Which countries are at most risk of being booed?

[Ritararita]

I think you should also consider that not booing would also be used for their propaganda. They would just tell a different story: "Everyone loves Sergey and Russia because our country and our president are the best in the world and we do everything right! The people of Europe love Russia but their politicians don't treat Russia fairly although the Europeans want that."
That's the story I'm more afraid of but I can also understand your point of view. I just fear the propaganda that tells the people that Russia is loved and that they do everything right more than the propaganda that the West is evil.

I can see your point as well. But in case that significant amount of people in the audience would put on the unimpressed cat face as I suggested, apathetically standing there without cheering, clapping or waving flags, I imagine that not even mighty Russians would be able to make "Everyone loves Sergey and Russia" story out of it. But I might be wrong, of course.

 

[Chorizo]

I can see your point as well. But in case that significant amount of people in the audience would put on the unimpressed cat face as I suggested, apathetically standing there without cheering, clapping or waving flags, I imagine that not even mighty Russians would be able to make "Everyone loves Sergey and Russia" story out of it. But I might be wrong, of course.

Maybe the audience could leave the venue in case Russia were declared the winner and then the reprise would take please in front of empty seats. That might be an even better gesture than booing if it were noticeable on TV that many people are actually leaving.

 

[ag89]

I would be fine with banning Russia and other countries by introducing a new rule that states that countries with severe human rights violations are not allowed to participate in the contest. Then the dictatorships, most political controversy and the booing would be gone and the contest would be more peaceful. The Russian fans could still watch and enjoy the contest even if Russia didn't participate in it. The Australians fans enjoyed Eurovision before 2015, didn't they?

With that kind or rules Eurovision would move for a show to political theatre which is totally opposite to the nature of this contest.

Also, if you want to play fair, you will have 20 countries competing at the end. And that's the end of Eurovision. You will have few countries judging what is right and what is wrong. It's easy to ban Russia or Azerbaijan because they are this or that and because you hear only about them. Where are the most powerful media based, in which countries? Do you think somebody will ever ban France or Hungary or Estonia? Well, no. One might say "Well, these countries do not violate human rights". Yes, only because you don't have enough information from depth.

You eat what is served. You don't see beyond that because "the meal" you get is only that's presented.

Hope it's clear what I am trying to say.

 

[Chorizo]

With that kind or rules Eurovision would move for a show to political theatre which is totally opposite to the nature of this contest.

Also, if you want to play fair, you will have 20 countries competing at the end. And that's the end of Eurovision. You will have few countries judging what is right and what is wrong. It's easy to ban Russia or Azerbaijan because they are this or that and because you hear only about them. Where are the most powerful media based, in which countries? Do you think somebody will ever ban France or Hungary or Estonia? Well, no. One might say "Well, these countries do not violate human rights". Yes, only because you don't have enough information from depth.

You eat what is served. You don't see beyond that because "the meal" you get is only that's presented.

Hope it's clear what I am trying to say.

Eurovision already is political theater. A rule like I proposed wouldn't be introduced because it would mean less money for the EBU.

Getting rid of the most serious offenders would be enough. So Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan would be out but that might be it.

 

[ag89]

Eurovision already is political theater. A rule like I proposed wouldn't be introduced because it would mean less money for the EBU.

Getting rid of the most serious offenders would be enough. So Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan would be out but that might be it.

Why is the law against gays in Russia worse than Hungarian government's treatment of thousand refugees in their country? Just because it's written?! How do you make a scale what is more offensive and what more violates human rights?

You don't. You use your subjective and personal observation and of course power of those who might be able to judge.

That rule won't work.

 

[JamieBrown]

Eurovision already is political theater. A rule like I proposed wouldn't be introduced because it would mean less money for the EBU.

Getting rid of the most serious offenders would be enough. So Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan would be out but that might be it.

Be lucky that countries won't get banned because of mistreats of human rights. Art. 14 would bring most european countries into deep shit otherwise.

Booing makes no sense. Being political at Eurovision doesn't as well. I assume most of the artists are there to present their music, so the fans should be there for the music as well. Sadly when it comes to competitions between countries people stop being rational.

 

[Chorizo]

Why is the law against gays in Russia worse than Hungarian government's treatment of thousand refugees in their country? Just because it's written?! How do you make a scale what is more offensive and what more violates human rights?

You don't. You use your subjective and personal observation and of course power of those who might be able to judge.

That rule won't work.

I don't see how the Russian anti-gay laws and Hungary struggling with illegal immigration are comparable in any way.
The Russian government passed a law allowing them to severely discriminate LGBT people. Hungary was overrun with illegal immigrants and had a hard time dealing with it leading to various problems. Russia discriminates deliberately. Hungary was plunged into a crisis. Russia's action is premeditated and not the result of some crisis. Russia discriminates because it desires to do so. There wouldn't have been any problems with the migrants in Hungary, if they hadn't entered the country illegally. I think it's obvious that Russia's law is despicable and not comparable to anything that has happened in Hungary. Putin simply decided to attack part of the Russian population and to use them as scapegoats without any need to do so. He just wants to discriminate gay people. Putin is nothing but a malicious bully.

 

[Chorizo]

Be lucky that countries won't get banned because of mistreats of human rights. Art. 14 would bring most european countries into deep shit otherwise.

Booing makes no sense. Being political at Eurovision doesn't as well. I assume most of the artists are there to present their music, so the fans should be there for the music as well. Sadly when it comes to competitions between countries people stop being rational.

I'm not saying every problem should lead to a country being banned. Starting a war against another EBU member and being a dictatorship would be good criteria to reject countries. Russia brings politics to the contest, so why shouldn't the audience react accordingly? If Russia is allowed to sing about peace, like last year and in 2013, the audience is allowed to boo Russia for political reasons as well.
Russia brings political propaganda to the contest but complains if it gets booed for political reasons.

 

[SpZ]

However, I probably wouldn't object to it so strongly if it wasn't as hypocritical as it is. Why does only Russia get booed?
1) It doesn't have the worst gay rights in Eurovision.
2) It doesn't have the worst democracy in Eurovision.
3) It doesn't have the most oppressive "regime" in Eurovision.

It does however have the biggest clash between the message of the songs they send to ESC and the politics of the country.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

It does however have the biggest clash between the message of the songs they send to ESC and the politics of the country.

So?? If you look at Eurovision non-politically as you should, this comparison simply doesn't exist, because the political standing of a country just doesn't come into it.

The biggest clash ever between message/reality was probably Israel 2009. So what? The message was still a good one, and most importantly, no one booed or condemned it.

 

[SpZ]

So?? If you look at Eurovision non-politically as you should, this comparison simply doesn't exist, because the political standing of a country just doesn't come into it.

Oh right,the thing is that noone looks at ESC in a non political way.

The biggest clash ever between message/reality was probably Israel 2009. So what? The message was still a good one, and most importantly, no one booed or condemned it.

The message was übercheesy, but indeed iirc it didnt get booed. There was a valid reason for people to boo it though.

 

[musicfan]

Israel was pure propaganda, and I think that's the reason they entered Eurovision from the start.

 

[anto475]

I think the interval act will face the most booing tbh.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

I think the interval act will face the most booing tbh.

Really? My first thought was that the Eurovision crowd will love that shit.