{"title":"发明安全的体育运动:比较瑞士和全球战略","authors":"Benjamin Carr","doi":"10.36950/2024.2ciss035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The revelations from the Magglingen Protocols article (Gertsch & Krogerus, 2020) brought a spotlight of Switzerland’s national attention to the issues concerning safeguarding against maltreatment in sport. The experiences of the athletes featured in the article were certainly not the first, nor the last, of their kind in Switzerland, and much less in the world. While the International Olympic Committee provided guidelines for international federations and national Olympic committees to follow in the development of their own safeguarding programs (Burrows, 2017), the implementation of such programs varies considerably. Few, if any, in the emerging field would claim to have found the “right” way to handle the many facets of safeguarding, which are complexified by sociocultural norms and definitions, sport-specific practices, and local jurisprudence. Questions about who within the sports ecosystem is responsible, and for what, in the safeguarding process lack consensus, and countries have answered them in their own ways. Fundamentally, the philosophical notions of what constitutes “abuse,” “maltreatment,” “care,” and “wellbeing” (among others) underpin any attempt to understand the safeguarding problem and respond to it with policy. The cultural differences in the meanings behind these notions leads consequently to the dissimilar implementation of efforts to address them. This presentation proposes a critical reflection on the strategic efforts globally and within Switzerland to understand and frame the issue of safeguarding to create a unified approach in policy making. While not an exhaustive comparison of every nation’s approach, the reflection will compare the Swiss strategy with certain notable examples, highlighting what pressing moral and philosophical questions the Swiss strategy has yet to answer. \nReferences \nBurrows, K. (2017). IOC Safeguarding Toolkit for IFs and NOCs. International Olympic Committee. https://d2g8uwgn11fzhj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/18105952/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG_Screen_Full1.pdf \nGertsch, C., & Krogerus, M. (2020, October 31). Die Magglingen Protokolle. Tages-Anzeiger Das Magazin. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wie-turnerinnen-in-magglingen-gebrochen-werden-170525604713","PeriodicalId":415194,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS)","volume":"7 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inventing safe sport: Comparing Swiss and global strategies\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Carr\",\"doi\":\"10.36950/2024.2ciss035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The revelations from the Magglingen Protocols article (Gertsch & Krogerus, 2020) brought a spotlight of Switzerland’s national attention to the issues concerning safeguarding against maltreatment in sport. The experiences of the athletes featured in the article were certainly not the first, nor the last, of their kind in Switzerland, and much less in the world. While the International Olympic Committee provided guidelines for international federations and national Olympic committees to follow in the development of their own safeguarding programs (Burrows, 2017), the implementation of such programs varies considerably. Few, if any, in the emerging field would claim to have found the “right” way to handle the many facets of safeguarding, which are complexified by sociocultural norms and definitions, sport-specific practices, and local jurisprudence. Questions about who within the sports ecosystem is responsible, and for what, in the safeguarding process lack consensus, and countries have answered them in their own ways. Fundamentally, the philosophical notions of what constitutes “abuse,” “maltreatment,” “care,” and “wellbeing” (among others) underpin any attempt to understand the safeguarding problem and respond to it with policy. The cultural differences in the meanings behind these notions leads consequently to the dissimilar implementation of efforts to address them. This presentation proposes a critical reflection on the strategic efforts globally and within Switzerland to understand and frame the issue of safeguarding to create a unified approach in policy making. While not an exhaustive comparison of every nation’s approach, the reflection will compare the Swiss strategy with certain notable examples, highlighting what pressing moral and philosophical questions the Swiss strategy has yet to answer. \\nReferences \\nBurrows, K. (2017). IOC Safeguarding Toolkit for IFs and NOCs. International Olympic Committee. https://d2g8uwgn11fzhj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/18105952/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG_Screen_Full1.pdf \\nGertsch, C., & Krogerus, M. (2020, October 31). Die Magglingen Protokolle. Tages-Anzeiger Das Magazin. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wie-turnerinnen-in-magglingen-gebrochen-werden-170525604713\",\"PeriodicalId\":415194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS)\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36950/2024.2ciss035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36950/2024.2ciss035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
马格林根协议》一文(Gertsch & Krogerus, 2020 年)所揭露的问题引起了瑞士全国对体育运动中防止虐待问题的关注。文章中介绍的运动员的经历在瑞士肯定不是第一次,也不是最后一次,在世界上更不是第一次。虽然国际奥林匹克委员会为国际单项体育联合会和国家奥林匹克委员会制定各自的保障计划提供了指导方针(Burrows,2017 年),但这些计划的实施情况却大相径庭。在这一新兴领域,很少有人(如果有的话)声称找到了处理保障问题诸多方面的 "正确 "方法,而社会文化规范和定义、体育运动的具体实践以及地方判例又使保障问题变得错综复杂。关于体育生态系统中谁在保障过程中负责以及负责什么的问题缺乏共识,各国都以自己的方式回答了这些问题。从根本上说,什么是 "虐待"、"粗暴对待"、"照顾 "和 "福祉"(等等)的哲学概念,是理解保障问题并制定应对政策的基础。这些概念背后所蕴含的文化差异导致了解决这些问题的努力在实施上的差异。本报告建议对全球和瑞士为理解和界定保障问题所做的战略努力进行批判性反思,以便在制定政策时采用统一的方法。虽然不能对每个国家的方法进行详尽的比较,但反思将把瑞士的战略与某些著名的例子进行比较,强调瑞士的战略尚未回答哪些紧迫的道德和哲学问题。参考文献 Burrows, K. (2017).IOC Safeguarding Toolkit for IFs and NOCs.https://d2g8uwgn11fzhj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/18105952/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG_Screen_Full1.pdf Gertsch, C., & Krogerus, M. (2020, October 31).Die Magglingen Protokolle.Tages-Anzeiger Das Magazin. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wie-turnerinnen-in-magglingen-gebrochen-werden-170525604713
Inventing safe sport: Comparing Swiss and global strategies
The revelations from the Magglingen Protocols article (Gertsch & Krogerus, 2020) brought a spotlight of Switzerland’s national attention to the issues concerning safeguarding against maltreatment in sport. The experiences of the athletes featured in the article were certainly not the first, nor the last, of their kind in Switzerland, and much less in the world. While the International Olympic Committee provided guidelines for international federations and national Olympic committees to follow in the development of their own safeguarding programs (Burrows, 2017), the implementation of such programs varies considerably. Few, if any, in the emerging field would claim to have found the “right” way to handle the many facets of safeguarding, which are complexified by sociocultural norms and definitions, sport-specific practices, and local jurisprudence. Questions about who within the sports ecosystem is responsible, and for what, in the safeguarding process lack consensus, and countries have answered them in their own ways. Fundamentally, the philosophical notions of what constitutes “abuse,” “maltreatment,” “care,” and “wellbeing” (among others) underpin any attempt to understand the safeguarding problem and respond to it with policy. The cultural differences in the meanings behind these notions leads consequently to the dissimilar implementation of efforts to address them. This presentation proposes a critical reflection on the strategic efforts globally and within Switzerland to understand and frame the issue of safeguarding to create a unified approach in policy making. While not an exhaustive comparison of every nation’s approach, the reflection will compare the Swiss strategy with certain notable examples, highlighting what pressing moral and philosophical questions the Swiss strategy has yet to answer.
References
Burrows, K. (2017). IOC Safeguarding Toolkit for IFs and NOCs. International Olympic Committee. https://d2g8uwgn11fzhj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/18105952/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG_Screen_Full1.pdf
Gertsch, C., & Krogerus, M. (2020, October 31). Die Magglingen Protokolle. Tages-Anzeiger Das Magazin. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wie-turnerinnen-in-magglingen-gebrochen-werden-170525604713