You’re taking the piss, right? Please say you are.

If a T-shirt is offensive, fair enough, ban it on the grounds of decency. But if I have the right to walk around the UK with a ‘British Get Out Of Afghanistan’ T-shirt – and I have – then why on earth shouldn’t I be able to do that at the Olympics?

So you support the view that the state should be able to censor freedom of speech just because it makes Britain look all nice and neat? I’m gobsmacked, I really am.

We don’t live in China, so let’s not adopt their human rights practices.

Why would you need to make a partisan political statement at a sporting event ?

Because there’s a lot of people watching?

The UK hasn’t staged the Olympic Games since 1948, during that time people have enjoyed some fairly extensive democratic rights. The Olympic Games are not intrinsically part of the democratic process.

As for when did it become acceptable to ban the use of the Olympic Games as a vehicle to promote partisan political statements, well from the beginning I would reckon. The guys in Lifer’s photo were expelled from the 1968 Olympic Games.

And the issue isn’t as vague as you suggest, concerning what people wear, it’s very specific, eg, “clothing bearing political statements” are not allowed. Most people have a set of clothes which don’t bear political statements, they would be the ones to wear at an Olympic event.

If making a political statement is that important to you, then the obvious solution is that you trot off somewhere else to make it, rather than attend an Olympic event. You are very free to make that choice. The Olympic Games weren’t set up to act as your personal soap box you know.

Likewise the wearing of “oversized hats” is very wisely banned from Olympic Games, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal to own an oversized hat in the UK. This does not however signify that we live in a totalitarian fascist state……..if always wearing a oversized hat is particularly important to you, then don’t attend any Olympic events. It’s that simple really.

Nothing was set up as my personal soap box. But if I want to demonstrate, the best place to do it is where it will get publicity. It’s not up to you or anyone else to tell me where I’m allowed to do this.

And although Carlos & Smith were banned from the 1968 Olympics (incidentally, the IOC president at the time was a well-known Nazi sympathiser – check this if you don’t believe me), they’re now mentioned slightly more warmly on the IOC’s own website: “Over and above winning medals, the black American athletes made names for themselves by an act of racial protest. During the medal presentation ceremony, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, gold and bronze medal winners in the 200m, raised a black-gloved fist and hung their heads when their country’s national anthem was played. In doing this, they were protesting against racial segregation in the United States.”

I’m not saying that I want to wear a political T-shirt, I’m saying that it’s Britain, I’m a citizen, I might choose to. I have the right to paint my face blue and sing in Norwegian in the High Street. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, but it would be my right. And I can see no reason that I’m not allowed to wear clothing that some G4S drone might object to. How about a T-shirt saying “The Olympics are a spectacular waste of money” – what d’you think my chances of wearing that at the Games are? Slim to none, I’d say. But it’s not overtly political, and even if it were, it’s just my opinion. Why should I give that up?

So where do you draw the line? And why is it that you seem determined that we should give up our rights, for which people have died, to make sure there’s undemanding and safe TV?

Dennis Leary had it about right:” I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?”

Didn’t the IOC ban South Africa from competing over apartheid?
Surely that’s political interference regardless of the worthiness of the cause?

Only if you think that discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin is a legitimate political opinion. Most people don’t, and see it for it is – just discrimination.

The Olympic Games are supposedly designed to promote peace and friendliness between nations, an indisputable political aspiration. But obviously the often elusive issue of “commonsense” is what needs to be applied here. It’s partisan political statements such as “Independence for the Basque country” or calling for the abolition of the monarchy which is what is being targeted. It’s not necessary and the Olympics doesn’t need it.

Interested in your PoV here Ernie, particularly in the purity of the Olympic idea that you are/appear to be expressing. To an extent, I sympathise with what you are saying. But then nation states use Olympic Games (and other events such as the SA apartheid boycotts etc) to make very visible political statements (eg US and USSR boycotts) and this is applauded while restricting individuals from having the same basic right (not nec the same countries). Intriguing but not consistent?

I’m not sure why you should be, I would say that it’s by far the most prevalent point of view, ie, most people, I would have thought, feel the Olympic Games shouldn’t be used/exploited/hijacked by people who have their own political agendas.

If there is a “political” position to be taken by the Olympic Games, eg, the promotion of racial harmony, equality, etc, then that should be decided by the International Olympic Committee, not self-appointed individuals.

In the case of South Africa under Apartheid it was very clear that racism went to the very heart of sport under Apartheid, which made it utterly incompatible with the spirit of international sporting events.

So Carlos and Smith were wrong, correct?

I hadn’t bothered answering dabble because it happened in 1968, it’s not topical, and I really can’t be arsed to argue the pros and cons of the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam, etc. Of course they were wrong, they were making a political statement.

And this is where I end my involvement. Ernie’s entitled to a view, my view differs, and that’s not going to change.

If we don’t challenge, then things just stay the same. And although I’m not at all sure that people wearing T-shirts with political slogans at the Olympics would make much difference, it’s worth a shot if that’s the way you want to get your message across. It may not be in accordance with the Olympian ideals, but then the modern games (professional athletes, huge sponsorship) aren’t exactly what de Coubertin had in mind either.