Professional boxing has been illegal in Sweden for over thirty years. In 1969, the government made participating in professional boxing illegal for one prominent reason: the danger to the boxer's health.
In Sweden, much like most countries, any type of physical assault is illegal. In Sweden though, it is also illegal to waive the right to not be assaulted; i.e. the act of waiving that right is not illegal, but the contract wherein you waive that right is of no legal value. You cannot sign away the right and thereby make it legal to physically assault you.
The law passed in 1969, as far as I understand, defined professional boxing as physical assault between two consenting adults, which is illegal. Amateur boxing is ok, first of all because the boxers wear protective head gear. Secondarily, because there is no monetary driving force involved which could make boxers box for longer than they perhaps should, again, in spite of the dangers to their health for that monetary gain.
Other amateur martial-arts, such as Karate and Taekwondo, are also legal. Those, and all other amateur martial-arts and activities which involve physical combat, are legal as long as they aren't defined as physical assault. Protective gear and/or non-full contact seems to do the trick to avoid that definition. As far as I know, WTF (Olympic) Taekwondo is the only full contact sport, along with amateur boxing, which is allowed in Sweden.
The Swedish minister of athleticism has, with the support of the most prominent Swedish boxer Paulo Roberto, been raising her voice against the ban on professional boxing. She and her supporters have several solid arguments, the two most prominent being these:
- Other sports are just as, or more, dangerous to the participator's health.
- The government allows the controlled distribution of alcohol, as well as other dangerous activities, which lead to far more cases of brain damage every year, compared to what professional boxing has, and would, each year.
Both arguments are completely correct. The one argument that is left to (seriously) challange is the glorification of violence in boxing. The issue has kind of been evaded by arguing that professional boxing is broadcasted on TV, Swedish professional boxing abroad is bigger than ever before and that there are no such "too much violence glorification" restrictions regarding other things. In no way are Sweden isolated from violence, in no way are we isolated from professional boxing; the sport has actually never been as big as it is today. The supposed glorification of violence is upon us. The law does not stop it, nor does it even attempt to.
Then there's a bit of a silly argument too, the one where the proponents claim that learning boxing is good for the kids in the suburbs. It gives them an outlet for their aggressiveness, teaches them discipline, and all that crap. While every word of that is true, it is also happening right now, even though professional boxing is not allowed in Sweden today.
Another of the proponents' arguments I can't quite embrace is that in Sweden we could make boxing "cleaner". We could have tougher control than they have abroad, thicker gloves has been mentioned, less rounds, etc and so forth. That just doesn't work; it wouldn't be compatible with the international boxing federations and their respective titles. What is a "clean boxing" fight in Sweden worth compared to a "real" one abroad? It just isn't feasible.
Personally, this is a hard issue for me to take a stand in. I believe that each and every law should be able to justify its existence. No law should exist just because of tradition. Absolutely not. I like to watch professional boxing, especially "big" fights or ones which envolves Swedish fighters. But, the current legislation protects desperate people from boxing in Sweden for money when they really shouldn't be getting any more blows to their head.
There will always be desperate people and they do desperate things by definition. Were professional boxing legal, they might very well be taking blows to their head to ease their financial problems, why not protect them from getting their head mashed, in any way possible?
Should professional boxing stay illegal or should Sweden lift its ban? For what reasons? What do you think?
Comments
I must say, I have never heard of professional boxing being outlawed anywhere. I think that if two people decide to partake in a sporting activity and therefore waive their right to not be struck, that is their prerogative.
I guess for me it would just boil down to a matter of personal responsibility and the ability to make one's own decisions as long as they do not impede on the rights of others, which boxing certainly doesn't. It is a well-meaning law, but misguided. I say legalize boxing but keep strong regulations in order to ensure the safety of participants (and to keep lunatics like Mike Tyson at bay).
Comment by JeffryG at 02:26, 10 Dec, 2003 #
These days, over here anyway, it seems no one is responsible for themselves. We get homeowners sued when a robber hurts his leg while stealing from someones house, we have someone who fails a suicide off a bridge suing the bridge-maker.
I believe if everyone took responsibily for their actions we wouldn't have so much trouble. But if someone gets brain injury who gets the blame? If it's the boxer than I'd be fine with it - but if it's allowed to get pushed to someone else, an authority etc then I reckon its just stupid.
And theres my two cents =]
Comment by cyberhill at 11:29, 10 Dec, 2003 #
JeffryG: Just curious, if two people decide to partake in a sporting activity and therefore waive their right to not be killed, is that their prerogative? If not, where do you draw the line?
Comment by Tomas at 13:17, 10 Dec, 2003 #
I have signed several "waiver" documents in my life that prevent the said parties involved from any responsibility of my death or dismemberment.
One such activity is White Water Rafting. Whenever I have gone on a ride, the first thing they make you do is sign your right away to hold them accountable for your death. But, I am not doing this for money or fame, so there is a difference.
Boxing, to me, is no less dangerous than most other sports. People get just as injured in American Football, Baseball, Skiing, Auto-Racing, etc.
Comment by Doug at 14:37, 10 Dec, 2003 #
Doug: The obvious difference would be that boxing, unlike White Water Rafting and the other sports you mentioned, is solely about causing bodily harm. The first and most important objective in professional boxing is to beat the opponent on the head, to the point where his/her brain is incapable of managing the stress/shock and he/she collapses. The technical term being a "knock-out".
White Water Rafting is not first and foremost about making sure somebody suffers brain damage or other bodily harm, is it? Neither does onlookers watch White Water Rafting hoping that they're going to see blood, that one of the participators will crack their skull against a rock? Right?
Like I said, I'm not decidedly against legalizing professional boxing in Sweden, I'm just pointing out what I think is the obvious differences between boxing and other sports which might, in the event of an accident and/or poor judgement, lead to injury.
Lastly, I should maybe add that we don't employ the system of "signing away ones right (to sue)" under any circumstances I'm aware of, over here. Not when you're getting surgery, not when you go White Water Rafting, nothing like that. Mostly, because we don't employ the system of suing whoever might be vaguely related to an unfortunate situation or accident, either.
Please, keep the comments coming. Does anyone not agree that there is an important difference between a sport which is all about injuring the opponent, and a sport where injuries is a negative side-effect?
Comment by Tomas at 15:01, 10 Dec, 2003 #
Tomas - I think it would be their prerogative to waive their right to be killed... As morbid as it sounds, they are doing so (or at least allowing for the possibility) when they partake in boxing.
I think there should be strong governmental restrictions on any dangerous sport to make it as safe as such a sport can be. Now, if it's a sport like dueling with pistols or knife-throwing, I think there might be problems based on the idea of governmental sanctioning of a sport where the loser loses their life.
Not sure if CyberHill was talking about the U.S. or not, but it sounds like a pretty accurate description of things here. We've got such a litigious society that people sue McDonald's because they put hot coffee between their legs and wind up spilling it on their crotch, causing burns. Their legal reasoning? McDonald's didn't tell them that the coffee was hot. People replicate stunts they see on television, ignoring warnings, and sue the Television company because they gave them the idea. I agree with you, CyberHill, in that if people took more personal responsibility, we'd all be a lot better off.
Comment by JeffryG at 15:10, 10 Dec, 2003 #
JeffryG: What about dueling with pistols, but the rules of the game state that the opponents should be so far apart that it is relatively unlikely that one of them will actually die? Where does one draw that line?
Comment by Tomas at 15:16, 10 Dec, 2003 #
Pistols are weapons specifically designed to kill. In any case, when one participates in a sport using man-made weapons which are used solely to end the life of another person (no matter how likely their death is), that's where I draw the line.
Comment by JeffryG at 16:06, 10 Dec, 2003 #
JeffryG: That's quite different from professional boxing of course, I agree, even though not all pistols are designed to kill specifically.
So how far can the concept of unarmed combat sport be stretched until it becomes too much to accept? When death (or permanent/serious bodily injury?) as the outcome is relatively likely, somewhat likely, pretty likely, very likely, extremely likely?
Comment by Tomas at 16:10, 10 Dec, 2003 #
I was talking about Australia really, but Australia/America same thing :p
Burning crotch.. reminds me of that story about the bloke burnt from using a laptop on his lap.. You would really think that you'd notice before it was too late eh :p At least, from what I heard he took responsibility and didn't try to sue anyone =]
Comment by cyberhill at 06:13, 11 Dec, 2003 #
I guess it depends on how it is determined how likely death is. Sometimes death can result from the most innocent of activities, and sometimes people are so resilient as to not die from the most extreme of afflictions. What is the standard for "relatively likely, somewhat likely, pretty likely, very likely or extremely likely"?
Comment by JeffryG at 07:04, 11 Dec, 2003 #
JeffryG: How about statistics? Statistically, it's <insert likelihood> that the outcome is that one of the fighters die or is seriously injured. When is it too likely?
Btw, one argument is that since two consenting adults have agreed to beat eachother up, it should be legal, right? How about prostitution? That's two consenting adults too.
Comment by Tomas at 10:02, 11 Dec, 2003 #
In terms of the question "when is death/serious injury too likely", I really think that it would be up to the participants. I tend to waiver on the issue, because when does it become our place to act as a guardian to people who make unfortunate health choices that victimize only themselves and other willing participants?
I can see how participating in boxing would be a bad health decision, but I still do not see it as adverse to society at large; thus, I have to say that --as long as it's strongly regulated-- boxing should be legal.
My only real issue with prostitution is that it seems that most prostitutes are selling themselves to support some sort of drug habit.
That is not the only problem I have with prostitution...
- It tends to objectify and demoralize women.
- It certainly cannot help to stop the spread of diseases, even under the most safe conditions.
- The prostitute's life can often be put into danger by immoral customers.
- I cannot afford one. (just kidding)
I think the problem comes when we try to draw a line and say "everything in this side is gone, everything on this side stays". I do not see a problem with judging each activity based on its effects on a community and societal acceptance, etc.
Comment by JeffryG at 16:27, 11 Dec, 2003 #
JeffryG: Good points, and I certainly agree that one must individually weigh each activity and its side effects on a community.
Your points regarding prostitutes are well founded, but I find them pretty similar to what can be said of boxing:
1) It is assumed that objectifying and demoralizing women is something the society want to stop, can one not assume that violence and the glorification and use thereof is something society wants to stop as well?
2) Like prostitution helps diseases spread, does not boxing help spread the glorification, acceptance and use of violence?
3) The boxers life can definately be put into danger by his or her opponents.
4) I can't beat one up. (just kidding)
Sure, prostitutes risk catching ugly diseases, dying and what not, but they themselves made the deliberate choice of entering that business, just like poor boxers who sell their heads as punching bags to ease their financial problems.
Just so we're perfectly clear, I don't suggest prostitution should be legal, I'm merely trying to stimulate discussion and thought.
Comment by Tomas at 16:39, 11 Dec, 2003 #
:) I assumed you weren't really advocating prostitution, but it's certainly good to make that clear.
Well, quite frankly you have shot down all of my good arguments, and made a helluva lot of sense in doing so. I'd probably have to start a campaign to end professional boxing in America if it weren't so damn entertaining.
Comment by JeffryG at 02:33, 12 Dec, 2003 #
JeffryG: I heard Mike Tyson was going to get into Ultimate Fighting, now that'd be entertaining.
Comment by Tomas at 09:35, 12 Dec, 2003 #
No doubt. That's exactly where that crazy bastard needs to be - pent up frustration, furious bouts of rage and an inability to follow the rules... He'd make one hell of an Ultimate Fighter.
Comment by JeffryG at 14:57, 12 Dec, 2003 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.