Women ski jumpers denied, again

Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife

There are a lot of reasons why people in Vancouver (and Canada) are already tired of the Olympics that are set to begin in mid-February. Now they have one more.

One of the more interesting (and now ridiculous) stories to take place during the run-up to next February’s Winter Olympics in Vancouver has been that of female ski jumpers. A group of 14 female ski jumpers have been lobbying for a place at the Games. Currently, the International Olympic Committee only allows men to compete at ski jumping. The women took their case to the Canadian courts, alleging that the denial of participation ran counter to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Back in July, the Supreme Court of British Columbia rejected the jumpers’ bid to be a part of the Games, saying that while the IOC’s decision was discriminatory, the Court had no authority to force the IOC to allow the women to compete.

Today, the ski jumpers’ appeal of that decision was dismissed, effectively ending their attempts to compete in 2010. Dave Zirin from the Nation magazine put the ridiculousness of the entire scenario well:

The IOC’s rule that ski jumping remain, as it has since 1924, for men only, takes precedence over the laws of Canada. Olympic law, designed by a coven of aging aristocrats, holds the ultimate power. Forget for a moment that women are some of the best ski jumpers in the world. Forget that the person who holds the record on Vancouver’s jump site is actually American woman Lindsey Van. Forget that the International Ski Federation (FIS) voted 114-1 in 2006 to recommend inclusion of the women’s ski jump. Forget even the blatant sexism of FIS president Gian-Franco Kasper, who said in 2005 that ski jumping “seems not to be appropriate for the ladies from a medical point of view.” Forget that the Olympic charter reads that the IOC’s mission is “to encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality of men and women,” and “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.”

Forget all of that and consider that a judge ruled that the International Olympic Committee effectively has legal jurisdiction over the Canadian Government.

Thankfully I’m not the only one confused by this decision. Apparently, details of the decision will be released next week, so maybe we can assume that some convincing information will be revealed. But at the moment, I can’t really imagine what that might be.

Update: Knowing lawyers pays off. A friend of mine explained the Court’s decision thus: “This is a purely jurisdictional question that addresses whether the Canadian Charter applies to actions taken by the IOC, an international organization. It does not. Article 32 states explicitly that the Charter applies to government action alone. While the Court found that VANOC was “carrying out a government activity” and thus its actions would be scrutinized under the Charter, it made clear that the exclusion of women’s ski jumping was an IOC decision rather than a VANOC one. At para 121 the Court states: “VANOC cannot be held to be in breach of the Charter in relation to decisions that it cannot control. VANOC did not make the decision to exclude women’s ski jumping from the 2010 Games. VANOC did not support that decision. VANOC does not have the power to remedy it.” If the inclusion of women’s ski jumping was in fact VANOC’s decision to make and it chose to exclude women, that decision would be subject to the Charter and a breach of section 15 (equality). But that’s not the case here. Here, the IOC is not subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian courts nor is it bound by the rules espoused by the Charter. I think it’s important to remember that the Canadian Charter is a valuable instrument in protecting human rights but it has its limits. This is one of them.”

Fine. That’s all well and good. So it’s not within VANOC’s jurisdiction – that’s the legal part of the reasoning explained. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t help us understand why the IOC refused these women in the first place.