Anything for a Buck
The IOC has issued an official claim that it has had video contact with Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai, and that she seemed “relaxed,” thus reassuring the world that the Chinese Communist Party is in no way abusing or restricting her — weeks after the CCP very directly abused and restricted her by wiping out her social media post accusing a Xi regime lieutenant of sexually abusing her, not to mention wiping all references to that post off the entire Chinese internet by freezing the social media accounts of anyone who referred to it. Since that time, prior to this IOC virtual meeting, Peng had “appeared” only through an official written disclaimer regarding her accusation, published by the Chinese regime only in English for the benefit of international observers concerned about her condition, and bearing all the earmarks of a communist tribunal’s coerced “retraction.”
Now, however, the IOC declares Peng safe and relaxing at home, thanks to their video call with her. That might indeed be reassuring, if the source of the reassurance were not the IOC, the non-Chinese organization with the most obvious vested interest in burying this story and its implications months ahead of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing; if the IOC were not itself one of the most notoriously corrupt and scandal-ridden organizations this side of the United Nations; if the relaxed and friendly chat with Peng had not obviously been made possible only through the direct arrangement and approval of the Chinese Communist Party.
In short, the International Olympic Committee has long been the Anything For a Buck Committee, rendering any claim they ask the world to take at their word worth less than the paper it is written on.
Incidentally, the attempt by global feminists to corral Peng’s plight into their hyper-political MeToo movement would be amusing on multiple levels, were it not so revolting on multiple levels. The fact that she has been publicly silenced, and indeed an entire nation forcibly restrained from mentioning her accusations, is all the evidence you need of the difference between the alleged oppression of women in the Western democracies and the meaning of real oppression. The fact that the MeToo gang is premised on the absurdly tyrannical idea that every woman’s accusation is to be believed on its face (and therefore every accused man judged guilty without a hearing) could not stand in more direct contrast to the reality of even a famous woman in China being literally and completely silenced without a hearing when her accusation happens to annoy the authorities. And of course, above all else, the fact that the MeToo movement is essentially little more than a front-hashtag for the feminist wing of international socialism makes a very awkward fit indeed with the defense of Ms. Peng, who is apparently suffering firsthand the full brunt of what socialism ultimately means in practice, at least for those who run afoul of the ruling elite.
Let us hope that the Women’s Tennis Association, to my knowledge the first major sports or entertainment organization of any kind of stand up to the Chinese government like men, shall we say, sticks to its guns and keeps demanding transparency about Peng’s situation, and freedom for her speech. (They will not get these, of course, but they deserve full praise for having the decency to demand them.)