Im doing a debate that kevin rudd (aussie prime minister) should not have gone to 2008 olympics ?

Question

im affirmative...any ideas?

Answer 1

talk about the war on tibet.  

Answer 2

Not at all. We dont get to go, family of aussie team's cant get tickets, so he sgould have given his tiicket. Do your job run the country leave sport to us and the families  

Answer 3

Why not? Please elaborate.

Answer 4

I think he should go if he wants to - if Kevin Rudd declined to go then he would be making a political statment which goes against what the Olympics are truely about.

If we were to say that Rudd should go then the same should go for Australia as a country - why not boycott the games due to human rights issues?

I personally think these games have been an absolute joke - China were awarded the games provided they showed considerable improvement in human rights and other issues.  They have shown nothing of the sort.

Answer 5

Because by not going he could have sent a clear message to China that their conduct in relation to Tibet and human rights in general was unacceptable, and would therefore have encouraged them to change that behaviour.  This would have led, eventually, to improved human rights for all the Chinese people.  

Not that I necessarily agree, but that would be my argument if required to debate the affirmative on this topic.  

Answer 6

How about the fact that Australian's are losing confidence in him as a PM already (just look at the latest polls)?  Since he has been elected he has been to Asia several times, Iraq, Afghanistan, the US (possibly more countries), but only visited Tasmania for the first time late last week.  While he's off promoting Australia to the rest of the world, he's ignoring issues which are affecting Australia here at home.

His attendance at the games could also indicate support for China's policies (like you have said) - issues that Australia does not want to be seen supporting.

What about the cost of the trip - flights, accommodation etc for he and Therese as well as the rest of his delegation - this is taxpayer money which could be better spent elsewhere.

Answer 7

He should be looking after Australia not showing off his ability to speak the Asian language and who paid for his tickets?

Answer 8

Because of China's history of human rights abuse, because of Tibet, because of the way journalists are treated, even with a new treaty to enable them free access and freedom of speech during the olympics.

These aren't behaviours we reward, and shouldn't support them (and neither should Kevin Rudd!)

Answer 9

I object to the topic.

We all know about the atrocities committed by China against Human Rights in Tibet etc but why take it out on the athletes.

These people have worked for years and years to be at the peak of their chosen sport.  Why should the fact that China is the host of the olympics mean that these athletes should not be supported by the head of our country.  There is too much c**p about China and human rights that has nothing to do with athletes that had no choice about where they get to compete but who I am sure would compete anywhere for the chance to walk away with Olympic Gold.

I am in no way condoning any of China's actions or abuses of Human Rights, but for god's sake lay off the athletes.

Answer 10

i got nothing .

I do have a bunch on why he shouldnt have been elected in the first place though.

Answer 11

No!

I'm pretty disappointed he didn't send me a post card seeing i helped pay for his trip!

Answer 12

No he is only the Prime Minister of Australia, if any one should of gone it Should of been the Governor General as he is our head of state (Representative of the queen) who is Our True Head of State.