This is the exact point I was trying to make. If the Olympic Movement wishes to present itself using specific narratives, then they should not be surprised that narratives regarding boycotts arise if they select a host that do not even reflect their own narratives, let alone international standards of citizenship rights that are reflected in every major international governmental organization.The bottom line is : What does the modern Olympic movement stand for? Differences between countries will always happen, that's a given. However, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Would it be acceptable to give the Olympics to a country where women showing their legs in public is condemned and/or forbidden? Should we respect that as well? Would that be consistent with the Olympic charter?
And to respond to someone amount the potential to cause feelings of alientation: Yes, it would be alienating some states but history has shown through South Africa that the prevention of a state from the Olympic Games can have serious political repercussions and be one component of political change for the better.