HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > 2010 Olympic Winter Games [Archive]

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2009, 5:33 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is online now
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
Female ski jumpers to take Olympics exclusion case to B.C. Court of Appeal

Absolutely retarded.



Quote:



Female ski jumpers to take Olympics exclusion case to B.C. Court of Appeal

By Jeff Lee, Vancouver Sun
July 16, 2009

VANCOUVER — Female ski jumpers who lost a court case to force the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee to hold an event for them in 2010 are launching an appeal.

Saying they had won "90 per cent of the case" but not the key point, the women said they believe they can convince the B.C. Court of Appeal to rule in their favour.

"We won on the issue of discrimination, and we won on the issue that Vanoc is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Deedee Corradini, the president of Women's Ski Jumping USA, said Thursday. "What we want is for the judges to agree that Vanoc must hold an event because it is subject to the Charter. All we are asking for is one event."

On July 10 B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon ruled that while the International Olympic Committee had indeed discriminated against the 15 female plaintiffs, it was not subject to either the court or the Charter and could not be forced to hold an event for them at the 2010 Winter Games.

In a statement released Thursday, Ross Clark, the jumpers' lawyer, said he'll argue Vanoc must host the Games in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“It cannot host events on Canadian soil that implement discrimination,” he said. The appeal will be formally filed on Friday.

With only months to go before the Games, time is running out for the women. But Corradini, a former mayor of Salt Lake City, said Vanoc should be prepared in the event the three-judge appeal court finds in the women's favour.

"We're asking for an expedited hearing. Vanoc has known for more than a year that it could have to put on an event for the women, and so they must have a contingency plan."

Vanoc said it was developing a response to the women's announcement and would issue a statement later today.
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/F...542/story.html



Comments from the Sun:


Gordon
July 16, 2009 - 4:57 PM

What part of 'the IOC always puts on the Olympics which it owns, in the chosen venue' do people not understand? This time Vancouver was chosen to HOST the Olympics, not to put them on. VANOC has no say whatsoever in what events are presented; it is nothing more than the organizer of the locations used, and helps the IOC. VANOC cannot in any sense of the word decide what is or isn't presented.




Vancouver hippe
July 16, 2009 - 4:46 PM

If you want to have an event, organize your sport on the world stage, become recognized, hjold pre-qualifying events etc. and compete legitamtely. you guys have not even done pre-qualifcation rounds.




unbelievable
July 16, 2009 - 3:39 PM

who is paying for all this? i hope the Women's ski jump association is footing the bill. as long as tax dollars are not funding this, because public court is being tied up and that is bad enough. do the women not understand the judgement, or are they receiving bad advice from their council? the ruling last week is straight forward - VANOC does not dictate what makes an Olympic event. the IOC makes this determintation based on a series of qualifying criteria. the women's ski jumping does not meet the qualifications, period. it looks to be a growing sport which is great, so maybe the women will qualify for an exhibition event in 2014. thise case is a complete waste of court time and money. i hope the women's association has to pay for the frivolous waste of this court time.
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2009, 7:30 PM
ckkelley's Avatar
ckkelley ckkelley is offline
Bridge Walker!
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Forest City
Posts: 1,037
*Rolls eyes*

/groans.
__________________
Just chimin' in.
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2009, 7:41 PM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
Hopefully the supreme court agrees to take up the case in March 2010.
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2009, 3:13 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is online now
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
I really do quite dislike this Vancouver Sun columnist, I really do:



Games contract binds Vancouver to play by IOC rules, or not play at all

By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun columnist

August 6, 2009 7:35 PM

It's easy to understand why the International Olympic Committee would want any disputes with host cities decided by its own "court," so that it is beyond the grasp of courts in countries whose judicial systems are dodgy.

But why on earth did Vancouver's former mayor Larry Campbell sign the host city contract governed by Swiss law and agree that "any dispute concerning [the contract's] validity, interpretation or performance shall be determined conclusively by arbitration, to the exclusion of the ordinary courts of Switzerland or of the host country?"

The sports court — the IOC's arbitration process — deals with issues of athletes' disqualifications due to doping or other infractions. It has rarely, if ever, dealt with the myriad other issues from sponsorship agreements to taxes to financial disbursements that are covered in the Vancouver agreement.

Signing off Vancouver's right to access Canadian courts in the event of a dispute with the IOC is just one of the troubling pieces of the 61-page contract signed in 2003 and obtained by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association under B.C.'s Access to Information Act.

The contract's preamble declares that the IOC is "the supreme authority of and leads the Olympic movement." And the Olympic ayatollahs required that the city stage the Games in full compliance with the Olympic Charter and that it agrees to "conduct all activities in a manner which promotes and enhances the integrity, ideals and long-term interests of the IOC and the Olympic Movement."

I've added the emphasis because in a pen stroke, Campbell signed away the real responsibility of democratically elected mayors and councillors to promote, enhance and represent the long-term interests of their citizens.

There is no mention in the contract of human rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, it stipulates that the city must abide by the Olympic Charter and be in "full compliance with universal fundamental ethical principles, including those contained in the IOC Code of Ethics."

In effect, the city and the IOC have attempted to contract their way out of Canadian legal jurisdiction and beyond the reach of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

It's something that the civil liberties association is considering challenging in court. Another group, Impact on Communities Coalition, filed two complaints with the United Nations High Commissioners of Human Rights last week. One deals with civil liberties and the city's omnibus bylaw, while the other is about inadequate tenancy protection.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon has already ruled that as a government agency, the Vancouver organizing committee is subject to the Charter. However, she also decided that despite Vanoc having to be Charter-compliant, there was nothing Vanoc could do to force the IOC to include a women's ski jumping event.

It's the Olympic Charter that now-Senator Campbell signed on to obey in 2003. He bound the city (and his Vision party successor Gregor Robertson) to its provisions limiting propaganda free speech and agreed to even stronger restrictions in the contract.

Contrary to the Canadian Charter's guarantee of free speech and peaceful protest, the Olympic Charter says: "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any of the Olympic sites, venues or other areas."

(Despite the word's negative connotations, propaganda's dictionary definition is a statement of principles or beliefs.) Under the Vancouver contract, no propaganda or advertising material can be within view of spectators at the venues or television cameras covering the sports or "in the airspace over the city and other cities and venues hosting Olympic events during the period of the Games."

To meet its contractual obligations, Vancouver's council recently passed an omnibus bylaw amending dozens of existing laws. Among the changes are the creation of so-called free-speech zones and blocks of the city (including David Lam Park, the main library's precinct and the Vancouver Art Gallery) where no political pamphlets, leaflets, graffiti or "non-celebratory posters" will be allowed.

Despite that, Robertson insists all of Vancouver remains a free-speech zone. He defends the bylaw as a balance between safety and security and respecting citizens' rights. But asked whether he would have signed the contract in 2003, Robertson hedged.

"I would like to know if the city could have negotiated something different," he replied.

Meanwhile, Vanoc has asked other municipalities along the 44,000-kilometre torch relay route to pass bylaws ensuring that no political messages be distributed or visible. It's not clear how many have agreed, nor is it clear whether the IOC will ask that the torch route be altered if they refuse.

That's the sword of Damocles that the secretive elites of the international Olympic movement hang over the heads of enthusiastic sports bodies, organizing committees and politicians.

Play by our rules or not at all.

dbramham@vancouversun.com








No medals for Vancouver council in the free-speech event

By David Eby, Vancouver Sun
July 29, 2009

While the International Olympic Committee earns a gold medal in the race to protect its sponsors and the Olympic brand, the same cannot be said of its performance in the competition for free speech and democratic rights.

For example, Rule 51 of the IOC Olympic Charter prohibits any "demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas." Not exactly the stuff of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but then again, nobody elected the IOC to protect democracy.

In countries such as Canada, protecting our sometimes messy but always cherished freedoms is the task, in large part, of our elected representatives.

Unfortunately for Vancouverites, our city council hasn't turned in a medal performance in the free-speech competition either. They've just rushed through a package of bylaws that skate over the free-speech rights of, in no particular order: small and independent businesses, artists, rock bands, protesters and Vancouver residents as a whole. Haste in passing the bylaws, last-minute amendments and council's surprise about negative public reaction show a lack of care, or concern, for the implications of the changes.

Vision Coun. Geoff Meggs defends the new bylaws, suggesting the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is "going too far" in criticizing the initiatives. Apparently without appreciating the irony involved, he advises that council values free expression rights because, among other initiatives: "Security planners . . . are creating certain high-profile areas, close to the heart of the action, where protesters are sure to be heard and seen by IOC and world leaders."

Beyond the alarming possibility that the majority of council believes that limiting free speech to particular areas, high profile or otherwise, somehow demonstrates a commitment to free speech, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association points out that council's new bylaws and motions:

- Restrict access to more than 40 downtown residential and commercial blocks deemed Olympic "venues" or "sites," including parks, community centres and the central library, to people who consent to "security screening" and in which displaying "any [unlicensed] sign" is prohibited unless the sign is "celebratory."

- Allow the city manager to make any rules she sees fit restricting access to these city blocks and public facilities, without approval from council.

- Give special Olympic exemption permits across the city to signs that are "celebratory in nature" and, by extension, refuse permits to signs that are critical or, presumably, melancholic in nature.

- Call on the province to authorize the city to prohibit leaflet distribution if the leaflet is offensive to authorities and might end up as litter, punishable by fines of up to $10,000 per day, ostensibly to reduce work for city trash collectors.

- Conscript taxpayer-funded city workers to enforce trademark rules on behalf of the IOC, which at least makes use of the extra staff time created by eliminating those hated discarded leaflet-pickup shifts.

- Eliminate the low-cost posters found on construction hoardings and utility poles that typically advertise concerts, protests, community meetings and art shows, because during the Olympics such affordable and accessible posters are a "nuisance and eyesore" when compared to the simple beauty of an unmolested construction hoarding.

Given this remarkably poor performance by the majority of our elected municipal representatives in protecting free-speech rights in Vancouver for the Olympics, is it going too far to point out that there is no sure footing when ice skating in July?

Council's prize of a gold medal from the IOC for passing these bylaws may be judged differently by voters who know what a democracy truly values.

David Eby is executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Last edited by mr.x; Aug 7, 2009 at 3:33 AM.
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2009, 3:34 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,581
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 1:30 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,581
Whew.. appeal dismissed.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...dismissed.html

Here's to hoping that they can get into the next Winter Olympics once they meet the IOC's requirements.
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 1:33 AM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
Well, it was the right decision for this year. Maybe they can have actual competition by the time 2014 rolls around.

I really believe most people were on their side, but, it's not practical to have a competition in the OLYMPICS with a handful of athletes from just two countries.

And, I always found the argument of discrimination to be silly when 40% or so of participants will be female in 2010.
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 3:24 AM
nova9 nova9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,081
i also take offense to the fact that some of the plaintiffs (like Lindsay Van) are not even Canadian. Sorry, that just doesn't fly - and then she had the gall to criticize our justice system (how dare her, that's only for us to criticize)
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 3:37 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,581
Quote:
"The Canadian court system is weak," Van added. "They can't even stand up to the IOC. [The IOC] can come in here and do whatever they want. That's scary. It's like the Taliban of the Olympics."
The Taliban of the Olympics? Really? REALLY? What a deluded selfish person..
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 9:03 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is online now
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yume-sama View Post
Well, it was the right decision for this year. Maybe they can have actual competition by the time 2014 rolls around.

I really believe most people were on their side, but, it's not practical to have a competition in the OLYMPICS with a handful of athletes from just two countries.

And, I always found the argument of discrimination to be silly when 40% or so of participants will be female in 2010.
Actually, I would love to see women's ski jumping deferred until 2018 as punishment against the current women athletes that pulled these antics. Let the next generation of female ski jumpers compete, not these rotten bunch.


The court made the right decision. But it's quite unfortunate so much of the public bought into the whole media sensationalism.
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 9:19 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,741
I don't think such a heavy handed punishment proposed by Mr.X would be very fair either. As long as they pay their own legal fees and such I don't think they should be discriminated against for bringing up a case of inequality that exists at this point, especially if that case failed. I mean... why put boiling water into someone's wounds? It doesn't make sense.
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 9:41 AM
nova9 nova9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,081
because it's war!!!

No, i mean, I'm glad they challenged it. And it is unfair, but you're dealing with a multinational organization, that's the nature of the beast. That's why they're powerful, you cannot go at them from just one nation's justice system.
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 9:52 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
I honestly and sincerely hope that these broads don't take this any further. I mean really, all this time and effort they are using to make a mockery of themselves isn't helping their sport advance. Really, they have not met the IOC requirements to be considered for competition in the Olympics.

Whats really happening here is that these chicks are screwing themselves from ever becoming an Olympic event, at the same time as they're screwing Canada from hosting another Olympic games. Hope they're proud of themselves.
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 1:38 AM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
They're baaaaaaack!!

Quote:
Female ski jumpers who want their event included in the 2010 Olympics will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping a decision can be made before the Vancouver Games in February.

Deedee Corradini, a spokeswoman for the women, said they hope Canada's top court will decide whether to hear the case within the next two weeks and hand down a decision by mid-January.

She said they decided to appeal because they feel the issue of discrimination is bigger than one event at the Games.

The women claim Vancouver's Olympic organizing committee, known as VANOC, is violating their rights by staging ski jumping events for men but not women.

Last month, female ski jumpers from Canada and the U.S. lost their case in a unanimous decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

The Appeal Court judges stood by the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in July. In that ruling, Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon said that while it was discriminatory to exclude the women's event, VANOC could not be held responsible.

The skiers had argued that VANOC should have been compelled to stage a women's ski jump event — even though it was not sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) — because VANOC is subject to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its guarantees of gender equality.

The IOC voted in 2006 not to include women's ski jumping at the Games, saying the sport had not met the required technical criteria.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...ers-court.html
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 2:05 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,097
Wow I guess no only means no when a woman says it to a man, when anyone says no to a woman it means maybe. Maybe if the women win this, some man can use this as precedence showing that no does in fact mean maybe.
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 2:19 AM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
I would hope they get in for 2014. But now, they need to have some dignity and bow out. It has only been an organized sport for a little over a year, there are no competitors, certainly not of an Olympic caliber. They have 4 years to get ready for 2014, maybe if they stopped griping about this, they could get back to training, and be good enough, with a big enough field, to be in 2014. I don't think ANYBODY in the World but them sees discrimination in this case.
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 3:27 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is online now
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
^ the more they whine and appeal, the less likely their sport will see inclusion in the upcoming Olympics. They aren't making any friends with this, and they're delusional to think that VANOC would add it to the program 2 weeks before the Games.
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 4:11 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,581
What a friggin waste of tax dollars..
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 4:14 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is online now
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
The millions vanoc has spent on legal consult for this case, money that could otherwise have been spent on actual 2010 operations...not to mention that VANOC is also assisting these women by giving them training resources.
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 5:07 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,581
and potentially burning Canada's relationship with the IOC in the process..
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > 2010 Olympic Winter Games [Archive]
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:40 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.