Last week, I was talking about the clash between sport and personal lives. No-one's a winner as a result of "Spank-gate" - Mosley's clearly lost out, but the sport too as it was the main point of discussion at Bahrain last weekend. Not the track action.

In the past week though, there's been a different clash - that of sport and politics.
The Olympic Games are all about world unity. As the I.O.C. website says:

Bringing people together in peace. Setting aside differences in the name of sport.

Of course, with China's human rights record and occupation in Tibet - yes, it's a chance to protest and show what global condemnation there is for their activities. However, that's what a peaceful protest is for. Protesting in the Olympic spirit.

However, some people seem to think that right way to protest is (at best) in a very disruptive manner, trying to steal the Olympic torch; or (at worst) violently.

I can almost understand it from the French. Any excuse to get out on the streets - as Tom Paine says, the spirit of '68 does live on. I can, once again, refer back to my time over in Paris during the Student strikes of 2006. My University was closed indefinitely because of the risk of violence. I witnessed people being thrown down the steps leading into the law department as they tried to cross the picket lines. One student had an arm broken at some point in the protests. I think I'm justified in saying that the security services probably provoke violence themselves. An example I gave at the time in "CRS = SS":
But, protests turned ugly over here too. We're British, we react to problems with a stiff upper lip and tutting over a pot of tea and scone.

The problem with this attitude is that it rarely gets results. A few marches in London didn't do much for student Top-Up fees; but the CPE sunk without a trace (along with the Prime Minister) after the French protests. So, on the one hand, I'm in favour of our protests being a bit more direct. Not French style violent, but direct. Let's have a National Strike over the abolition of the 10p income tax band. See if things get changed.

But, not when it's part of the Olympic movement. Trying to steal or extinguish the torch? The torch is possibly the most physical symbolisation of peace we have. Attacking a symbol of peace because of an oppressive regime is an almost dictionary definition of irony.

Come August (whilst I might be washing my hair during the Opening Ceremony), I'll be watching the games, and cheering on the British athletes. I probably won't even think about Tibet whilst watching the Paralympics in September. And I hope that people won't think badly of me for keeping sports and politics separate.

Asp

The lighting of the Olympic torch as it begins it journey from Olympia to Beijing in time for the 2008 Olympics was disrupted by a group of demonstrators. The group, Reporters Without Borders, said that:

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, no matter what the human rights situation is in China what is the point of disrupting a sporting event? This is not a political event, but a sporting one. And it's not like the Olympics could be held anywhere else at this late stage.

Rather than disrupting the Olympics, use the "symbol of peace" that the Olympic flame stands for as an opportunity to show where the Chinese government fail to meet what we consider to be the correct standards - but in a more effective way than the IOCs "silent diplomacy" [which means what, exactly? Saying and doing nothing].

By disrupting the Olympics, demonstrators are not helping their cause, but just ensuring that the Chinese become more intransigent to making any positive change.