Gymnastics Ireland

[Whynotgo]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gymnastics-ireland-suspends-coach-after-comments-on-gay-marriage-and-immigration-in-tv-interview-resurface/a1275621600.html
This is behind a paywall and I don't know how to archive an article. But I am interested in people's opinions on this. I have c and p some parts of the article.

"She discussed how children in Ireland have more rights, and as a coach, she would not be entitled to raise her voice to them or force them to do something difficult.
She also said that Ireland has a law which allows same-sex marriage and that people in Ireland have very different views to those in Bulgaria. Bulgaria’s constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

According to a translation, Ms Rangelova said that Ireland had an influx of immigration, which was a problem. She told the reporter that she was concerned about the kind of boyfriend her daughter could bring home, and imagined a scenario where her daughter would get into a relationship with an Indian person.
When the interviewer asked what the issue with that would be, Ms Rangelova said that her family are Bulgarian and that she would prefer to be with Bulgarians."

Now, while I don't think she comes across as a particularly nice person, I feel quite uncomfortable with this. GI acknowledges that her views were her own personal opinions so I am not getting why she was suspended.

"Upon being made aware of the interview, we immediately suspended her. A disciplinary process is currently underway. We would like to state that Ms Rangelova's personal views were unknown to GI and that they in no way represent the views of Gymnastics Ireland.

I checked on the results of the marriage equality referendum and 62% voted in favour. Are the 38% who voted against now at risk of losing their employment if they voice their opinion on marriage equality. ? It doesn't sound as if she actually did anything wrong while working with GI, she seems to have been good at what she did. Her views on immigration are a little bizarre as she was an immigrant herself. While she would have liked to be allowed to raise her voice to the children in training there doesn't seem to be any complaints that she actually did this. Quite the opposite, it sounds as if she did comply with what was expected of her even if she disagreed with it.
I don't agree with her views but I don't particularly feel comfortable to see something like this happen either. There is a whiff of Orwell about it. I am just wondering what other people think.

I think if you are going to publicly express your view that Ireland has an influx of an immigrants and you see that as a problem, and go on to make it clear that it is brown immigrants you have an issue with (given she is an immigrant herself but that's fine, but Indians need to stay away from her child - yet she doesn't say she d have a problem with an Irish boyfriend, because they are more likely to be white maybe?) it needs investigating. GI need to be v strong and transparent on these things particularly after the incident at the medal ceremony a couple of years ago.

But I don't think she said she was OK with her child having an Irish (white) boyfriend. She said she wanted her children to marry Bulgarian people.
If she said she only wanted them to marry white and her issue was skin colour then that would be racist. But she didn't want them marrying anyone who wasn't Bulgarian so it seems to be more of a cultural thing. That doesn't make her seem like a particularly nice person but I don't think it falls under the definition of racism?
A lot of people feel that Ireland has a problem with illegal immigration, in fact polling shows it is a significant concern. In the paper today it is the second highest concern after housing.
It's not an illegal opinion to have and nobody should be in a position where they are under the threat of losing their job for having an opinion on controlling immigration.

I thought the incident at the medal ceremony last year was down to a genuine mistake at the time and was not race related?

I think I am just uncomfortable with it because while I really don't agree her I don't think she did anything that warrants her being suspended from her job. I am reminded of the case of the employee who lost their job for their views on the Israeli/Gaza conflict last year
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41254711.html
"Mr Martin told reporters that he did not know of the case, but said that employees should be permitted to have their own views.
“That’s unacceptable
We live in a democracy here we tolerate debate with freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, and people have different opinions on these issues.
“People are entitled to have perspectives, once they don’t advocate for violence in the pursuit of those objectives"

Yet, I just don't think Micheal Martin is going to defend this woman in the same way.

She said her problem with immigration is the possibilty of her child bringing home a brown partner, she clearly doesn't have a problem with white immigrants given she is one? If she just wants her child to marry her own nationality immigration doesn't have to be brought into that argument at all-and she d probably have stayed in Bulgaria if that were the case.
Why are you now trying to focus the conversation on illegal immigrants? That's not what she was asked about nor what she spoke about in her remarks, unless we now have thousands of illegal Indian immigrants here that I was unaware of?
Many of the immigrants you and people surveyed think of as 'illegal' are here legally, seeking refugee status is not illegal, staying here after your claim has been refused is, 2 very different things. Our system of processing takes far too long, it needs to be faster and let genuine people stay here and work and send the rest back. Leaving people locked up in detention centres and hotels unable to legally provide for themselves is outrageous

And yes the medal ceremony issue was a mistake but it is still circulating the Internet as an example of Irish racism, even Simone Biles has commented on it

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0702/1457779-leinster-house-usher/

Personally I think the country is heading down a very dangerous road. This is the second time this week an employee has been suspended for their personal views. We do have hate speech laws in place.
It's sending a very clear message to the Irish people that if you don't agree with the opinions of govt & highly paid NGOs you will be cancelled & ostracised.
Last time I checked we were a liberal country where free speech was accepted. Now the "liberal free speech" only exists if you agree with what is being pedelled by the mainstream media, NGOs & govt.
I am not agreeing with the coach but I feel her & the leinster house usher are being scapegoatted & made an example of in an attempt to intimidate & silence unpopular opinion. It's not acceptable.

Meant to say we do not have hate speech laws in place.

The usher was speaking his bile while wearing the official uniform of the parliament.

I don't want my national parliament been linked to any hate speech. It is bad enough to have them all over sm.

The question is how is hate speech defined? Pointing out the obvious eg a male is a male/female is female is a fact that can never be changed but it could be twisted to be hate speech.
Was this coach wearing Gymnastics Ireland clothing when she voiced her personal opinions?
If the usher was not wearing his uniform would he not have been suspended?
It seems that everything that goes against the govt, mainstream media & ngo agenda is being amplified to the point where people will no longer feel safe in expressing their own personal views.

The usher was in uniform, so action was warranted.

His bike was racist and inflammatory by any standards. I don’t care what people say independently. But when you represent a national entity you better have the cop on and respect it deserves, or expect to be removed.

As for hate speech there are many internationally accepted standards and we should formally adopt those soon.

If people haven’t the human decency to not spout hate then the law should teach them. By all means express an opinion, but if you can not express that opinion without hate then I would suggest they improve their communication skills.

*bile

@MILLYmo0se
*She said her problem with immigration is the possibilty of her child bringing home a brown partner"
But that isn't what she said. According to the article
"When the interviewer asked what the issue with that would be, Ms Rangelova said that her family are Bulgarian and would prefer to be with Bulgarians"
I am reading that as her having an issue with anyone who isn't Bulgarian regardless of their skin colour.
"Why are you now trying to focus the conversation on illegal immigrants?"
I am not trying to focus on illegal immigration! According to the headline she was suspended from her job because of her views on immigration. I am trying to focus the conversation on her right to air her views on immigration.
"Many of the immigrants you and people surveyed think of as 'illegal' are here legally,"
Why are you assuming you know my opinion on immigration. I haven't discussed my opinion on immigration in any of my posts.

Simon Biles and all the other people who accused that official of racism assumed her guilty. My heart really went out to that official. She made a genuine mistake and didn't deserve all the outrage that was directed at her. I don't know if anyone who made those accusations came back to apologise either. The fact that it is held up on SM as an example of racism is all the more of a reason as to why I feel very uncomfortable in the current case.

Lets say hypothetically I say Barbie Kardashian is a man, he is male born. Would you consider this hate speech in your opinion?

In this post you mixed her comments on Indian people that are typically here as legal migrants on study or work visas into a poll on illegal immigrants. Two entirely different things so why are you talking about them as though they are the same? It make you sound like the groups that keep trying to tar any non white person living here as an illegal immigrant or the descendant of one, so if that's not how you feel keep those here on legal visas seperate to those that have no grounds to be here in your argument.
Her child is far more likely to bring home an Irish partner than any other non Bulgarian given we are living in Ireland but she randomly picks an Indian as an example of what horrified her, that's what makes me think it's skin colour that's the issue.
Aside from all that, that she is an immigrant here, is she not an example of the' problem' we have?!

If that is the full statement of what you say, no that isn't meeting the hate speech standard typical internationally.

However, to state that every person who identifies as trans is a threat to women ? Then that is hate speech.

The issue is grouping people by a category- e.g. race, culture, sexual orientation, gender ideology/non gender ideology etc, and then making a derogatory statement of their actions.

@MILLYmo0se
In this post you mixed her comments on Indian people that are typically here as legal migrants on study or work visas into a poll on illegal immigrants. Two entirely different things so why are you talking about them as though they are the same?
But I am not mixing up her comments on Indian people, you are!
Her comments on Indian people are in regards to are this

She told the reporter that she was concerned about the kind of boyfriend her daughter could bring home, and imagined a scenario where her daughter would get into a relationship with an Indian person

When the interviewer asked what the issue with that would be, Ms Rangelova said that her family are Bulgarian and would prefer to be with Bulgarians.
That is the only reference to Indian people in the article.
I referred to the poll in a different context and in a different paragraph,specifically in regards to immigration and I didn't make any reference to Indian people in this context.
According to the headline she was suspended because of her views on immigration and on same sex marriage.
The point that I was making was that 38% of voters voted against same sex marriage and immigration is the 2nd most important issue according to those polled in today's paper. So these opinions are not extreme or outliers, they are opinions she shares with a fairly significant amount of people. If, for example, the marriage equality referendum had had the opposite result, 62 against, 38% for, I don't think anyone would object to the 38% being allowed to air their views or to advocate for marriage equality. So, why should it be different for those people who oppose marriage equality?
She seems to have said that there was an influx of immigration in Ireland. This is hardly a radical opinion,immigration had increased significantly. Why would she be suspended for saying it.
Her child is far more likely to bring home an Irish partner than any other non Bulgarian given we are living in Ireland but she randomly picks an Indian as an example of what horrified her, that's what makes me think it's skin colour that's the issue.

In your earlier post you said that she might be okay with her child having an Irish (white?) boyfriend, but she didn't say that. In fact she implies that she would have a problem with anyone who isn't Bulgarian.
You may well be right regarding her views on skin colour however when asked to clarify, she immediately implied that her issue was cultural and not based on skin colour, so I don't really like to assume someone guilty of racism, as happened in the medal ceremony.
When you break down what she said I feel that she was suspended for having views that are not held by the majority of people but that shouldn't mean that she shouldn't be allowed to voice her own personal opinions. Michael Martin was able to speak up for the worker who voiced their opinion on Israel/Gaza (perhaps because he agreed with them.)
But he said
People are entitled to have perspectives, once they don’t advocate for violence in the pursuit of those objectives"
This woman may not be the nicest person you might meet, she may well be absolutely horrible, but which is it, do we advocate for her right to have her perspective or don't we? If we don't I think we are going down a very dangerous path, which is far from liberal and progressive but is the exact opposite.

Yes there was a referendum and the law of the land recognises same sex marriage. Regardless of personal belief, religious aspect etc surely you respect the majority opinion and the law?

I don't want my children hearing racist, homophobic crap in our national newspapers etc. There are enough platforms for this nonsense.

Do I think free speech should be unlimited - no. Consider then letting pedophiles talking crap about children?

We need hate law became sadly there are some really really fucked up individuals that shouldn't be given air time.

And society wants to not have to listen to their crap. Given it is a law there is a right to a defence and it isn't 1984 where people will be shot on sight.

So no I don't want every absolute vile person to have the right to encourage hate, I want laws which robustly and fairly protect vulnerable people.

@Marblessolveeverything
Yes there was a referendum and the law of the land recognises same sex marriage. Regardless of personal belief, religious aspect etc surely you respect the majority opinion and the law
From what she said on this topic of same sex marriage
"She also said that Ireland has a law which allows same-sex marriage and that people in Ireland have very different views to those in Bulgaria. Bulgaria's constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman."

What does she say there that warrants her to be suspended by GI?
Do I think free speech should be unlimited - no. Consider then letting pedophiles talking crap about children?

We need hate law became sadly there are some really really fucked up individuals that shouldn't be given air time.
No so long ago, in Ireland a woman who spoke about having an abortion would not have been given airtime. She would probably be considered a fucked up individual! A gay man could have been arrested. Giving them airtime would have been very offensive. Thankfully, we are past that and that has come about through the ability to speak about these things.
If this woman was advocating to set aside the results of the Referendum it might be a failure to recognise the democratic result, but she didn't do that. She said something that is factual.. The laws in Bulgaria are different. We may assume that she disagrees with the Irish laws, but equally, she may agree with them. She doesn't specify.

Where is the line?
Define hate!
Are her comments above on same sex marriage hateful?

@Marblessolveeverything
So no I don't want every absolute vile person to have the right to encourage hate, I want laws which robustly and fairly protect vulnerable people.
Would you consider women to be vulnerable people?

The vulnerable people refers to individuals without capacity to understand that it is bile and therefore believenit.

Honestly the moment she mentioned not being able to shout in children's faces, I would have enforced an ethic clause I imagine is in her contact.

Because it probably isn't a commercially sound idea having an individual saying that where parents are with good historical reasons wary of trusting their children, at times devoid of parent supervision.

This reminds me of the people who were cancelled or suspended for speaking against the Catholic church when I was a child. If someone had openly supported the concept of a gay 'lifestyle' back then or been embracing of other nationalities or religions they would have been ostracised and hates. It seems we have come full circle. We are still being controlled just a different power group in the driving seat.

As a parent, I’d want her suspended and investigated for saying the following because I’d be very concerned about why she thought it should be ok to force a gymnast to do something they didn’t want to do….

She discussed how children in Ireland have more rights, and as a coach, she would not be entitled to raise her voice to them or force them to do something difficult.

We know that back in the day, the eastern block coaches treated their gymnasts appallingly and contributed to them getting serious and sometimes fatal injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Mukhina

Yes, the racist undertones are also disturbing but it’s her shocking attitude towards the coach/pupil relationship that would concern me the most.

I would still be interested in your opinion on whether what she specifically on same sex marriage and immigration said was hateful and warrents suspension as this is what the headline says was the cause of her suspension.

Regarding what she said about children the article said
"She discussed how children in Ireland have more rights, and as a coach, she would therefore not be entitled to raise her voice to them or force them to do something difficult"

We may assume she disagreed with this, or maybe she agrees and hopes that this will happen in Bulgaria. She doesn't say. But there has been no evidence or accusation that she was in any way abusive towards children in Ireland or shouted in their faces. She may have disagreed with the concept of children's rights but it does appear as if she adhered to the rules in Ireland, so does she deserve to be suspended? I have heard a lot of GAA coaches (and parents) shout at children from the sidelines and it is one of my pet hates. There is no evidence in the article that she has done this.

I am not commenting on an article I haven't read the full unedited text and I don't have time not interest. To be quite frank nine times out of ten the headline can have a distant relationship with the truth.

And as I said she would be a commercial nightmare and concern for children MH could be a major factor in a decision by the organisation so I fail to feel particularly sorry for her.

Right, you won't comment on an article which has been quoted extensively throughout the thread, but are OK with linking an article where a Soviet gymnast died as a result of injuries sustained in 1980 which the coach in question has absolutely no connection to.
Nobody is asking you to feel sorry for her, that isn't what this thread is about.
You clearly couldn't be bothered to answer what exactly she said was homophobic or anti immigrant.
Neither did you say if you consider women to be a vulnerable group. Nor can you define hate. But have no problem linking this coach to child abuse despite there being no evidence to support this.
The fact that the headline has a distant relationship with the truth is exactly my point. How can anyone trust a respected news outlet such as the Independent when they come out with headlines such as this.
It is headlines like this that need hate speech laws around because there is nothing in that article that supports what was said.