Strange how we seem to find the explanations about the different organisations etc. so "reassuring". Why not ask ourselves why it is two separate organisations? Who wants it? Who decides it? And on what grounds?
As to the definition of wheelchair racing as a "demonstration" sport (or what the term was) in the Olympics because of the restricted group of participants: How does this go together with other sports in the Olympic games that are "restricted" into different weight cathegories.
As to the Olympic symbol: I thought that the paralympics' had its own symbol just because the games weren't allowed to use the Olympic symbol. However I read that some years back and do not remember the source so I might be wrong.
As I see it there is no reason what so ever to accept the social exclusion of certain athletes or sports because they happen to belong to the cathegory of "disability". Would we accept this in other areas of society? In Sweden we have a very good drama company called "silent theater" - does the fact that they use sign language mean that they should not be welcome to participate in "able-bodied" cultural festivals? We also have a very good movie director with a mobility impairment - would it be acceptable if his disability was concidered as placing him in a "restricted group" and therefore prevent his movies to be nominated for an Oscar?
Recommended questions:
WHY? WHO? WHAT?
Susanne Berg
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|