Those of you who read US blogs may already have spotted this but there's a bit of a row brewing over an impromptu protest by the U.S. women's Bridge team at an awards dinner. The team won the World Championship in Shanghai last month but during their victory celebrations team captain Gail Greenberg held up a sign that read: "We did not vote for Bush" - an attempt, she claims, to counter some tough questions and comments the team attracted in the course of the tournament about US foreign policy:"What we were trying to say, not to Americans but to our friends from other countries, was that we understand that they are questioning and critical of what our country is doing these days, and we want you to know that we, too, are critical"
But as with the Dixie Chicks in 2003 it seems Gail didn't reckon on the reach of Bush supporters and the governing bodies in US Bridge are absolutely furious and suggesting some rather extreme sanctions including year-long suspensions and community service. Given that at this level most of these women earn their living playing bridge this is a serious matter. Rather predictably the debate is revolving around the 'freedom-of-speech' issue with the authorities claiming that's a red herring because while abroad the team represents a private US organisation which, they claim, the protest brought into disrepute - in their eyes this gives them leave to sanction Greenberg & co regardless of freedom of speech. More details here...
Convention of course dictates that this post should've started with a hackneyed characterisation of the US Bridge community as a 'genteel' and 'mild-mannered' etc. but the truth is I know absolutely nothing about them. Scratch the surface and, for all I know, perhaps you'll find raging feuds between neocon and democratic Bridge enthusiasts with games regularly descending into full scale brawls with playing cards scattered to the wind etc. No idea why but that's an image I quite like.
9 Comments:
Why could the sign not have read that they do not endorse any political or religious stance but are neutral players?
It was scribbled on menu a few seconds before they took the the stage - hardly the conditions in which to construct a detailed, carefully considered rebuttal of everything that was put to them.
Essentially though that's what it does say James - it doesn't say anything about what they do support or think but just points out that they didn't endorse Bush. If the US is censuring people for that sort of thing they have big problems...
Cassilis: most people that cry 'free speech' actually have no idea what that means.
Freedom of speech in this country is protected ... from the government. There is no guarantee of free speech in a private setting, no guarantee of free speech in a club, no guarantee in a blog, etc.
The committee that runs the bridge thing has rules on what can and cannot be done, these ladies knew the rules and broke them, this is NOT a freedom of speech issue. This is a case of someone breaking a rule and getting free press from people that think the US government is doing bad things to them because of it.
Nazh - I'm aware of the distinction and yes, these ladies are free to say what they want but not when representing the USBF so I take the point, it's not a free speech issue.
It is however a common sense one and if an organisation that promotes a card game censures people for this then the organisation has lost all perspective. A mild private rebuke and a reminder of the rules are all this merits - if the USBF actually pursues a year-long ban etc. then it makes a mockery of US claims to be the bastion of liberty...
What this club does or does not do, will in no way make mockery of the bastion of liberty since it is by liberty that they have the RIGHT to do what they will with members that break their rules (laws).
That's like saying every criminal in England makes a mockery of the English people and their history of freedom.
Nazh - you have a habit of disputing a slightly different point from the one being made, perhaps because you don't really want to engage with the issue.
In my original post I didn't say it was a 'free speech issue' but your first comment alleged as such. In my response above I didn't question the groups liberty to sanction their members as they see fit but again, curiously, that's the thrust of your reply.
My point is a straightforward one (even if you seem reluctant to engage with it) - this ISN'T about free speech and the USBF have complete liberty to do as they will if their members have broken their rules BUT (point coming up) if the do so over something so trivial then they belittle the very freedom under which they can act.
I'm sorry, your debate about free-speach I guess I took from you instead of by you.
Liberty for the company/group is their ability to uphold their rules, you agree?
Do you think there is more liberty in allowing a rule-break to go unpunished or punished?
You seem to think that the EXTENT of the punishment is the problem, I don't know the policy there, so maybe they are way overboard on that and if so, then we'll agree that they go to far. But until I see the policy (with punishment listed) then I can't know that part.
Yes, the group does have the liberty / right to uphold rules and sanction those who break them.
And I don't know the policy either although I'm pretty sure it's a generic 'bringing the club into disrepute' or 'avoiding overt political statements' type thing. My issue here Nazh is that what these ladies did was arguably very patriotic and actually quite measured and reasonable. In response to hostile questions and criticisms of US foreign policy they pointed out that there is a pluralism in the US, not all Americans support Bush and that they still love their country.
Yes they strayed into politics and so some sort of minor sanction is justified. But if the organisation can't take this sort of reasoned or balanced view of the whole incident then they are, I'd contend, undermining the sense of liberty for which the US is justly proud.
The reason I said I didn't know the policy is because the policy may state the punishment for each 'violation' or some such.
If not, yes suspending would be very harsh; but again, it would only hurt the US itself with people that are pre-disposed against the US. What harm it does to the organization I can't speculate on, but would seem it would affect it far more then the country as a whole.
And a sign saying "we didn't vote for Bush" is a long stretch to "arguably very patriotic" (and yes I'd say that if it was a Clinton sign in the 90's)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home