|
“Today Spain shines as an example and as a source of pride. It’s [giving] an example
to the international community by taking a step forward in defence of human rights.”
So said Spain’s Socialist prime minister Pedro Sánchez on Sunday, in praise of the
pro- Cyclists on the Vuelta still had several circuits of the Spanish capital to complete
on Sunday afternoon, totalling around 60 kilometres; but protestors broke down barriers
and occupied the course in the centre of the city, forcing the cancellation of the
final stage. There was no podium ceremony, either. The race’s Danish winner, two- Sánchez is seriously at fault for his remarks over the Vuelta farce. First for announcing
that he had deep respect for “a Spanish society that mobilises against injustice
and defends its ideas in a peaceful manner”. A peaceful protest is not one in which
over twenty police officers are injured. It is besides the point that no- It was left to the Vuelta’s organizer, Javier Guillén, to provide the condemnation
that should have come from Sánchez. “What happened yesterday [in Madrid] was absolutely
unacceptable”, he said yesterday: “I regret the image it gave and it should not be
repeated”. Spain’s Conservative leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo adopted a similar stance,
saying: “I defend freedom of expression, so long as it doesn’t involve violence or
riots. The government has allowed the non- |
|
|
thus, an international embarrassment that was televised around the world”. Israel’s foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar posted on X that Sánchez had “encouraged protestors to take to the streets” and that he was a “disgrace” to Spain. Sanchez’s claim that Sunday’s Vuelta demonstration was peaceful was bad enough; but
his apportioning of blame for the aborted race was much more egregious. Rather than
pointing to moronic, self- It is a sad irony that the politicians who shout most loudly about inclusivity also
support the toxic politicization of artistic and sporting events, and the discrimination
in which that inevitably results. Unlike economic sanctions, sporting and cultural
bans do not reduce a state’s capacity for war. They merely discriminate against people
on the basis of nationality, and aim to justify that discrimination with lofty political
ideals. Wimbledon's exclusion of Russian and Belarusian players from the tennis tournament
in 2022 was utterly misguided for the same reason. This year’s bull- Sánchez implies that it would be “ethical” for sporting organizations to exclude
participants from major events because they are Israeli. That strikes me as straightforwardly
unethical. It is further proof of the warped perspective of a prime minister who
is so obsessed with appearing pro- idiots who engaged in a destructive protest; but the cyclists who felt unsafe on the roads of Spain, and the supposedly immoral organisers who allowed Israel to participate. |