Canada should follow England's lead and consider not participating in C'wealth Games


dumpthemonarchy
#1
Excellent article. England is considering pulling out of the dated Commonwealth Games. We should be putting more effort into the Pan-American Games instead and exit the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is another outmoded institution like the monarchy costing the country several hundred million dollars a year for very little. Canada can't be part of every organization in the world, and in these days of deficits, some have to have their funding cut.

England ready to pull out of Commonwealth Games over terror risk

England is poised to pull out of next year’s Commonwealth Games over fears that athletes will be victims of a terrorist attack, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.


By Holly Watt and Robert Winnett
Published: 10:00PM GMT 29 Dec 2009




England ready to pull out of Commonwealth Games over terror risk - Telegraph (external - login to view)

It would be the first time that England has not competed in the 80-year-old Games, which are due to be held in Delhi in October.

Police and security advisers fear that the English team will be targeted by Pakistani terrorists and feel that athletes’ safety cannot be guaranteed at present.
Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, visited the Indian capital earlier this month to inspect the Games sites and was said to have voiced “serious concerns” about the security arrangements.

Although a formal decision on England’s participation will not be taken until the new year, senior Whitehall sources told The Daily Telegraph that there was “virtually no chance” a team would be sent.

“If you are an English athlete there is no way you are going to want to risk your life competing at the Games. We currently cannot see any way that England will be able to send a team to Delhi next year,” said one source.
A spokesman for the English Commonwealth Games organising body indicated that the team’s participation was in jeopardy.

Caroline Searle insisted that athletes were looking forward to competing, but said: “We continue to monitor the security situation. We take guidance from the Metropolitan Police. We can’t make a judgment until nearer the time. We have had briefings on security and we will decide when we know what the terror threat is going to be like.”

England was planning to send almost 100 athletes to the Games, which are seen as important preparation for the 2012 Olympics in London and can draw television audiences of more than a billion.

Among those hoping to add to their gold medal tallies were Rebecca Adlington, the double Olympic champion swimmer, Tom Daley, the world champion diver, and Victoria Pendleton, the Olympic gold medal-winning cyclist.

If the English team withdraws, the entire competition would be in jeopardy. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish teams would almost certainly follow suit, as could countries such as Australia and Canada which also have troops in Afghanistan — the likely justification for any terrorist attack. Several high-profile English athletes have already pulled out of the Games citing other commitments.
Beth Tweddle, the world championship gymnast and captain of the 2006 English Commonwealth team, is not attending the Games which clash with a world gymnastics tournament. Jessica Ennis, the world champion heptathlete, and Paula Radcliffe, the marathon runner, also announced that they would not be travelling to Delhi.

Sue Hawkins, the England netball coach, said earlier this year that her team would withdraw if there was a security threat. “The English government will make sure that we’re secure and if there’s any doubt

I’m sure we won’t be going,” she added. India has been the scene of a series of recent terrorist attacks and threats, including the Mumbai atrocity in November 2008 in which at least 170 people were killed.

Several other major sporting events have already been moved from the subcontinent. The England team withdrew from the World Badminton Championships in Hyderabad in August after terrorist threats. In
March, the Sri Lankan cricket team was ambushed while being driven to a match in Lahore, Pakistan. Twelve gunmen attacked their convoy, killing eight Pakistanis and injuring six Sri Lankan players and a

British assistant coach. After that incident, the Indian Premier League cricket tournament was moved to South Africa. A British security expert with knowledge of the Delhi Games said that the Indian authorities had left it until the “11th hour” to properly prepare security. Some former SAS people were out there last year offering security advice but now everything is being handled by the Indians,” he said.

“They are way behind the curve and the whole competition is a poisoned chalice now. The Indians do have good police and military so they could just throw huge resources at the problem but it may not be enough to convince the western governments.”

The decision not to send an English team is likely to split the athletics community. British swimmers said recently that they saw the Games as a crucial part of their Olympic preparations.

Earlier this year, Lord Coe, the London 2012 chairman who has family connections to India, called for the Delhi Games not to be relocated.
He said: “If we want to globalise these events, if we want to make sure that they don’t just consistently go to a clutch of countries that are quite clearly resourced, then organisations like the

Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Movement are going to have to put frameworks around to help them.”

There were already concerns that preparations for the Games were behind schedule.

Infrastructure projects were slow and over-budget and there were reports of disputes between Delhi’s local organising committee and the Games’ ruling body.
In October, Michael Fennell, the Commonwealth Games Federation president, warned organisers that “time is your enemy”.

The Commonwealth Games, featuring 71 nations and territories, was expected to be the biggest multi-sport event to be staged in India since the Asian Games in 1982. In 2006 they were held in Melbourne and the 2014 Games are due to be held in Glasgow.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said last night that the force did not comment on security matters.

A spokesman for the Cabinet Office said that talks were ongoing to try to ensure a safe and secure Games.
 
YukonJack
#2
The British Commonwealth is an anachronistic entity, way past its usefulness and purpose.
 
AnnaG
#3
Quote:

England ready to pull out of Commonwealth Games over terror risk

Quote:


England is poised to pull out of next year’s Commonwealth Games over fears that athletes will be victims of a terrorist attack, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Excellent article. England is considering pulling out of the dated Commonwealth Games. We should be putting more effort into the Pan-American Games instead and exit the Commonwealth.

So you think they'd be attacked at the commonwealth games and the Pan Am games are immune to attack?
 
TenPenny
#4
Actually, we should pull out of both, they're pointless wastes of money.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

[b][size=4]
So you think they'd be attacked at the commonwealth games and the Pan Am games are immune to attack?

The risk of a terror attack I think is quite low in India, but proximty to Pakistan and Afghanistan doesn't help. Countries India is actively involved in. The fear of a threat is real though.

The CW Games simply stretches our limited national resources when budget cutting is going to occur. The CW is a falling star and I would much rather amp up the Pan-Am Games.

I remember reading in the International Herald Tribune a while back how people said after doing business in Brazil, "I found a nice place in the country near Rio." And the article said people just didn't say this about Russia, China or India, the other BRIC countries. I mean, doesn't 'Brazilian terrorist' sound kind of silly?
 
dumpthemonarchy
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Actually, we should pull out of both, they're pointless wastes of money.

Why do you not like the Pan-A Games, there are the Asian Games, the African Games and the European Games. We're following what everyone else is doing. I also don't like the CW Games because the quality of competition is so low.
 
AnnaG
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

The risk of a terror attack I think is quite low in India, but proximty to Pakistan and Afghanistan doesn't help. Countries India is actively involved in. The fear of a threat is real though.

The CW Games simply stretches our limited national resources when budget cutting is going to occur. The CW is a falling star and I would much rather amp up the Pan-Am Games.

I remember reading in the International Herald Tribune a while back how people said after doing business in Brazil, "I found a nice place in the country near Rio." And the article said people just didn't say this about Russia, China or India, the other BRIC countries. I mean, doesn't 'Brazilian terrorist' sound kind of silly?

That's fine, but I don't think any games are terrorist-proof.
Have you looked at Brazil's crime rate, though?

Brazil

Crime in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
 
dumpthemonarchy
#8
Oh yeah, crime in Brazil is high. I read in US Today that one in every 37,000 people arrested by US police dies. While in Brazil it is about one in a hundred.

But the criminals in Brazil don't fly airplanes or attack hotels.
 
taxslave
#9
To pull out of the games because of a threat means that the terrorists just won the war.
 
AnnaG
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

To pull out of the games because of a threat means that the terrorists just won the war.

What war? They won a long time ago and won't quit winning.
 
AnnaG
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Oh yeah, crime in Brazil is high. I read in US Today that one in every 37,000 people arrested by US police dies. While in Brazil it is about one in a hundred.

But the criminals in Brazil don't fly airplanes or attack hotels.

Nope but the murder rate is pretty high anyway. Some 4 times the rate of the USA and other violent crimes are way up there, too. Considering that terrorists usually target high=profile areas and thugs don't, I'd feel safer avoiding terrorists than thugs.
 
Blackleaf
#12
How can the outward-looking, worldwide Commonwealth Games be "outdated" but an IDENTICAL Games featuring teams just in the Americas not be?
 
Blackleaf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

The British Commonwealth is an anachronistic entity, way past its usefulness and purpose.

It's not the British Commonwealth anymore and hasn't been for decades. It's known as "the Commonwealth" or "the Commonwealth of Nations."

The Commonwealth's objectives were outlined in the 1971 Singapore Declaration. These include the institution of world peace; promotion of representative democracy and individual liberty; the pursuit of equality and opposition to racism; the fight against poverty, ignorance, and disease; and free trade.To these were added opposition to discrimination on the basis of gender by the Lusaka Declaration of 1979 (which mostly concerned racism),and environmental sustainability by the Langkawi Declaration of 1989.

In 2003, the Commonwealth said: "We are committed to democracy, good governance, human rights, gender equality, and a more equitable sharing of the benefits of globalisation."

The Commonwealth website lists its areas of work as: Democracy, Economics, Education, Gender, Governance, Human Rights, Law, Small States, Sport, Sustainability, and Youth.

The Commonwealth is so "outdated" that countries across the globe are clamouring to join, including Sudan, Algeria, Madagascar, Yemen, Palestine and Israel.

Contrary to popular belief, anybody can join the Commonwealth rather than just British colonies. Rwanda, an anti-French former Belgian colony joined this year as it refuses to join the French-speaking equivalent, the Francophonie. And Algeria wishes to join as it also doesn't wish to join the Francophonie. Mozambique, which has never been a British colony, joined the Commonwealth in 1995.

To be a member of the Commonwealth a state must comply with the Harare principles, be fully sovereign states, recognise the monarch of the Commonwealth realms as the Head of the Commonwealth, accept the English language as the means of Commonwealth communication, and respect the wishes of the general population with regard to Commonwealth membership.
 
Blackleaf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

The Commonwealth is another outmoded institution like the monarchy costing the country several hundred million dollars a year for very little.

The alternative to a constitutional monarchy is a republic which will cost taxpayers MORE. Republicans always get it into their heads that somehow republics are cheaper than constitutional, ignoring the fact that the US President's Air Force One costs more than Britain's entire monarchy does each year.

One good example of how a constitutional monarchy works better than a republic (except, maybe, an Irish-style republic in which the Prime Minister is Head of Government and the symbolic President is Head of State, much like a monarch, which is a more superior form of republic than the US-style in which the President is both Head of Government AND Head of State) is the situtation surrounding Italy and Germany during WWII. Both countries were dictatorships, but Italy was a constitutional monarchy in which Mussolini was only Head of Government and Germany was a republic in which Hitler was Head of Government AND State (like Obama).

The people of both countries wanted rid of Hitler and Mussolini. Italy had the advantage that even though Mussolini was a dictator, he was NOT Head of State, and the king duly got rid of him and Italy joined the allies. If Britain and Canada became dictatorships, the Queen could oust the dictator (she has the power to get rid of any PM) and call an election.

Germany, being a republic, had no such advantage, as their dictator was also Head of State, so nobody could get rid of him. The Germans were stuck with him. The US would have a similar disadvantage if Obama became a dictator, as he is not only Head of Government but also Head of State. That is surely an obvious flaw.

And Ancient Rome was a republic, so you can also argue that republics are outmoded.
 
Spade
#15
The Commonwealth is an old-boy's club like the Elks or Odd Fellows. But unlike the Elks or Odd Fellows, it serves no useful purpose other than the occasional reminiscence about the good-old days. The majority of us Canadians are quite indifferent to the institution.
 
Risus
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Actually, we should pull out of both, they're pointless wastes of money.

Maybe we should cancel the olympics too and crawl into a shell....
 
TenPenny
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

Maybe we should cancel the olympics too and crawl into a shell....

That certainly would save lots of money.
 
Liberalman
#18
England should pull out of the games
We have to remember Munich and their terrorist problems where Israeli athletes were killed.

I always thought that the Brits were the toughest of them all but I guess times change.

If the Brits do pull out because of safety concerns then the troops in the war zone may suffer because it will be viewed as cowardly.

The Prince slept in a cardboard box a week ago in England because he is tough like Brits are
 
dumpthemonarchy
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The alternative to a constitutional monarchy is a republic which will cost taxpayers MORE. Republicans always get it into their heads that somehow republics are cheaper than constitutional, ignoring the fact that the US President's Air Force One costs more than Britain's entire monarchy does each year.
One good example of how a constitutional monarchy works better than a republic (except, maybe, an Irish-style republic in which the Prime Minister is Head of Government and the symbolic President is Head of State, much like a monarch, which is a more superior form of republic than the US-style in which the President is both Head of Government AND Head of State) is the situtation surrounding Italy and Germany during WWII. Both countries were dictatorships, but Italy was a constitutional monarchy in which Mussolini was only Head of Government and Germany was a republic in which Hitler was Head of Government AND State (like Obama).
The people of both countries wanted rid of Hitler and Mussolini. Italy had the advantage that even though Mussolini was a dictator, he was NOT Head of State, and the king duly got rid of him and Italy joined the allies. If Britain and Canada became dictatorships, the Queen could oust the dictator (she has the power to get rid of any PM) and call an election.
Germany, being a republic, had no such advantage, as their dictator was also Head of State, so nobody could get rid of him. The Germans were stuck...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Comparing the cost of a plane to the monarchy makes no sense to me. Each govt is very different and has its own expenses.

And I would say the Allied armies got rid of Mussolini, not some monarch. Same for that German guy with the moustashe.

You pro-monarchist types are just deluded by minor details. Rewriting history to suit your eccentric beliefs. Totally missing the broad sweep of history.

Rome. Hmm. Had the novel concept of the citizen, where the existence of the nation is not based on race. A stunning concept in its day and used with great enthusiasm by countries like Canada, the UK, the USA, and other progressive nations. A monarchy, which is based on hereditary principles, just makes less and less sense when you have citizens.
 
FiveParadox
#20
The existence of engaged citizens is not mutually exclusive to the existence of The Sovereign. The relationships, roles and responsibilities between the Queen and Her Majesty’s Canadian subjects is an important one (for example, the duty to maintain the Queen’s peace). These are elements that cannot be reasonably reproduced under any other system of Government, and we would be far less in their absence.
 
sputnik
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Actually, we should pull out of both, they're pointless wastes of money.

HERE HERE (agreed completely)
 
Spade
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

The existence of engaged citizens is not mutually exclusive to the existence of The Sovereign. The relationships, roles and responsibilities between the Queen and Her Majesty’s Canadian subjects is an important one (for example, the duty to maintain the Queen’s peace). These are elements that cannot be reasonably reproduced under any other system of Government, and we would be far less in their absence.

So, we commoners are lesser beings without our hereditary betters?
 
SirJosephPorter
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by sputnikView Post

HERE HERE (agreed completely)

sputnik, I am not trying to be pedantic, but it is ‘hear, hear’, not ‘here, here’. It is a British expression, short for ‘hear what he has to say’, it signifies total agreement. It is used a lot in British House of Commons.
 
FiveParadox
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

So, we commoners are lesser beings without our hereditary betters?

Read my post and then respond again. Your statement has nothing to do with what I’ve said, absolutely nothing.
 
taxslave
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The alternative to a constitutional monarchy is a republic which will cost taxpayers MORE. Republicans always get it into their heads that somehow republics are cheaper than constitutional, ignoring the fact that the US President's Air Force One costs more than Britain's entire monarchy does each year.
One good example of how a constitutional monarchy works better than a republic (except, maybe, an Irish-style republic in which the Prime Minister is Head of Government and the symbolic President is Head of State, much like a monarch, which is a more superior form of republic than the US-style in which the President is both Head of Government AND Head of State) is the situtation surrounding Italy and Germany during WWII. Both countries were dictatorships, but Italy was a constitutional monarchy in which Mussolini was only Head of Government and Germany was a republic in which Hitler was Head of Government AND State (like Obama).
The people of both countries wanted rid of Hitler and Mussolini. Italy had the advantage that even though Mussolini was a dictator, he was NOT Head of State, and the king duly got rid of him and Italy joined the allies. If Britain and Canada became dictatorships, the Queen could oust the dictator (she has the power to get rid of any PM) and call an election.
Germany, being a republic, had no such advantage, as their dictator was also Head of State, so nobody could get rid of him. The Germans were stuck...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
having an unelected inbred foreigner as head of our government is embarrassing.
 
FiveParadox
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

...foreigner...

A common misperception.

Her Majesty, and all members of the Royal Family, are Canadian subjects.
 
Spade
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

A common misperception.

Her Majesty, and all members of the Royal Family, are Canadian subjects.

Quaint...
The Queen is our subject. Royalty through the looking glass!
 
dumpthemonarchy
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Quaint...
The Queen is our subject. Royalty through the looking glass!

Totally agree. How the queen, who was not born in Canada, is a Canadian, is hard to fathom. Today, when people are born in England, they hold British passports and must use it when traveling to Canada. She's foreigner all right. Doesn't know or care much about Canada from what I can gather.

The monarchy, like the CW Games have their best days behind them. Are these things like spent nuclear fuel; useless, but radioactive for thousands of years? Like uranium, an element that just refuses to die and become inert for the public good?
 
FiveParadox
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

[...] Doesn't know or care much about Canada...

Now you’re just being disingenuous for political points.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

Now you’re just being disingenuous for political points.

No, I'm not being disingenuous, which means not being frank or honest. She is not a Canadian, she understands very little about being Canadian. She and her family come to Canada once a decade on their own dime. They create no buzz here, they do not care about Canada. The evidence is plain.

Royalty are by their nature parochial, they know their own business and little else. And they are always surprised when their little people wish to dump them.
 
no new posts