Sports Equality Ombudsman investigates harassment in Olympic Committee – sexual or gender-based harassment

Sport is not an island separate from the rest of society. This also applies to harassment, which can be viewed outside the sport’s own disciplinary bodies.

Equality Ombudsman Jukka Maarianvaara says they are currently investigating one case of harassment concerning the Finnish Olympic Committee.

“We have had one harassment case under investigation here. I won’t go into detail about it, but a solution is coming out soon. “

The Equality Ombudsman is an authority operating in connection with the Finnish Ministry of Justice, which monitors compliance with the Equality Act.

The Equality Ombudsman is contacted with a very wide range of sports, from the construction of sports venues to selection quotas in the sports sector. There are a lot of system level issues.

In what kind In which cases can the Equality Ombudsman take a stand on an individual case of harassment?

“It must be a matter of sexual or gender-based harassment within the meaning of the Equality Act, in which case we have the power to deal with it.”

In practice, the investigation requires the contribution of the discriminated person.

“We have a policy where a person who is harassed or discriminated against should contact us and ask that we find out.”

In public there have been several recent cases of harassment involving the Olympic Committee.

Top sports manager who received a warning last week about inappropriate behavior against women Mika Lehtimäki was elected for a further term without the knowledge of the Olympic Committee Board. Lehtimäki resigned in March when the matter became public.

Sports law expert Olli Rauste has considered Yle’s allegations of physical abuse and abuse of power to be considerable and wondered why the Olympic Committee did not take Lehtimäki’s case to Suek.

Also a weightlifter and former athlete on the Olympic Committee board Anni Vuohijoki was suspected of harassment.

He was allegedly harassed by the Lions ’fellow players at the Tokyo Olympics. Both the Olympic Committee and the Goat River took this case to Suek. Case the investigation was closed in May because there were no parties involved.

In addition, a third case related to the Tokyo Olympics has been under investigation. The so-called “Tokyo Man” is an employee of the Top Sports Unit, like Lehtimäki.

The case investigated by the Equality Ombudsman may not be any of these three.

Sports the seemingly confusing ethical discipline has aroused astonishment anyway. Recently, the debate over harassment in sports has revolved around boxing.

Boxer Jonna Hakkarainen the decision to report the harassment was released on Monday.

The Joint Martial Arts Disciplinary Committee did not take into account the events of the last half of last year, citing a seven-day notice period.

Nor did it consider the harassment recorded in the notification to be a sufficiently serious matter for an own-initiative inquiry.

Maarianvaara does not comment on individual cases, but states that self-regulatory mechanisms for sport work when they facilitate, complement and improve the athlete’s legal protection in addition to other existing legislation.

“Self-regulatory mechanisms are problematic if they undermine the athlete’s legal protection so that various formalities limit the possibility of obtaining redress or the perpetrator is not held liable.”

“But such remedies cannot be restricted, be it criminal law, tort law or equality law.”

About harassment it is encouraged to speak openly, but decisions that do not perceive harassment as a serious reason or are not addressed for some formal reason may make the person who reported the harassment in a more vulnerable position.

“Harassment and discrimination in general are hugely underreported problems in society. It is largely due to the fact that the victim feels that he is not getting justice for anything, so why go ahead. There is a risk that the victim will not be taken seriously and that his or her career or other career will be hampered. ”

It is worth looking at things that have happened in sports outside of sports as well. According to Maarianvaara, the assumption should not be that cases are handled only in “one’s own nest”.

“It is important to understand that such internal procedures cannot preclude recourse to other rights, such as criminal law or equality law, or other legislation that may become applicable in such situations.”

Disciplinary notice making is a cumbersome process and the notifier may not be able to go through more than one process. For example, a young athlete does not always understand what kind of process is ahead and what would be the primary way to find out.

“Is it even a crime, is it worth asking the police for an investigation as well, and what can be demanded at all. I can’t say which body would be right to give advice to an athlete, of course we advise on issues related to the Equality Act. ”

Internal actors in sport also do not have the opportunity to investigate the matter, as does the police officer.

And those heard in the discipline of sport are not subject to the same duty of truth as in police interrogations.

Is the internal disciplinary procedure in sport always the best channel to seek justice?

“Good question. And what can you really get out of there? Sports disciplinary bodies can probably penalize the perpetrator, for example by banning a trustee, but are there any mechanisms in which the victim could be compensated, for example? ”

“In sports, districts are often small and there may be a risk that power positions will make it difficult to handle cases. “