Select to expand quote
jusavina said..Chris 249 said..jusavina said..djt91184 said..
Muzzi hate jew jew hate muzzi whats new nothing.
What's new is that ISAF allows a country to host a world championship where no all competitors are welcome...
I would think that was ISAF's job to make sure that the host country is ticking all the boxes politically...
Like you said, nothing new about Muslim's countries or Israel but quite lame about the World Sailing Federation.
Off course, they do not want to comment about it
From 1977 to 1991, Australia and New Zealand, Britain, Canada and other Commonwealth countries would not allow competitors from one country. All those countries kept on holding world titles.
Personally I agree with the '77-'91 ban, but it does indicate that ISAF is not doing anything new in allowing championships to be held where not all competitors are welcome.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it because South Africa had been exclude from the Olympic comity because they were doing what Malaysia is doing now?
I just found sad that ISAF does not communicate properly on their position about this and just wait for it to finish and be forgotten.
As I said before, every countries has its own politics but what I do not understand is how ISAF can be twice in the same situation and not saying anything but that they sent someone on spot to "investigate".
The Gleneagles Agreement was different from being expelled from the IOC. One prevented South African sportspeople from competing in Commonwealth countries in any sport; the other prevented them from doing the Olympics only. The IOC did keep a list of South African sportspeople playing overseas but it did not ban them from countries as such.
The Gleneagles Agreement was decided by a few PMs in 15 minutes. The Arab League, ASEAN or other international groupings of nations could come up with a similar decision to exclude a nation's athletes just as quickly (and I assume they probably have banned Israeli athletes). There is also an international of Muslim states, the OIC. At some levels if's hard to see why those who followed the Commonwealth ban on South African athletes could refuse to follow OIC if they banned athletes from a nation. Why should one multi-national group of nations have more right to ban people than another multi-national group of nations?
As I understand it, ISAF was told that the Israeli windsurfers would be allowed to enter. Certain restrictions were placed on them (no anthem, etc) and the Israel association therefore pulled the sailors. If Malaysia is anything like Australia in terms of immigration, ISAF could definitely have been told by the relevant Malaysian government official that there would have been no restrictions on the entry of Israeli athletes, and then the Minister could have later decided to over-rule his public servants to score some political points, or just because he felt like it.
I don't agree with the restrictions placed on the Israeli athletes, but it is quite possible that ISAF did everything right and got stuffed around by Malaysia. And it's not just Malaysia that does such things - Canada, Australia and other countries basically ban athletes from some countries because of fears they will over-stay - and it has often happened in the past. England denied a visa to the head of the Syrian Olympic committee at the last Games. Brazil has refused to give Nigerian athletes transit visas. The US has denied certain athletes visas in the past.
So if ISAF can only hold events in countries where everyone is welcome, they're going to be scratching to find somewhere - and the top sailing nations in the world are all going to be prevented from holding world titles.
jusavina
> 9 months ago, 27 Dec 2015
