

John Foss President, International Unicycling Federation President, Unicycling
Society of America (reply to jfoss@unicycling.com) http://www.unicycling.com

Re: Politics, UNICON and control freak mentalities

----- Original Message ----- From: John Foss <john_foss@asinet.com> To:
<Cre9ive@aol.com>; <unicycling@winternet.com> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000
5:12 PM Subject: RE: Politics, UNICON and control freak mentalities

> > american, who’s foundng fathers fought and died to establish and
> > institutionalize the very concept of freedom of speech, and who went so far
> > as to include it first and foremost in The Constitution of The United
> > States, only makes it that much sadder.
>
> AU, thank you for sharing your views.
>
> This is not about freedom of speech. It is about having large groups of
> international people gather in countries which have varying levels of freedom
> of expression. Some countries are less tolerant than others.
UNICON
> and the IUF were never intended as free speech forums.
>
> If you will, imagine yourself in the position of being an IUF director. Using
> China as an example because we were just there, imagine this:
>
Please stop using China as a shield. We had no problem with China, only you. I
am sorry if you are prejudice for something that happened to you in China many
years ago, but please, get over it. As for all your scenarios, they have more to
do about your imagination than what happened in China. I am very much involved
with the Vieques cause and with unicycling. My Vieques cause part would love to
answer all your comments. My unicycling part believes that this has been blown
out of proportion. So, I will not go into the details.
>
> This soap box is getting crowded…
>
Then, I ask you once again, please drop this case. In case you are wondering, I
don’t know who are these people writing, although I appreciate their comments.

Alberto Ruiz
> John Foss President, International Unicycling Federation President, Unicycling
> Society of America (reply to jfoss@unicycling.com) http://www.unicycling.com
>
>

RE: Politics, UNICON and control freak mentalities

> Please stop using China as a shield. We had no problem with China, only you.

I used China as an example of a possible UNICON location. For those of us that
were there, it’s fresh in our minds. Please notice that everything in my example
was pro-convention hosts; acting in their support and for their protection. They
could also be victims if things went wrong. My example had nothing to do with
UNICON X, other than the fact that they were able to successfully set up the
historic ride we did in Tiananmen Square, which was definitely one of the
highlights of UNICON X.

I also used China as an example because I can’t think of a better place where a
large group of unicyclists have recently ridden in the same place where some
major human rights violations took place only eleven years earlier. That was not
my imagination. I am not singling out the Chinese government here, as all
countries have their problems. I am simply making an example.

> As for all your scenarios, they have more to do about your imagination than
> what happened in China.

I am very glad they were in my imagination only. The point is I would like it to
stay that way. The extreme example is intended to explain why we should not
allow milder examples of the same thing to happen in the future.

Again I will state, as I have in all my messages on this topic, that I am
focusing on the future, not the past. This is not about anything that happened
at UNICON X, so that’s what should be dropped in regards to this topic.

I apologize for mentioning the events of UNICON X in the same messages about
creating a policy for future IUF events. I meant to use that harmless example
as a portent of possible abuses in the future. I didn’t expect anyone to get
upset to the point of losing track of what we’re talking about, and I hope
nobody has.

> Then, I ask you once again, please drop this case. In case you are wondering,
> I don’t know who are these people writing, although I appreciate their
> comments.

I don’t know all of them either, but yes, their opinions are valuable. Obviously
I feel strongly enough about this that I will not drop it. Without some form of
protection for IUF directors/officers in the “free expression” arena, I don’t
feel comfortable in that role. If we cannot agree on a policy, I will let
someone else occupy my seat.

Stay on top, John Foss President, International Unicycling Federation President,
Unicycling Society of America (reply to jfoss@unicycling.com)
http://www.unicycling.com