European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Kowtowing to BOCOG

by marco
Tue Apr 8th, 2008 at 12:07:13 AM EST

Putting aside questions about the merits, morality or effectiveness of the positions, tactics, objectives and message of the torch relay demonstrators in London and Paris for the moment, I was pretty disturbed by two things which stank of over-accommodating the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games by the British and the French authorities:

those blue tracksuit wearing Chinese "flame attendants" with their secret service sunglasses (in Paris at least) who supposedly had no "executive power" in the UK, but nevertheless seemed to be applying "executive power" to protect the torch in London (could not find much commentary on them in the French press yet)
reports of French authorities forcing people to put away or hand over Tibetan flags, anti-Olympic/anti-China signs, etc., while allowing Chinese flags to be waved

Can anybody explain what law or regulation or other legal device justified the role and actions of the blue flame attendants in London and Paris, and the selective banning of flags and other expressions of protest in Paris?

Regarding the blue-suited "flame attendants"

Shortly after Konnie Huq finished her brief leg of London's farcical Olympic torch relay on Sunday, she called a friend on her mobile phone. "Did you see those blokes in the blue tracksuits?" the former Blue Peter presenter whispered down the line. "They were bloody aggressive, weren't they?"
Questions raised over mysterious 'men in blue'

Lord Coe, the former MP, Olympic medallist and chairman of the 2012 London Olympic Committee, was overheard by Channel 4 News criticising the Chinese officials to his assistant. He said if the organisers should do "one thing in Paris, it is to get rid of those guys. They tried to push me out of the way three times. They are horrible. They did not speak English . . . I think they were thugs."
Ms Huq, who was nearly knocked to the ground when a pro-Tibet activist tried to snatch the flame from her on Sunday, said: "The men in blue perplexed everyone. Nobody actually seemed to know who they were officially or what their title was. They were very robotic, very full on."
Lord Coe condemns Chinese flame protectors as `horrible thugs'

The Metropolitan police and the Chinese embassy have declined to discuss who employs the attendants or their diplomatic status, but the Metropolitan police commander Bob Broadhurst stressed before the event that they have no executive power while in the UK.
A spokesman for the Chinese embassy said he was not sure who was responsible for the attendants.
China's 'flame attendants' and world's most guarded relay

And talking of suspicious, I have no idea why the aforementioned Konnie Huq of Blue Peter fame was carrying the torch at all. But she did us all a service with her artless revelations about the mysterious Chinese "torch attendants" in blue tracksuits who ran alongside her inside the phalanx of puffing Metropolitan police. The tracksuited ones were, she said wonderingly, "very full-on". They had some kind of an altercation with the British police, she says, and kept forcing her hand up to hold the torch higher. Unattractive, wouldn't you say? Rather like the American secret servicemen who so patronise our police when a US president visits. These things jar. More, to me, than the barrier-jumpers and wielders of fire extinguishers.
Olympic torch: a perfect response

Jarring indeed.

Is there some international legal protocol that allows foreign special service personnel to give them "executive powers" to enforce "security" under special circumstances that trump the authority of local police and security forces? I imagine that such a protocol might be applicable for the visits of heads of state. could this be what was invoked to protect the Olympic flame (to which the Men In Blue evidently gave more importance than Konnie Huq's tired arm, if that quote is to be believed)?

(Incidentally, is a "Murdoch Alert" necessary under those two Times excerpts?)

Regarding the selective banning of Tibetan flags, protest banners, etc.

Juste avant le départ de la flamme, prévu à 12 h 35, des policiers demandents aux porteurs des drapeuax tibétains ou de RSF les plus proches de partir ou de les ranger, et arrachent les bannières de quelques récalcitrants. Les drapeaux français et chinois sont eux autorisés. Just before the start of the torch run, scheduled for 12:35, police officers ask those closest carrying Tibetan flags or those of Reporters Without Borders to leave or to put them away, ripping the banners from some who refused. As for French and Chinese flags, these were authorized.
Le Monde: Le parcours mouvementé de la flamme olympique dans les rues de Paris

Libération has an image of several police officers tackling a lone protester waving the Tibetan flag in a Paris street. But conceivably they were stopping him not because he was waving a Tibetan flag, but because he was violating some traffic rule by blocking the oncoming torch procession (if that is what the cavalcade in the background is).

Libération has a video by Hervé Marchon showing a very civil "confrontation" between protesters and French police who at first wanted the pro-Tibet protesters to get rid of their flags while allowing a group of people standing right next to them to wave Chinese flags. However, in the end, it seems the police relented, thus explaining the smile on the face of the demonstrator in the last screenshot:

One wonders if the police would have been as accomodating if the protesters were closer to the path of the torch relay.

In any case, it is incomprehensible how this selective banning of flags could have happened in the first place.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Kowtowing to BOCOG | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Relieved to hear (none / 0)

that I was not the only one offended by the selective interdiction of Tibetan flags:

Ambiance Tiananmen à Paris

... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Tue Apr 8th, 2008 at 07:26:26 AM EST

Seems "flame attendants" are nothing new (4.00 / 3)

Top Chinese Cops Protect Olympic Flame
In years since, security details have been sent out by Olympic hosts to accompany the torch, but until now, they never faced such protests.
For the Sydney games in 2000, at least one uniformed guard followed the torch, and more security was added after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Security officials escorted the flame throughout the 2004 relay for the Athens games, though in small numbers and amid a festive atmosphere.

So the Men In Blue are kosher, except that:

Yolaine De La Bigne, a French environmental journalist who was a torchbearer in Paris, told The Associated Press she tried to wear a headband with a Tibetan flag, but the Chinese agents ripped it away from her.
''It was seen and then, after four seconds, all the Chinese security pounced on me. There were at least five or six (of them). They started to get angry'' and shouted ''No! No! No!'' in English, she said.
De La Bigne tried to push several agents away as they grabbed her arm. She said two French athletes who are martial arts experts tried to help her and clashed briefly with the security detail.

It's one thing to "protect the flame" from being seized or damaged or otherwise physically mishandled. It's a completely different and unrelated thing to prevent people from expressing themselves. The latter has nothing to do with the former (unless it involves abusing or impeding the torch itself), and for these brutes to assume authority to repress free speech -- and physically interfere with the runners themselves -- is an outrage. London and French authorities should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this.

I hope San Francisco has enough self-respect to prevent such disgraceful and disgusting repressions and violations of free speech from happening there as well.

... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Apr 9th, 2008 at 01:16:09 AM EST

Go Canberra (none / 1)

Don't know about San Francisco, but at least Canberra may have the gumption to tell these guys to stay the hell out of their city. Or at least, that's what they're saying:

news.com.au (March 26, 2008 08:40am): China wants army to oversee torch relay in Australia

CHINA wants its army to oversee the Australian leg of the Olympic torch relay to ensure protests do not mar the event.
The move, which has been rebuffed by the Australian Federal Police, comes as Beijing reels from an embarrassing relay launch in Athens when human rights activists hijacked the event. <...>
"We have explained to the Chinese Embassy that people have a democratic right in Australia to stage demonstrations and people are free to demonstrate when the torch does arrive but we would hope that demonstrations are peaceful and won't disrupt the relay in any way," AOC spokesman Mike Tancred said.

The Age (April 8, 2008 - 6:43PM): Torch to be guarded by Australians only

In London and Paris, the flame has been surrounded by a team of so-called Chinese "flame attendants" dressed in blue and white tracksuits.
But they will be noticeably absent during the only Australian leg of the relay, in Canberra on April 24.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Monday said there would be no Chinese security forces or services guarding the torch in Australia, but there was uncertainty over whether the tracksuit-clad Beijing Olympic Organising Committee (BOCOG) flame attendants would be present.
On Tuesday, a spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland said no Chinese officials would accompany the torch.
Asked if the flame attendants would guard the torch on its visit to Canberra, the spokesman told AAP: "They (the Chinese) will have absolutely nothing to do with providing security for the torch".
Earlier Tuesday, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope also ruled out a team of flame attendants running with the torch.
He said discussions with Chinese officials "only ever involved the possibility or the prospect of two Chinese designated flame attendants".
The ACT's chief police officer Michael Phelan suggested there could be "a number of flame attendants" but they would not have a security role.
"Security in relation to the torch rests squarely and fairly with ACT Policing and the Australian Federal Police," Mr Phelan said.
"We can't have people here trying to exercise police powers and police authority who are not police in this jurisdiction.
"I have seen what occurred in London and I can tell you that that type of security arrangement will not be occurring here."

Then again (though this was before the London and Paris relays):

PM (Wednesday, 26 March , 2008 18:26:00):
Chinese army won't be monitoring Aust Olympic torch leg: officials

But on the central question of whether Australian authorities would allow security personnel from other nations to oversee a public event in this country, Greens Senator Bob Brown has his doubts.
BOB BROWN: If you'd have asked the same department whether there would be Secret Service agents from China in the Australian Parliament for the visit of President Hu back in 2003 they'd have said no, we know nothing about it, because that was arranged directly with the Speaker and the President of the day.
But there we had Secret Service agents from China selecting people who looked Tibetan or Chinese out of the gallery visitors and insisting that they didn't go to the gallery and the Australian authorities were totally compliant.
It's absolutely certain that China will be working behind the scenes with the key people who can give them the authority to have at least Secret Service agents involved in protecting their torch relay against Australian citizens who might want to protest when the relay comes to town.

... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Apr 9th, 2008 at 02:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

4.15: Kevin Rudd remains firm (none / 0)

Financial Times: China defends torch security 'volunteers'

Kevin Rudd, Australia's prime minister, on Tuesday insisted the Chinese would not provide any help with security, hours after Kevan Gosper, International Olympic Committee deputy president and Australia's senior Olympic official, said Chinese security could support Australian police if there was "really serious trouble" in Canberra on April 24.
"The Chinese torch attendants have a practical responsibility in relation to servicing the flame, but have no responsibility in terms of security," Mr Rudd said. "This has been made clear to the Chinese authorities. Under no circumstances, no matter what occurs, will they be called upon to perform a security function."
John Coates, head of the Australian Olympic Committee, said the Chinese security members would follow the relay in a bus, although two of its people would travel on the ground with the torch: "The two of them will be involved in the transfers from one relay runner to another but they are not involved in the security."

Though clearly there are some mixed messages and evidently some wiggle room remains for potential interference by the torch attendants.

A language is a dialect with an army and navy.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2008 at 07:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kowtowing to BOCOG (none / 0)

I'm afraid that the British have an alrming habit of indulging foreign dignataries whims about security. At a previous visit by the Chinese premier protesters were invited to stand in a particular place opposite where the Premier would be. Then just before he arrived a large bus drew up to shield him from the protesters.

The police have always taken the view that protesters are a problem who have waived their civil rights. That they are protecting the law-abiding community from troublemakers and anything goes.

Miners were subject to internal exile during the Thatcher era, even tho' such a measure is illegal. Anti-nuclear protesters have always been subject ot obstruction on spurious grounds that, months later, will be declared unConstituional by a judge. But of course by then it won't matter.

We aren't allowed to protest in London except with the expressed permission of the Metropolitan police. Only one person at a time is allowed to protest outside parliament.

We are not citizens, we are subjects. We do not have rights, we are accorded privileges that may be suspended at the whim of the Executive. So allowing a gang of foreign secret service agents to beat up troublemakers is okay by them, the more the merrier. Whatever we try to do in a protest at any useful time will be prevented, but it's not a police state, we will get an official apology at some future point (when it no longer matters).

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Apr 9th, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM EST

Re: Kowtowing to BOCOG (none / 0)

Helen:

We are not citizens, we are subjects.

We've been citizens since 1949 when the British nationality act 1948 came into effect.

Unfortunately it does appear to9 be a law that the authorities are at liberty to ignore.

Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed Apr 9th, 2008 at 10:17:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kowtowing to BOCOG (none / 1)

I've heard that lots of times. However, I certainly haven't noticed they are willing to allow rights. If they are suspended at the whim of the Executive, then they are only privileges. If we only have privileges, we are not citzens.

Therefore the law is either not applicable or the police act above and beyond the law without restraint or let and we have a police state. But then again, if they can execute Brazilian electricians on the streets of london and then lie gratuitously about it I think we've answered the question on the State of Britain..

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Apr 9th, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Japan reluctant to cede sovereignty (none / 0)

(and lose face) by allowing Chinese torch bearers to enforce security in Nagano leg of torch relay:

Financial Times (2008.4.11): Japan won't welcome Chinese Olympic torch guards, gov't official indicates

"We should not break our principle of having security upheld by Japanese police. We are considering taking security measures focusing on Nagano Prefectural Police to ensure a safe relay," [National Public Safety Commission Chairman Shinya] Izumi said.
National Police Agency (NPA) officials said the issue of guarding the torch was connected to Japan's sovereignty.
"If the accompanying runners are there to provide maintenance for the torch, then there's no problem, but if they are providing security then it's a problem in terms of violating Japan's sovereignty, and we would tell the Chinese side not to provide security," an NPA representative said.

Financial Times (2008.4.15): China defends torch security 'volunteers'

It was still unclear on Tuesday whether China's "security runners" would be issued visas to enter Japan. One government official said Japan was surprised Chinese security forces were allowed to enter other countries that had hosted the relay.
The crisis deepened on Tuesday when an event planned to mark the torch's visit to Nagano, Japan, was cancelled, even though officials said there would be no changes to the route of the torch relay itself. "We want to concentrate on the original Olympic torch relay," said the relay committee.
Japan's security minister on Friday said he was opposed to letting China send its security guards to protect the Olympic torch, which arrives in the city of Nagano on April 26. Shinya Izumi, chairman of the National Public Safety Commission, said Japanese police were perfectly capable of protecting the torch.

A language is a dialect with an army and navy.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2008 at 07:15:52 AM EST

BBC clip on Men In Blue (none / 0)

A language is a dialect with an army and navy.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Sat Apr 26th, 2008 at 06:59:15 PM EST

Kowtowing to BOCOG | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]