Ski jumper Katie Willis, second right, of Calgary, Alta., cries as fellow athletes Lindsey Van, left, of Park City, Utah, Jessica Jerome, centre, of Park City, Utah, and Karla Keck, far right, of Oconomowoc, Wisc., look on after a B.C. Court of Appeal denied a bid to have women's ski jumping included in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games, in Vancouver, B.C.
UPDATE: Feb 19 2010
Governor-General Michaëlle Jean took up the fight for the women ski jumpers as I had suggested when I wrote this article on November 14 2009. Of course, I’m not saying she did it cause I suggested it, but I had the idea… and it wasn’t a bad idea, apparently. Now, she just needs to hire me as counsel and not let Harper prorogue government and then we’ll have something going! Well, should give her credit for doing her first right action. 
———————————————————–
Three judges on a British Columbia Court of Appeals panel unanimously decided on Fri Nov 13 2009 that the Olympics Games Charter trumped the Canadian Charter of Rights. On this, the judges dismissed the appeal of some women ski jumpers to have their case heard for women ski jumping being included in the Olympics, because there was a men’s event, or have no such sport events at all, because having a men’s event without a women’s event violated their Charter of Rights. That’s to have their case heard, not decided. The decision effectively said their appeal was so ridiculous they were not going to bother wasting their time on it. The judges did not give reasons for their decision, and also gave no time line for releasing the reasons in written form. Real class and professionalism (sarcastically)! There will be no women’s ski jumping because the International Olympic Committee (IOC) voted so in 2006, and their charter trumped our Canadian Charter of Rights.
Really?
Are the IOC that powerful they could just go in and trump the law of the land? Or is it the money associated with the Olympic Games that’s really that powerful?
Where was the IOC when there was apartheid in South Africa, to go in and allow blacks to participate in their games and set an example since their charter trumped the charter of the land?
And should the IOC decide they didn’t want some particular race competing in Vancouver, like having Caucasian only hockey, would we allow that in Canada?
Of course, not! Well, maybe the BC Court of Appeals would disagree with me, but I’d like to think we generally apathetic Canadians would be outraged by the fact! So what’s the difference here? Is sexism a more acceptable form of discrimination than racism that we can tolerate it in a provincial appeals court? How do people who think like that become judges any how?
The judges, apparently, didn’t even think about this decision. They ruled immediately after hearing two days of arguments. They had made up their mind beforehand because clearly, this wasn’t that clear an issue if it took two days to argue the merits of both sides. Shame on those judges!
As for the VANOC (Vancouver Olympic Committee) CEO, John Furlong, I’m also calling him out on bullshit.
“I don’t like these kinds of days, we are first and foremost men and women of sport and we believe in athletics. This is a matter that’s been far from our reach and our influence and we simply didn’t have any jurisdiction here … these girls have tried very hard, they have put up a very good fight.“
— John Furlong, VANOC’s chief executive officer
(Vancouver Games organizers also said they were glad the process was over, but they were sad for the women)
Hey, John, I’ve heard better bullshitting by the worst politicians I know, OK? Let’s be clear on something here. It was VANOC who fought this decision, on behalf of the IOC. They weren’t some innocent bystander. VANOC argued that because the decision not to include a women’s event was made by the IOC under the terms of its own charter, Canada’s charter doesn’t apply. VANOC argued the Olympics were not a government activity so the government had no decision-making power over the Olympics, as that power rests solely with the IOC. If it weren’t, then why do we keep seeing government and politicians involved with the Games? That is utter bullshit, and utter bullshit for John Furlong to make these sorts of statements and then to say they were men and women of sport, and that this was a matter far from their reach.
At least they were nice on the losing side, to say they thought they had a “fair” hearing and all.
As for the future of this appeal, there is nothing clear yet, but it’s getting rather late to do much legally and have an impact, which, believe me, the judges also knew considering it’s their system. The women could appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but that would take months. They could also ask the appeal court to suspend their ruling pending an appeal. However, the last is unlikely given the prejudices that already exist there demonstrated by this quick and crude decision.
As for women’s ski jumping, it will become stagnant for now until this issue gets resolved. And the fight isn’t over, but it might not get resolved till 2014. But let’s not lose perspective here. Aside from the shameful discrimination going on in Canada, which I would beg to ask if Canadians are going to tolerate, people’s dreams are also being put aside. It’s not just a matter of time, but of lives and national pride. Imagine how Canadian female ski jumper Katie Willis had to feel about a court in her nation dismissing such a case, beside her fellow athletes from the United States, who together made the appeal?
So Canada, what are we going to do about this issue? Let’s see if any of our politicians or other high ranking officials will have any guts to do anything about this. It might be a good opportunity for the Governor-General to do something of merit for a change, rather than formalities and playing political favouritism by declaring prorogue in Canadian Parliament like she did in December 2008 on Prime Minister Harper’s “advice”.
Post-scriptum:
A lawyer friend made an excellent point that the sexism label should be put on the IOC. True, but I wrote this in the light it was a given since they weren’t willing to change so it got brought to the BC Appeals Court. He also wrote the BC Court also faced a straightforward and narrow legal question having to do with the application of the Charter, and suspects they made the right decision given previous law on the issue. I’m not going to dispute that, but let me ask this then. Is every law going to be held as such forever? What’s the point of having power if you can’t set precedence? Where’s the independent thinking here to do what’s right rather than to follow precedence like a computer could? And if precedence were all that mattered, or mattered most, why appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada as they would just do the same thing? And what if the Supreme Court reversed things? What distinguishes them from the BC Court on this matter given the BC Courts could have reversed things themselves? Are the Supreme Court judges more intelligent on a matter most Canadians could see for themselves?
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Reading Level: 9.5
I find anyone demanding to participate in the Olympics & making and claims of Foul when what they want to occur in a financially extorting Organization, needs to wake the f*ck up the Olympics have no meaning and only benefit the few hundred rich who can see them & the useless athletes who do nothing to benefit society except receive money to work out.
BC is over 2 billion dollars in debt, our health care is getting cut, social services are getting cuts, infrastructure is being redirected for these Olympic which little benefit to the tax payers paying for them, Get your head out of your sniveling *ss & realize what is occurring around you, making a b*llshit claim 15 women rights are being violated, when thousands of homeless in Vancouver BC are losing there civil rights just to make the city streets look nice for those few who can come to the games.
You want to make a difference write about something that directly affect the citizens who reside within the story your publish, 15 women compared to over 6 billion humans on this planet, of which 1 billion are homeless, your story is nothing but a pile of utter whining Bullshit, grow the f*ck up and start writing something reliant to our society.
You can grow up by starting to learn how to spell, “reliant” to our society. You could also learn to put your time to better use than writing rants, like writing something “relevant”. Oh, yeah. You don’t know what “relevant” means. Btw, being like this only gets you to death sooner “death.to.human.race@gmail.com”.
How immature of you Digital Citizen to respond to the post by avoiding the subject matter that was brought up by “Bigger issues in this world then women ski jumping”, not to mention unprofessional by posting there email, if you can’t take opinions or criticism then you need to look for another profession.
I do agree with “Bigger issues in this world then women ski jumping” comments excluding the profanity.
Enough real injustices occur in this world to focus on petty events that benefit a few individuals & cost many others, money, time freedom of choice.
If anyone needs to grow up it is you the writer of this article, though I doubt you will.
Thanks for your comment, but I can take criticism. I also know to put it in context. I think that email pretty much says it all about the person… if it were their real email. If that were their starting point of mind, and they share an email, I doubt any resulting “flack” from my putting it up is a dent in what he/she might be getting.
And this is not a profession. It’s a hobby and platform for learning. I just take my hobbies and learning more seriously than some people take their work.
As for the size of the issue, if you look at the symbolic impact of it, it’s not that small. It’s called the bigger picture. Maybe some people have heard about it.
Lets review the statements & how all of them apply to you & our world. “Content edited by me in correlation regarding subject matter”
Article 1.BC Court Sexist in Dismissing Case for Ski Jumping for Women at the 2010 Olympics
Response 1. The IOC says it will not stage a woman’s ski jump event because there are not enough women competing at the highest levels of the sport. However, men’s ski jumping also does not fully meet the IOC’s criteria for inclusion but has been an Olympic sport since 1924 and was grandfathered into the 2010 games. Even if the current case is appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court, it will not be heard prior to the 2010 Olympic Games.
Article 2. As for the size of the issue, if you look at the symbolic impact of it, it’s not that small.
Response 2. The government posted a $2.8 billion deficit in September, promising that cut backs would have to be made in order to balance the budget in the future. But such restraint has not been extended to spending in Olympic areas. They have, unfortunately, instead come from the health sector.
The government said it was forced to close 13.5 operating rooms in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority from September of 2009 until the end of the Olympic Games in order to meet the challenges of their massive budget shortfalls. They have postponed 5,800 surgeries in areas such as neurosurgery, vascular surgery, ortho trauma, ophthalmology and general surgery. They have reduced operating-room and hospital-ward staff by an estimated 112 full-time-equivalent jobs. And they have cut 13 anesthesiology positions.
The cuts to health care have presumably freed up some room to increase the operating budget of the B.C. Olympic Games Secretariat by more than $8 million, to reach $40.7 million. This is an overall increase of 26% to the budget.
The cuts made & debts created were put towards investments towards projects for the Olympics. All three projects have since been defended as needed infrastructure that would have been built anyway. But it is not clear that those were the top priorities for scarce public dollars, nor was it necessarily cost-effective to fast-track construction in the midst of a private sector boom.
In any event, for the Sea to Sky Highway, figure $1 billion, including the fixed construction cost, interest and some (but not all) of the future payments to the private partner. For the Canada Line, another $2 billion, not including possible compensation to outraged merchants along the route.
Add $1 billion for the wildly over-budget convention center project, plus renovations to B.C. Place, an added cost that was long denied by the B.C. Liberals.
Say $1 billion for security until the federal and provincial governments see fit to share a more precise number with the public.
Then throw in another $1.5 billion for contributions by federal, provincial and local governments and Crown corporations, including venue construction, staging, promotion and such supposedly non-Olympic undertakings as the budget for the Olympic Secretariat and 2010 Legacies Now.
Even without a reckoning for Vancouver’s share of the Olympic village fiasco — $200 million minimum, I’d guess — the running tab for the Games and Games-related projects is somewhere between $6 billion and $7 billion.
And still running.
Conclusion:
-The Olympic games will put BC in a huge financial deficit leaving an unknown costs in the future.
-The case is about the interpretation and application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not sexism but how the government is manipulating our rights as Canadians, it sucks for the skiers however the homeless are having there very freedom taken from them without choice, drastic changes are required towards violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
-The Canadian government needs to be fully transparent & accountable for all actions with legal implications on any violation they sanction.
Have you ever thought about working for a lobby group, cause you’re sure good at propaganda? I’m impressed by the details in your response, although it is faulty, nonetheless. If you’re going to put this much work into a response, I would highly recommend you have your own blog, at least, if not something more worthy, rather than putting it on this post which not that many people read. You’re putting your energy in a very inefficient place, in other words.
Now, to address those arguments.
Article 1. This wasn’t about appealing. This was about the wrong decision. Time line presented is irrelevant.
Article 2. “Presumably” is a big assumption if you have any idea how government budgeting works. I have some. Besides, it’s spare change to the billions you mentioned otherwise. And on those billions, “figure” a number here, “add” a number there, “say” this number or that, and a “minimum, I’d guess”… for someone who writes like s/he is a lawyer with the “articles” and all, that’s a disgraceful standard to hold yourself to as if $1 billion in estimates was $1 to be added to the price of something. If you don’t know a value for certain, don’t project in your favour, cause psychology inevitably points it out that people do.
But have you still stopped to look at the big picture? It always amazes me how people who complain about money inevitably get stuck on money as their arguments and can’t see anything more.
First of all, nobody wants to take something on that’s a certain loss. There may be a risk, but it’s usually not that big of a risk if it’s that much money at stake to be lost. Second, long-term value. Do you think they’d close all these venues down, the highway, and all, once it’s all over in 2 weeks and generate no more revenue from all these things? Third, multiplier effect. Every dollar spent locally is multiplied several times in value to the local economy cause if you make some money and spend it locally, so will someone else. Most of that cash is coming in from the outside with visitors and much of it stays around for a while. What do you reckon the sum of revenues generated by all these facilities and such will be in the long run, even after subtracting their upkeep costs? Fourth, other revenues, like television, advertising, etc. It’s not just at the building level. Pretty much all is taxed so some comes back to the government. Fifth, social value. Ah, yes. Social value. You get a few local operations done. You get a few local people off the streets (and you’ll never solve that problem no matter how much money you have, btw). You leave the old local highway rotten.
But how many dreams do you kill around the world for not having an Olympics? And what would those who dream, whether they make it to the Olympics or not, do without that dream?
I’d bet you’d end up with a greater net number of people on the streets! And the Olympics can keep some off the streets. Clara Hughes, our Canadian flag bearer, was heading there once till she saw our Gaetan Boucher. Some Jeremy guy (also from Canada) in the luge (I think) got off the streets because of the Olympics.
So how’s about the conclusions being the Olympic Games will leave unquantifiable benefits to the future? And the case is about sexism, with some (not all) of the homeless having made the choice on their own to be there rather than having their freedom taken away. Some are there due to mental illnesses and other reasons, I know, but some got themselves there in the first place, and many are choosing to be there because they aren’t willing to conform to options our system gives them. Hey, nobody ever said life was fair or perfect, but if you don’t control yourself to take what’s there and work your way out rather than just demanding what you want, don’t expect sympathy. I’ll agree with the accountability and transparency part, but this isn’t an example. Proroguing Parliament is more the case.
Hey there inflammatory anti-Olympics commenter! Were you in that protest in downtown Vancouver?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/13/bc-vancouver-olympic-protest.html
Sounds like the place where you should have been. They certainly could have used your anger and misguided analysis!