No Olympic Ski Jumping for Women?

The Game Room
1

This morning edition of ESPN’s Outside the Lines had story women ski jumpers failed attempt to get an Olympic event. Printed story here.

Ski-jumping is one of my favorite events, and quite frankly I never realized that it was a male only event.

IOC’s position:

:rolleyes:

One “expert” claimed that ski jumping is damaging to women’s reproductive systems. Well, I am not a woman but fear of damaging reproductive system is a concern, there would be no defense-men in hockey and no catchers in baseball.

2

The International Ski Federation (FIS), which is the international governing body for ski jumping among other sports, is, shall we say, more conservative than many other sports federations. They have long been fighting the inclusion of women’s ski jumping in international competitions, in spite of demands from athletes. Sooner or later they will have to give in on this one, but “sooner” didn’t come soon enough for the current Olympics.

3

A group of ski jumpers got all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, with the argument that not having a women’s event in Canada violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I seem to recall that the courts agreed that the lack of an event was discriminatory, however since the Olympics are run by an international organization, and not a Canadian one, they had no jurisdiction to force the IOC to host it. Someone who was paying more attention might be able to give more detail on that!

Ski jumping is one of the last events in which there is no women’s competition at the Olympics. I think the other two are summer events (boxing and another similar one), and I think both are slated to be on the schedule for the London 2012 Olympics.

I hope the women keep pushing to get a ski jumping event in Sochi in 2014, but I kind of wonder if Canada was their best shot at “forcing” it to happen.

4

It’s rather a cylical thing. There’s no Olympic event, so there’s no interest in the event, and because there’s no interest in the event, it’s not included in the Olympics.

But there are 160 world class women in ski jump competition, compared to about 50 female lugers. There are some two dozen events worldwide on the women’s tour. And the overall record holder for the jump at the K90 hill in Vancouver is an American woman, Lindsay Van.

The whole thing smacks of a nasty streak of paternalism, honestly. There’s a documentary, Fighting Gravity (made by actress Virginia Madsen) about the sport and the exclusion. It’s had a few screenings here and there but no official release or distribution deal. I really wish that it could’ve come out in time for people to see it before these games, because it really opens up the issue and puts paid to pretty much every argument the IOC has made against inclusion.

5

I’ll try.

Generally speaking, the Charter applies only to relationships between the people of Canada, and the Canadian federal and provincial governments. Thus, it grants legal rights when somebody is accused of crimes (the Crown is prosecuting), it makes sure that all government administrative boards and tribunals (examples include Worker’s Compensation, and the Refugee Board) operate so as not to violate an individual’s rights, and that provinces do not discriminate in any way (e.g. by denying a citizen the opportunity to move to a province). There are subtleties and details to all of these, as well as other uses that I didn’t mention, but this should provide an overview suitable for our purposes here.

Because ensuring rights to both parties in individual-governmental relations is what the Charter is for, it should be obvious that it doesn’t apply to the IOC any more than it applies to a private business. Neither the IOC nor a private business is, or is constituted by, the federal government or a provincial government; and thus, is not subject to the Charter (i.e. the IOC is “outside the jurisdiction” of the Charter). It is true that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will, if the matter under appeal requires it, involve itself in private law as well, as it does when it deals in tort lawsuits, questions of contract, and property disputes. But I do not believe that such a private-law argument was tried by the women ski jumpers; and I am having a hard time trying to figure out how to create one.

In this particular case, there may have been a slightly more encouraging outcome if the argument was based on the British Columbia Human Rights Code, rather than the Charter. The BCHRC can and does prohibit discrimination by private bodies, although I am unsure how it would apply to an international organization, and I do not know what would be within the BCHR Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this matter.

It should also be said that there may have been a practical consideration in denying the ski jumpers’ appeal in this matter. The SCC argument went right up until a few weeks before the Games began; and at that point, if the ski jumpers’ argument succeeded, what might have happened? The IOC scrambles to include women’s ski jumping in BC? Given the way the ski jumping organization and/or the IOC dug in its heels on this one, I don’t think so. I could see the IOC cancelling the event altogether at best; or at worst, telling (say) Salt Lake City to prepare its jumps so it can move the event down there without women’s ski jumping. Later, the IOC might sue the women ski jumpers for all expenses incurred in cancelling or moving the event. This outcome is pure conjecture, though. Overall, it would seem to me that the least expensive and most time-efficient solution to the problem for all involved would be simply for the SCC to deny the women ski-jumpers’ appeal. The fact that they argued the Charter gave the SCC the perfect opportunity to do just that.

6

I found this:

which supports what you say, Spoons, but I think the women’s argument was that *VANOC *was receiving money from the provincial and federal governments to host the Olympics, and therefore the BC and Canadian governments were violating their rights.

It seems I was incorrect, and it only made it to the BC Supreme court. I’m not sure if they did or are appealing to the federal Supremes, but either way, it’s too late anyways. Which is too bad - not only because of the blatant discrimination, but also because it seems, according to that same article, that it’s a woman that holds the Whistler record for longest jump.

I wonder whether having an “open” event might be possible - can women generally compete with men in this sport? Smaller mass means smaller momentum, but also means less drag…I have no idea if the physics balance out in the long run.

7

Good point, and good question. I am unsure whether VANOC was constituted by an act of Parliament or by an act of the BC legislature–if so, then the women would have had a good argument, since VANOC would have effectively been constituted in the same way as, say, the Worker’s Compensation Board; and thus, subject to the Charter. But if VANOC was a private organization, set up as a private corporation, then it remains outside of the reach of the Charter, but within the reach of Human Rights codes. Funding doesn’t matter–there are many private arts and sports organizations, for example, that receive government funding; but since they were privately established, are not subject to the Charter. What matters is who established VANOC. The government, or a group of people who did it on their own? If the former, the Charter applies; if the latter, the Charter doesn’t. It may sound trite, but it’s that simple.

They did appeal all the way up to the SCC, but that body refused to hear their appeal. Why, I have no idea; the SCC is not obligated to say why it refuses to hear an appeal. But I would imagine that it’s because the SCC is a body that doesn’t act fast. It knew it would never get to the matter in time for the Olympics, so it was easier for the SCC to just decline to hear the appeal.

8

I was watching some of the ski jumping the other day and the commentator talked about a definite advantage to being lighter. To the extent that there is concern that some athletes will make themselves unhealthily skinny, and they are penalised with shorter skis if their BMI falls below a certain value.

Some this does make you wonder if one of the reasons that women aren’t allowed to compete is that they’re just too good at it…

9

I was thinking about this the other day - they seem to show a LOT of ski jumping her in Germany - and was wondering what other Olympic sports are still only done for a single gender. I assume that water acrobatics (or whatever it’s called) is still female only, as are rhythmic gymnastics. Any others?

10

I don’t think women box or wrestle (damn it).

11

There most certainly is Women’s Olympic Wrestling.

12

In addition to the aforementioned women’s wrestling, there will be women’s boxing at the 2012 Olympics in London.

13

I would surmise it’s no accident that the film is unscreenable. The IOC is a singularly well-connected organization, and could probably build a fire under anyone in the media business - especially if they made the case to their advertisers and broadcasters that their interests were at stake, too.

It was on NPR’s Fresh Air, normally a pretty frank interview show, that I first heard about the ski jump issue. I remember being surprised and a little annoyed that it was placed quite a ways inside another interview topic, and that there was no mention of why women were not allowed to compete. It was as if they’d been warned to soft-pedal it all.

Those saying the Committee hasn’t a leg to stand on are right. Their only option is to make sure the issue doesn’t go public at all. I almost feel sorry for them.

14

Maddow’s made it a bit of an issue on her show as well. I’d expect to see women ski jumpers in 2014, especially if there can be more pressure applied in the meantime.

15

Spoons, on the issue of VANOC and the Charter, I think the question of the Charter’s application is a bit more complicated than whether they got federal or provincial money or whether they were incorporated by a special act. Those are both factors, but not determinative.

For example, lots of average citizens right now are getting government money, in the form of various subsidies and grants, as part of the stimulus package. That doesn’t mean that they are subject to the Charter. And, there are corporate organizations out there who were incorporated by an act of Parliament or a Legislature, but that doesn’t mean they are automatically government. (For example, until quite recently the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool operated under a private act of incorporation from the Legislature of Saskatchewan, dating back to its founding in the 1920’s, but it was clearly a private organization.)

Factors such as government money and incorporation are things that a court might look at to help determine if a particular entity is part of “government” and therefore subject to the Charter. The courts have to determine if the entity is carrying out a government-like function, or is under sufficient government control, to warrant being included in “government.”

So hospitals, for example, have been held to be part of “government” for the purposes of the Charter - not just because they get substantial public funding, but because they carry out the specific government mandate of public health care, operating under the provincial medicare acts and the Canada Health Act. Since health-care in Canada is a public service, provided out of public funds, the hospitals as the service providers are part of “government”, for at least some aspects of the Charter, such as the equality clause. See Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624.

Similarly, community colleges have been held to be part of “government” for the purposes of the Charter, because they are set up to deliver education, a public function, and the government normally continues to have considerable control over community colleges, via the constitution of the community college and the power of the government to appoint the boards. See Douglas/kwantlen faculty assn. v. Douglas college, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570. However, universities have been held not to be subject to the Charter, even though they too deliver education. The difference is that universities are set up to be independent organizations, because that is essential to their mission of free and open higher education. See McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229.

I’ve not read the ski-jumping cases, but from the press reports, I gather that the lower courts concluded that the fact of federal and provincial money, and close co-operation with the municipal governments, was not enough to bring the Vancouver Olympic committee into “government” for the purposes of the Charter. As well, there was the problem that as a matter of organization, it’s not the local organizing committee that decides who gets to be in the games - that’s the role of the International Olympic Committee, which is clearly not part of any Canadian government. So even if the Charter did apply to VANOC, it’s not clear what remedies the women jumpers could have got, since VANOC has no power to admit any competitors to the events.

When I first heard about the case, I thought it would come down to the issue of the application of the Charter, and that the jumpers would lose on that point. I think they would have had a greater chance of success going under the B.C. human rights legislation, because that applies to both public and private sectors who are operating in the province. There’s no immunity for international organizations in human rights law, so I doubt that the International Olympic Committee could claim immunity. Not to say that it would be automatic win there - the question in that case would be whether the IOC was offering a “service to the public” in running the events, when the “public” in this case would be the athletes who want to compete. That would have been an interesting issue, and I personally think the jumpers may have had a better chance there. But who knows?

The initial action was heard by the B.C. Supreme Court, which is the trial court. There was an unsuccessful appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in that province, and then the unsuccessful application for leave to appeal mentioned by Spoons.

16

Northern Piper, thanks for the commentary. I had a feeling, shortly after I posted my remarks, that it wasn’t quite as simple as “it’s that simple” made it sound. Looks like I’ve got some cases to read (I’m particularly interested in the community college vs. university difference). Thanks again!

17

If we’re talking about the 105.5 record, that was broken by Adam Malysz, with a 109m jump in training, and officially in competition by Simon Ammann, with the 108 meter second round jump to cap off his gold medal performance. Several other jumpers hit 105.5 or higher in the qualification or medal rounds (there were a total of 8 jumps that hit 105.5m).

At any rate, 105.5 is no small feat on that hill. That’s a monstrous jump. I would love to see women’s ski jumping as an Olympic event, and there is no sensible reason for it to be excluded. None whatsoever.

18

It’s an especially absurd position when one considers the state of women’s hockey, an ongoing travesty in which Canada and the United States unload horrific ass-kickings on a series of hopelessly outclassed opponents. In the entire history of sanctioned international women’s hockey Canada and the USA, combined, have lost exactly one game to any team other than each other. And it was a fluke.

If one applied the FIS’s criteria, there’s simply no way you could justify allowing women’s hockey into the Olympics. Only two countries are serious competitors. However, the position of the IIHF, supported by the IOC, is that having women’s hockey in the Olympics is the primary means by which the sport will be promoted and become popular. As they point out, MEN’S hockey used to be the same way.

IMHO, the FIS’s position is reprehensible. It should not have stopped the Olympics from proceeding but it’s a disgrace all the same.

19

For those who are really interested…

I found the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (link here). It’s interesting, though I admit I have not had the chance to read it as fully as I would like to. Still, I scanned it enough to notice that Eldridge, Douglas, and McKinney, all of which were cited by Northern Piper above, are mentioned in it.

20

There is also no women’s decathlon in the Olympics.