Controversy continues to rage over Paris Olympic boxing matches in which biological men were permitted to compete against women.
The whole sorry episode has been dissected in great detail elsewhere but we’d like to shift the spotlight onto the character who had the main responsibility for ensuring that neither fighter was injured.
The referee.
We’ve been unable to find the name of the official overseeing the Carini/Khelif match. We asked Google Bard/Gemini and it didn’t know either but it did respond to this question:
If the referee had decided not to officiate then we assume the IOC would have replaced him. But the basic point of principle remains - if any referee in any sport has a reasonable suspicion that a ‘mismatch’ may result in serious injury to the weaker opponent then s/he is obliged to act. In this instance it appears that the IOC is at odds with the sport’s international governing body, the IBA, which has announced that it will be paying Italian boxer Angela Carini ‘prize money’. Whether this is a genuine gesture of solidarity or an attempt to limit reputational damage caused by near-universal outrage at the bout isn’t clear but ongoing debates across all media have been concentrating largely on gender-related issues, specifically the contents of Imane Khelif’s shorts.
For us, the bottom-line is clear enough - the referee was responsible for the safety of both competitors. It seems impossible that he was not aware of the controversy in advance of the match. He, and he alone, is responsible for his own participation. His objection and/or withdrawal may not have stopped the fixture going ahead but that decision was beyond his control. (For all we know, other referees may have been asked to officiate but declined.)
The broader point we want to make is this - everyone, at some point, has to take responsibility for their own actions. Be that in sport, work, everyday interaction with other citizens etc. It has long been accepted that ‘following orders’ does not excuse the abandonment of basic health and safety rules any more than it can justify genocide.
However, anyone interested in the whole concept of ‘fair play’ in sport should be aware that the same principle does not necessarily apply to politics. We have already witnessed the disgusting spectacle of the new UK Labour government flagrantly abandoning promises made in the run-up to the general election. No-one expects an incoming administration - at any level - to make good on all pledges made. (We’re not that gullible.) But the sheer brassneck involved is still shocking and we’re not aware of any Labour MPs resigning or ‘crossing the floor’ as a matter of principle.
The question of disparity between opponents looms large when we consider Scotland’s political situation. The SNP, at one point, had 56 of a possible 59 UK govt Scottish constituencies and it moved us not one jot closer to independence. The other main parties in Scotland are unionist. There is no prospect of Scotland’s legitimate independence cause being represented at the heart of UK government. We were already fighting with one arm tied behind our back, even with an ostensibly independence-supporting party representing almost 95% of the Scottish presence in Westminster - what chance now?
The upshot of all this is that the 2026 general election in Scotland will surely be a battleground of genuine ‘independents’ i.e. individual Scots, members of no specific party, who will be hoping to represent those for whom UK governance has failed utterly. That cohort of non-aligned citizens, perhaps persuaded to stand for election by peers in their own communities, will surely include ex-politicians and apparatchiks from across the spectrum who can no longer, with a clear conscience, obey party diktat on all manner of issues, not only the constitutional.
Many Scots had already turned their backs on politics before the July general election. The number of spoiled/repurposed ballots was not as high as many (including us) expected but that cannot reflect the conscious abstention of those who avoided polling stations entirely. The ‘voter apathy’ excuse trotted out by psephologists and pundits was expected but did not convince.
We have noted the recent increase, on social media, of hashtags such as #EndTheUnion and use of the term ‘Anglo-state’. Awareness of the constitutional complexities - historical as well as legal - is burgeoning as pro-independence campaigners explore new ways forward. These discussions are happening almost exclusively on social media - we’re not aware of anyone in the mainstream broadcast or print media examining the substance of what SALVO/ISP are all about. (If any readers know otherwise we’d be grateful for details/links.)
The parties have failed us and there is no logical reason to imagine that they will change anytime soon. They will only ever start to deliver what Scots in general actually want if individual members of those parties - be they elected representatives, card-carrying members or habitual voters - start to do what they know to be right rather than simply follow orders issued by unseen metropolitan bosses.
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
