Freedom of Expression in Sports

There has long existed a double standard in sports, though the extent of this hypocrisy is only now become clear. After another loss to the hapless Atlanta Falcons in the NFL’s Monday night game earlier this month, five Falcons players were fined for wearing shirts and decals the league found inappropriate. The displays the players brought to field were in support for ex-Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. The franchise quarterback was sentenced last month to a shade under two years for his involvement in a dog fighting ring.

 

Five of his teammates were fined a combined $45,000. Receiver Roddy White wore a shirt underneath his jersey saying “Free Mike Vick” while the others sported black eye strips displaying Vick’s number and initials. Fellow receiver Joe Horn received a $7,500 fine simply for lifting White’s jersey.

 

That Vick received more jail time, as a first offender, than other, more serious offenders who have harmed actual humans – such as assault, drunk driving, etc – is not the issue. Nor is it issue that the restitution the court ordered Vick to pay the dogs is more, per canine, than any war veteran receives upon his return home from Iraq.

 

No, I’ll leave those arguments on the table and deal with just this one. Why aren’t players, in any professional sports organization, allowed to freely express themselves as other, regular citizens are able.

 

The NFL’s official explanation for the fine was:

 “NFL rules prohibit clothing that advertises any product other than a direct sponsor.” 

The rule, it should be said, is ironclad. Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher was fined $100,000 for wearing a nonapproved hat during Super Bowl weekend last year, and Dallas Cowboys receiver Terrell Owens was fined in the same season for waving a towel inscribed with his initials.

 

This rule, according to the NFL, does extends as far as personal messages. Several years ago, knock-around QB Jake Plummer was fined for placing on his helmet the number of deceased safety Pat Tillman, who left his team and six-figure contract to serve the United States in Afghanistan.

 

Athletes, due to their perceived luck and the privilege of occupying such a prestigious position, are subjected to draconian rules and regulations in their respective leagues – and we, as fans, seem to welcome it.

 

The first thing athletes are forced to abandon, as they are assimilated into the league, is their freedom of speech. In the NBA, players are forbidden from wearing certain articles of clothing deemed too “urban” by league headquarters. Fines are thrown out for speaking ill of referees or calling attention to the vaguely racist tendencies of Commissioner David Stern. For example, Atlanta Hawks forward Al Horford received the same punishment for intentionally hitting Toronto Raptors guard T.J. Ford, a foul which sent Ford to the hospital, than the NBA would level if someone were to suggest the referees tried to sway the outcome of a game. Besides, we now know the notion of referees fixing games is not as outrageous as the league wants us to think.

 

It should be said that Horford says his foul on Ford was unintentional, something Ford himself has backed up. But, the point remains: leagues fear so much the free expression of their players that they are willing to impose a more severe punishment on a rabble rouser than someone who intentionally smacks another player in order to save a basket.

 Somebody smarter than me must know why this is.

Taser Debate

 The great Taser debate rages on. For those keeping track, though Tasers have been killing people since their inception, and used recklessly by police for years, the issue blazed into mainstream policy discussion following the video-recorded death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport two months ago.

First, the UN Committee against Torture likened the use of stun guns to “a form of torture.” Shortly after, Taser International fired back at the UN, calling them “out of touch” and insinuating that their efforts to ban the Taser would, in turn, cause more torture. At least, that’s what I got from it. Here’s the exact quote from Taser International Founder and Chairman Tom Smith:

“TASER devices have saved thousands of lives worldwide and dramatically reduce injuries of officers and suspects in every community they are deployed.

“We would hope that the United National Committee Against Torture, as well as human rights group around the globe, would embrace our revolutionary technology and choose to work with us in our efforts to reduce violence and protect life. Simply issuing baseless and factually incorrect statements will not end violence or torture and may only serve to weaken efforts intended to protect life.”

I follow some of that, and a part of me agrees with the pro-Taser crowd.  I would rather cops use a two second electrical jolt to stop a knife wielding maniac than use their guns. I also think more people have died or become seriously injured after cops get too carried away with their batons than by the Taser.

That was until the Taser killed a Nova Scotia man a few weeks later. And another, in Montreal. Then I read a report by Amnesty International which said Tasers were extremely dangerous (especially seeing as how they were applied to cuffed victims in half the deaths covered in the report), and called for the suspension of their use. I’ll admit Amnesty can be quite alarmist, but I, in this case, agree with most of their findings.

It seems to me, police are turning to the Taser much too quickly. If a situation escalates, officers simply reach for the Taser and take the suspect down. Tasers, while, in itself, an effective law enforcement tool, are not always used to diffuse dangerous situations but rather to punish noncompliance and perceived disrespect. Without getting into a police-bashing rant, I don’t think we can trust these people to use such a powerful weapon judiciously. Though not all police officers are as reckless doling out shocks as it now seems, we’ve been shown time and time again if a pain-causing device is given to someone in a position of authority (especially if they believe the weapon to be non-fatal), they will use it

Rather than ban the Taser outright, I think law enforcement should restrict their use to only the most dangerous situations.

I wouldn’t mind seeing the police departments adopt a requirement that all officers fill out a report justifying their use of the Taser, on the occasions they do. Also, the instances where Taser use is acceptable could probably use some tightening up – maybe restricting use to instances where the suspect approaches the officer with a weapon and a few others where the officer or a civilian is in immediate danger.

Cop cars

 After reading this story, I’ve become conflicted. Apparently car makers are considering placing blood alcohol monitors in new cars so that they will not start if the driver is impaired. I actually find this part pretty cool:

One of them uses sensors embedded in the steering wheel or gear shift that can measure blood-alcohol levels through the skin — much as an exercise machine can measure a heart rate.

Now, on one hand, people killed by drunk drivers would diminish drastically. The numbers wouldn’t fall right away as not everyone will buy new cars the first year the technology is introduced. But eventually, hopefully by the time my future kids are learning the ropes of the road, alcohol related road deaths would be a thing of the past. On the other hand, I’m nervous about any invasion of privacy, even an intrusion as benevolent as this one.

Right now, Canada has these “interlocking devices” on the cars of convicted drunk drivers.

The driver blows into the device, which registers his blood-alcohol level. If he registers above a set mark, usually 0.02 or 0.04 per cent, the vehicle won’t start.

It makes sense. But is it constitutional to force every citizen to use these machines? Don’t we have a right to get into our own car without blowing into a tube? I’m going to guess such a measure would not stand up under its first constitutional challenge, which I’m positive will happen immediately after the devices are put in. It begs a very good question; will people sacrifice their personal freedom for the country’s greater good?

Killer Water Bottles

New health hazards seem to pop up all the time. Every week, a study uncovers mortal danger in seemingly innocuous products. A while back, we had the Chinese baby toy recall. Now, even water bottles have turned against us. I’m starting to wonder if there isn’t danger in everything we use. Most people will use anything without paying attention to how it is made or even what goes into making it. I know I do. Sometimes, I’ll willfully ignore warnings just so I can keep using a dangerous product.

What I don’t understand about the dangerous product craze is why anyone cares.

This ominous quote comes from the American advocacy group Environmental Defence on the offending chemical found in the water bottles:

“The writing is on the wall for bisphenol A. When a product loses consumer confidence to this extent it’s obviously time to move to the safer, comparably priced alternatives.”

While I can’t say anything about whether bisphenol A is exactly the terror described by Environmental Defense, I can say, with relative certainty, that the things we eat, from fast food chains to store bought meat, are probably a whole lot worse.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, bisphenol A disrupts the human hormonal system but is safe to consume up to 50 parts per billion daily. That is, of course, much more than one would find in a single bottle. It makes me wonder, now that everyone is so environmentally conscious, as long as environmentalism does not disrupt their daily lives, what’s next on the ban list? I mentioned that the food we eat is probably more poisonous (long term exposure to fatty foods has been proven to kill, whereas Bis A has not) than a water bottle. Maybe we’re about to enter an era where the government will start banning foods.

We’d probably live a lot longer and be much healthier but if I want to kill myself with poutine and poison water bottles, shouldn’t I be able to do just that?

The Model Minority Myth

When someone from a poor minority group – whether it be blacks or Native Indians – complain of being treated unfairly by the job market or the legal system, the conversation invariably veers toward well-trod territory. Somebody will, at some point, highlight the fact that Asian immigrants have done well for themselves financially in their adopted countries, therefore the blacks and Natives have only themselves to blame for their poor conditions.

At first glance, the Asian argument appears to be a significant one, worthy of discussion and heavy consideration. Although I never agreed with it, there did exist some superficial evidence to substantiate the claim. When I first began writing, I vowed to write about this topic at some point.

Time Wise, Znet contributor and author of White Like Me, has beaten me to the punch. He writes:

Whereas the black population represents a cross-section of background, the APA community is highly self-selected. Voluntary migrants from nations that are not contiguous to their country of destination tend to have the skills and money needed to leave their home country in the first place. As many scholars have found, Asian immigrants are largely drawn from an occupational and educational elite in their countries of origin.

Blacks and Natives are more like to have been born in their country of residence, whether it be Canada or the U.S. Most Asian immigrants have not.

A total of 10.7 per cent of Canadian immigrants come from either Africa or the Caribbean while over 36 per cent of immigrants hail from Asia. Native Indians, of course, have not immigrated from anywhere, unless we count Australian aboriginals and scattered Central American tribes – which Stats Can does not. The likelihood of an Asian immigrant having a college degree compared to blacks matches up perfectly to the immigration percentage:

As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly educated APA community already had college degrees before coming to the U.S., or were in college upon arrival. Thanks to preferences for educated immigrants, APAs are two-thirds more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks to have a college degree.

So it would seem that Asians aren’t harder working or more innately intelligent than other minority group. After all, one would only have to take a stroll through many of parts of China or India to see that there are many who are in as much need for help as Canada and America’s native minorities.

I doubt any amount of writing on this subject will change the minds of those who subscribe to the “model minority myth.” With such a charged subject as race, who could expect different?