Below is my column in The Hill on the controversies surrounding the Paris Olympics. Criticisms of the Opening Ceremony continue with the Vatican weighing in this week to condemn the scenes discussed below.
“I wanted no part of politics.” Those words of Jesse Owens after the 1936 Olympics echoed in my mind as I watched the string of controversies emerge from the Paris games.
From the scenes in the Opening Ceremony to even the food service in the Olympic village, the 2024 Olympics sometimes seemed like a clash not of individual athletes but of political agendas.
The Opening Ceremony of director Thomas Jolly is still raising protests from religious and other groups over two controversial segments.
In one scene, three young people are shown flirting in a library while reading books like “Les Liaisons Dangereuses” (Dangerous Liaisons) and “Le Diable au Corps” (Devil in the Flesh). They then run to an apartment for what was clearly a threesome sex-romp, culminating in the participants pushing the cameraman out of the bedroom.
Many people (including me) could not care less about who or how many people you have sex with. Many also would prefer not to have to explain to kids watching what the scene meant if they failed to pick up the meaning from the hot stairway kissing scene.
Then there was the feast scene, featuring DJ and producer Barbara Butch, described as “an LGBTQ+ icon who calls herself a ‘love activist.’” For many, the tableau evoked Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” — an image that was brought home for many by the Christ-like halo worn by Butch in the center.
For the record, I loved many parts of the Opening Ceremony with its stunning imagery and wonderful music. I also welcomed the inclusion of scenes with gay or trans people to show the diversity of French culture.
But for games that are supposed to serve as a shared experience for a world composed of many religions, cultures and practices, these two scenes were gratuitously divisive. Why was a threesome sex romp so vital to the vision of these Olympics?
For many, the hoisting of the Olympic flag upside down seemed to capture the approach of the French organizers. The games are supposed to capture our shared love of sports and ability to come together as a world for these games.
But that was only the beginning of the controversies, as the games appeared to make political and social divisions into an Olympic sport. It seemed like every aspect of the games, no matter how small, had to “make a point.”
For example, the environmentalists prevailed in pushing a green agenda that succeeded in not only producing possibly more carbon emissions but certainly pushing many nations over the edge.
Athletes have complained that their performances were undermined by the conditions at the village. That included “green beds” made of cardboard — beds that are ideal for recycling and a nightmare to actually sleep on. Athletes complained that they competed with little sleep on the beds designed by some woke Marquis de Sade.
Air conditioning was a “non” at the Paris Olympics, leaving athletes sweltering on their cardboard beds. It was so miserable that various countries flew in air units to make the rooms inhabitable.
Then there was the food shortage. Many blamed the push for plant-based food to lower the games’ carbon footprint. The result was that many teams, given their athletes’ need for high-protein and high-calorie meals, turned up their noses at the “reasonable,” “sustainable” choices and flew in not just their own food but also their own chefs.
None of this, of course, was about the athletes, who were left literally scavenging for meat. Their food and living conditions were meant to send a message, much like the opening ceremony, that was separate from them or their competitions. It seems like only interest groups were cheering, as athletes literally sweated it out before even going to compete.
Ironically, the many planes and trucks used to ship air conditioning units, food, and staff to Paris likely wiped out any climate benefits.
The games then became the focus of an even more intense debate over the decision to allow transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports.
Imane Khelif of Algeria defeated Angela Carini of Italy in just 46 seconds in the ring. Carini tapped out, stating that in her entire career she had never been hit that hard.
It was later revealed that Khelif and another boxer, Lin Yu‑ting of Taiwan, had failed to meet gender eligibility tests at the Women’s World Boxing Championships in New Delhi just last year. (It should be noted that Khelif is not a transgender athlete but someone listed with differences of sexual development, known as DSDs.)
Khelif and Yu-ting competed in the last Olympics without medaling. (Yu-ting won a fight on Friday in the women’s 57kg category against Uzbekistan’s Sitora Turdibekova to reach the quarterfinals.)
In fairness, the Olympics, like all federations, is struggling with this issue and it is not the responsibility of the French organizers. Yet the theme of the games also outraged some civil libertarians.
For example, there was another controversy at the start of the games when France announced that its Muslim athletes would not be allowed to wear their hijabs, or hair coverings, a decision that some of us condemned as a gratuitous denial of their faith. France is infamous for barring religious garb in public as part of its secularist tradition.
At the same time, French authorities have announced that charges are being considered against critics of the participants and organizers of the “Last Supper” scene.
There is little debate that direct, intentional threats should be prosecuted as they are in the U.S. But France is now one of the most anti-free speech nations in the West, with its sweeping criminalization of speech that can be interpreted as “inciting” or “intimidating” others.
These measures reflect the most glaring disconnect in the Opening Ceremony where the French motto of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity (“liberté, égalité, fraternité”) was celebrated.
In today’s France, “liberté” is no longer valued. Individual rights of religion and speech are routinely sacrificed in the name of “equity” and “fraternity.”
Many in this country believe that we should follow the same path. As I discuss in my new book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” this movement has reached our shores, with many calling for individual rights like free speech to be limited by goals of equity. There is even a movement to amend the First Amendment as “aggressively individualistic.”
In spite of our best efforts, the athletes of the Paris games continue to inspire us. Ratings are soaring. I have been glued to the television and have already fallen into the habit of gasping in shock when a gymnast steps slightly out of bounds after doing a routine that would have left me crippled for life for just attempting. They make us believe that anything is possible, even superhuman feats.
There are times when athletes cannot escape the politics of our age. When Owens won four gold medals with Hitler watching, there was no missing the transcendent meaning of his achievement.
That message, however, was far more powerful because it was delivered by an athlete as part of his competition. The problem with the Paris games is that they are trying to make it more about us than it is about them.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”