Hockey = anti-human rights

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical
Hockey = anti-human rights

Call to action

quizzical

mark donnelly Canucks anthem singer is using his fame to try and destroy women's human rights. Canucks have shoddily tried to distance themselves from him but IMV they've got to be held accountable and remove him as their anthem singer.
 maybe the NHL themselves need to be contacted...?
warning graphic images at link
 

Quote:
Mark Donnelly is an opera singer based out of Vancouver, but he's perhaps best-known as the Canadian anthem singer at Vancouver Canucks games. The tenor has been leading the Rogers Arena crowd in his stirring renditions of "O Canada" for years, and he's become a recognizable local figure for it. He's very closely linked to the team, listed on the Canucks' website under Game Entertaiment Performers and often touted as "Canucks anthem singer Mark Donnelly" in commercials and at other Vancouver events.
That in mind, one has to wonder how the team feels that their noted anthem singer has also decided to become closely associated with the New Abortion Caravan, a group of trucks with 7-foot tall and 22-foot long billboards adorned with graphic abortion imagery that will be driving across Canada beginning this week.
On Tuesday, he sang the anthem at their launch on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery:

 
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/canucks-anthem-singer-mark-donnelly-sings-o-canada-192042820.html
to contact the Canucks and the NHL
http://canucks.nhl.com/

Caissa

Hopefully, they will not renew his contract.

milo204

as much as i disagree with him, on principle the idea of firing someone from a job for being politically active seems wrong.  Also, he's the singer so perhaps a more appropriate thread title would be "Opera=anti human rights..."

 

Sven Sven's picture

milo204 wrote:

Also, he's the singer so perhaps a more appropriate thread title would be "Opera=anti human rights..."

The singer is also a man, so perhaps this thread's title should be "Men=anti human rights..."

Or, because the man is a human: "Humans=anti human rights..."

Maysie Maysie's picture

milo and Sven, as hilarious as you both are finding the word-play in quizzical's thread, the issue of access to abortion for women is damn serious. Just because you both don't find it so, in the FEMINISM forum, doesn't mean it isn't.

This man is using his anthem-singing notariety and his celebrity to promote an anti-woman politics. While he may have the right to do so, we have the right to challenge him, in the FEMINISM forum, without men like you two coming in and making fun of our arguments and shitting on us.

Right?

milo204

i'm not shitting on or making fun of anyone maysie, i thought the thread title was misleading since the issue isn't hockey but an opera singer who is an anti abortion crusader.  

i'm not saying we shouldn't question this guys involvment in anti abortion groups, and even boo him when he sings or whatever, but i do think it's a slippery slope kind of situation when we think he should be fired for this.  according to the article he's "decided to become closely associated" with this group...  well, what does that mean?  it'd be one thing if he's the public face of an anti abortion campaign but the article doesn't outline what his close association means.  i'm just saying that in a time where people who advocate for the environment are labelled "terrorists" and student protesters are called the same that if we start firing people for stuff they do outside of work if it has some political side to it, many people here are going to find themselves out of work, especially with things like employers going on social media etc.

if my boss sees a post where i link to a pro palestinian article on facebook or something i be fired for "supporting terrorists"? or if i donate to partners in health would that be seen as some kind of radical organization and grounds for dismissal?

Sean in Ottawa

Generally when you have a public association to an employer the law allows you to take some normal political views but not those of a scandalous nature. Some employment is even more directly an association of the personal with the employer and in that case if you damage the image you are selling as associated it is tantamount to a frustrated contract in value and damaging to boot.I think that for most workers there is little to no limit on what you can do but when what you are selling is your brand being associated with another brand that is something else. People have a choice as to whether they decide on a career that makes themselves a brand but if they do so and then sell that brand then I think it is difficult to back out of that. I think that part of being a celebrity (and it has a number of benefits) is the acceptance and responsibility of the personal association you are selling which is a major part of your commodity. Put another way, if it were not the fact that he is a celebrity we would not be talking about him at all and the media would not have reported on the story. It is unfair to suggest that his message has nothing to do with the Canucks when only because of his association with them are we even hearing about this.

Not all workers brand themselves and sell that brand. Few do. Those who do get paid well for their celebrity status and then face limits on what they do with that. For example, someone who shills on TV for Coke may have a contract that prevents them from shilling for Pepsi. And for anything else. Those who do not turn themselves into a brand and market that brand have no restriction but also tend to get less attention.

With respect to the actual content of his political stance I have an even harder view. I think this goes beyond a political position. To my mind he is inciting hate against women in general, those who champion the right to choose or exercise it and those who provide the services. People have been harmed and some killed connected to this hatred that he is inciting. I think that the message he is bringing is intended to offend, does offend and is scandalous by nature. Further it is one that harms people directly. In that case I could not see how his employer could have any obligation not to fire him. He has no right to impose that association on his employer unless they had previous knowledge of his intention prior to them contracting with him. In other words this recent demonstration of his was not part of the bargain of what he sold the Canucks.

The Canucks, however, may have a responsibility requiring a firing as well. They too are a brand that has been marketed. Other brands that advertise at their games are also implicated. I would happily support a boycott of those brands if the Canucks did not fire him. I would support someone demanding a refund on any Canucks-brand merchandise if they do not fire him. They not only damage and harm their own brand by not firing him (if they decided not to) but the brand of every company-- or even personal reputation of every individual that associates with them. For this reason you can see that they have a legal obligation to fire him.

 

 

MegB

Milo, since your position on this issue is quite clearly not appropriate for the feminist forum, I suggest you leave this topic to people who have more insight and the ability to apply feminist analysis.  Goes for you too Sven.

Sean in Ottawa

I can add some agreement that the thread title is not actually fair-- as this just happened and hockey in general or the Canucks in particular have not had a choice or opportunity to respond. The thread title would only be fair if the Canucks did not fire this guy. Otherwise you could say that singing is anti-human rights. Fairly, Mark Donnely is anti human rights and for now that is far as that thread title should have gone. A little latitude for anger could be given but I don't think that a defence of the thread title is all that fair personally- assuming I have a right to comment on a thread title in this forum which I am not clear that I do. Nonetheless, I have taken the risk of making the comment hoping not to offend by doing so.

I do think it is fair to say the ball is in the court of the Canucks and the NHL as to whether they want to respond appropriately or make the thread title true. I don't think they have long to respond either.

Unionist

The thread title is spot on - as is the demand that this "singer" be throttled. How can there even be a debate on this?

"Professional" hockey is routinely given a pass when it comes to misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia - you name it - as we've seen in other babble items:

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/cbcs-hnic-tries-misogynist-condescendin...'s HNIC tries on misogynist, condescending alternative commentary track [/url]

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/anti-racism-news-and-initiatives/hockey-player-s... player sues citing anti-semitism by coaches[/url]

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/qu%C3%A9bec/discrimination-hockey]Discrimination in hockey[/url]

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks Maysie and Unionist. This is a no-brainer. If Dickwad Donnelly were famous for being an opera singer and used that celebrity for promoting anti-choice views--and if opera had a long history of anti-feminist, anti-queer and racist tropes--it would indeed be fair to say that opera = anti-human rights. But that's not the case. It is with hockey.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I do think it is fair to say the ball is in the court of the Canucks and the NHL as to whether they want to respond appropriately or make the thread title true. I don't think they have long to respond either.

Canucks already responded by saying his "personal" beliefs aren't the Canucks. and that's why i brought it here.  it's too little. i like your idea of boycotting other sponsors affiliated with Orca Bay and the NHL.

NDPP

Catchfire wrote:

Thanks Maysie and Unionist. This is a no-brainer. If Dickwad Donnelly were famous for being an opera singer and used that celebrity for promoting anti-choice views--and if opera had a long history of anti-feminist, anti-queer and racist tropes--it would indeed be fair to say that opera = anti-human rights. But that's not the case. It is with hockey.

NDPP

'Dickwad'? Isn't that a rather sexist slur analgous to 'bitchwad'? Because I thought such things were of great importance here, best not use them, especially mods.

quizzical

are you fucking serious? doing petty bull shit in this thread and think ya have a right to do it means you're no ally to human rights 'cause you don't even get them.. 

derrick derrick's picture

FYI, Mark Donnelly sang for Harper's election rally in Burnaby during the 2011 campaign. I was part of a group of protesters outside, and when Donnelly walked in I told him he should be ashamed of himself. His response: "We all want the Canucks to win." 

 

 

MegB

NDPP wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Thanks Maysie and Unionist. This is a no-brainer. If Dickwad Donnelly were famous for being an opera singer and used that celebrity for promoting anti-choice views--and if opera had a long history of anti-feminist, anti-queer and racist tropes--it would indeed be fair to say that opera = anti-human rights. But that's not the case. It is with hockey.

NDPP

'Dickwad'? Isn't that a rather sexist slur analgous to 'bitchwad'? Because I thought such things were of great importance here, best not use them, especially mods.

When men are even remotely disadvantaged by such words, then yes, I suppose we could consider it sexist.  And no, there is no accurate analogy between dickwad and bitchwad.  One guy calling another guy a dick, or dickwad is a whole lot different than a man calling a woman a bitch, or bitchwad.  You can't just pull words out of their context and compare them as if it were a level playing field. It isn't yet, and never has been.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quizzical wrote:

mark donnelly Canucks anthem singer is using his fame to try and destroy women's human rights. Canucks have shoddily tried to distance themselves from him but IMV they've got to be held accountable and remove him as their anthem singer.

I agree totally that he is using the fame garnered from singing at hockey games to attack women's  rights. I think protests the next time he is scheduled to sing would be appropriate but then I think that the loudmouthed lout on Coach's Corner should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for his shilling for imperialism. 

Hockey is the problem not opera.

Sean in Ottawa

Ok-- I did not know that the Canucks had responded. The reason I had suggested hockey would not be made to be the immediate association in this case was to give the Canucks the opportunity of firing him. Since they have already responded and said they would continue their association and think his personal beliefs (that are meaningless without the power of their association) are his own then I think something direct must be done. A protest here is not meaningful enough.

I suggest that letters get written to the hockey club and to the NHL saying enough is enough and that they must wear this as long as this person and these views are associated with them. the letter should be copied to any sponsor of the Canucks along with a message that as long as this guy sings for the Canucks their products and services will be boycott.

Sponsors I found quickly are: HSBC, McDonalds, Jake Milford Golf Tournament, Chevrolet,

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=56745

Also Mastercard is associated with them.

Also advertising on their site includes:

Bridgestone Tire, Sirius, Pharmasave, OKA cheese, Rogers, The Keg,

From their site they have preferred restaurants (And these may be the best to hit first)

Boston Pizza

Hurricane Grill

Verace Pizzaria Napoletana

The Keg

Vera's

All should receive letters saying that they will not be patronized so long as they retain their association with the Canucks and the Canucks employs this singer.

I am confident that our community can make the Canucks step back if we hit them at their advertisers.

Won't fix all the other problems in hockey or the don Cherry's of the world but it will fix this one.

People need to start phoning stores (many are franchises) and tell them there is a boycott and they should tell head office to lean on the Canucks or pull their support for the team.

This is how you respond to crap like this.

Yes I was prepared to give the Canucks and Hockey an opportunity to fix this but if they had that and are unwilling then they should face a community response.MAIN NUMBERS

You can call them if you want here:

Main Reception: 604-899-7400
Toll Free: 1-855-GO CANUCKS
Vancouver Canucks- 604-899-4600
Vancouver Canucks Info Line: 604-899-4610
Fax: 604-899-7401/7490

I would say you get exactly what you are willing to put up with.
If you don't like the decision let them hear a backlash.

Sean in Ottawa

Maybe questionning the players themselves asking them if this is their position is another way to go.

However, can someone post a link to the Canucks stating that his opinion was his own business?  -- I think we should get to read and respond to that. I could not find it and I think a boycott should be based either on a statement like that or a refusal to give a statement or whatever their actual position is.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks for that info, Sean.

quizzical

hey Sean thanks for this. i knew somethin had to be done didn't know how or what. am callin now.

MegB

Thanks Sean, for the info.

milo204

to be honest after doing some searching on the web, since no links were provided here, i'm more inclined to agree with the idea of getting rid of him now.

not only was he front and centre in the launch of the "anti-abortion caravan" (a reference to the abortion caravan in the 70's) he is absolutely using his association with the canucks to give it legitimacy by actually singing the anthem at anti abortion events.

i guess what i'm worried about is that it's easy to say someone should be fired for their beliefs/actions when i disagree with them, but what happens when it's something i/we all support?  i worry about this because i have a tendency to voice my opinions and get involved in activism, yet i still need to have a job and if my employer decides that my anti capitalist views, etc are "objectionable" or they see me in a pro palestine protest is that grounds for getting fired even if i'm voicing those opinions outside of work?

 

Ripple

quizzical linked to and cited an article in post #1.  In post #8 you were asked to stay out of this thread.

Why don't you go join Sven in his back door attacks on the few remaining feminists on babble.  At least it's not the feminism forum, eh?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi milo, in case Rebecca's post at #8 wasn't explicit enough, please don't post in this thread again. Thanks.

Gerryhurt

before I comment, I would like to ask a question.

 

 

    Are pro life advocates not welcome here? Does free speech not apply in this subject unless one is "pro choice"?

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Gerry:

As per babble policy: "babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum."

So, essentially, "pro life" advocates are not especially welcome. They are, of course, free to carry to term an unplanned pregnancy if they so choose -- that is what being pro choice is all about.Smile

 

Gerryhurt

So, babble considers the killing of a baby to be a "human right". Got it.

Sean in Ottawa

No Babble considers a baby to be a human being that is born already.

I believe in choice and my daughter's mother believes in choice and so they know they were wanted-- that is also a human right

Gerryhurt

It also appears that babble members don't believe in freedom of expression or freedom of association. That is very obvious in the call to have this mans employment terminated because he "associates" with Pro-life/anti-abortionists.

Sean in Ottawa

It appears you have come here with your vision of what those things mean. We believe in those concepts but define them differently. I don't get the impression, at least so far, that you are that interested in learning about what we think and why.

But here is a clue: rights are not absolutes they are relative and conflict often. You have to rank them. One person's right to not be harassed may trump another's right to say what they feel like. You seem to view rights as if they are all in separate bubbles.

I'll give you another clue-- I was a book publisher for 14 years. I believe in freedom of expression and suspect that I have invested in it as much as you have-- and I say that without knowing anything more about you other than your rather simplistic linear grasp of the meaning of rights.

Now this is a feminist forum. If you are truly interested in a discussion about these things we should take it somewhere else as this is a place that assumes rather than debates womens' rights. Ok?

I think if you want to you might be able to learn about people with a different outlook than your own but if you are here just to provoke I suspect you will be gone within hours so I think you may only have a little window to establish your intentions.

If you want you can start a thread elsewhere than this section.

MegB

Bye Gerry.

quizzical

i've phoned and still waiting for a call back. been too busy to follow up. maybe next week after all the Grads and exams are done.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

This country is becoming more backwards everyday..I suppose Harper's dream of changing social norms and opinions is becoming reality.

As for this asshole losing his job for his political convictions,if say he was of a political stripe like the student uprising in Quebec,you have to ask yourselves if he'd be at the very least 'muzzled' by his employer.

I can only hope that this degenerate finds himself a target of incessant booing next season..Unfortunately,right wing extermism is becoming quite mainstream in this country so I highly doubt anyone will give a damn.

Fidel

I think they should trade Donnelly for a snow cone machine. He's so shitty a player that I can't find his stats anywhere.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Fidel wrote:

I think they should trade Donnelly for a snow cone machine. He's so shitty a player that I can't find his stats anywhere.

This is the feminism forum. Stop it.

Sineed

Gerryhurt wrote:

So, babble considers the killing of a baby to be a "human right". Got it.

Rates of abortion have been found to be the same or lower in those places that provide easy and legal access. Restricting access to abortion only increases the number of unsafe abortions that either kill women, or maim them, sometimes destroying their reproductive potential. So if the anti-choice people really want to reduce the number of abortions, they should fight against restrictive abortion legislation everywhere.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61786-8/fulltext

From "Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008 (The Lancet 18 Feb 2012 pp. 625-32):"

Quote:
Findings

The global abortion rate was stable between 2003 and 2008, with rates of 29 and 28 abortions per 1000 women aged 15—44 years, respectively, following a period of decline from 35 abortions per 1000 women in 1995. The average annual percent change in the rate was nearly 2·4% between 1995 and 2003 and 0·3% between 2003 and 2008. Worldwide, 49% of abortions were unsafe in 2008, compared to 44% in 1995. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2008. The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05).

Edited to add: I can't seem to make the link work. If you cut and paste the whole text of the line ending in "fulltext" into your browser, you can see the abstract of this article.

Fidel

Maysie wrote:

Fidel wrote:

I think they should trade Donnelly for a snow cone machine. He's so shitty a player that I can't find his stats anywhere.

This is the feminism forum. Stop it.

Yes keep in mind everyone that this is a feminism forum!

Maysie Maysie's picture

Thanks Sineed.

Here's your link.

Michelle

I also don't believe that he should be fired for political activism even though I disagree with it.  That opens the door to people on both sides of the political spectrum being fired from their jobs for political activism, and you can bet that it would backfire on our allies as well as our enemies.  Unfortunately, I think my left-wing viewpoints are seen as just as extreme by the mainstream as this guy's right-wing viewpoints are.

And I also don't think that because one guy who happens to be an anthem-singer for a hockey team is also an anti-choice activist, that it means "Hockey = anti-human rights", any more than I would assume that if some anthem-singer decided to volunteer to escort women into abortion clinics that it would mean "Hockey = feminism".

And I'm a female feminist.

Sure, give the guy a hard time - he's putting himself out there in public with his political views and should be denounced thoroughly by feminists. But I certainly don't lay his political viewpoints at the feet of "hockey", and I share milo's discomfort with campaigning to get someone fired for their political activism.

Michelle

NHL stars working to rid hockey of homophobia

Considering that this story I linked to above involves more than 30 hockey players speaking out against homophobia, supported by and organized by officials within the NHL, does that prove that actually Hockey = pro-human rights?

My answer would actually be, no, no more than the story in the beginning of the thread proves that Hockey = anti-human rights.

There is a lot of racism, sexism, and homophobia within hockey, as within greater society.  I don't assume that hockey as a whole is promoting anti-choice values because one moron who sings before the games for one of the teams has decided this is his pet political project on the side.  Especially when the hockey team itself has publicly distanced themselves from his political viewpoints. 

quizzical

quick question:

would you feel the same way if he was out there advocating homosexuality needed to criminalized or slavery legalized with a convoy filled with graphic pictures of how horrible homosexuality is or how wonderful slavery could be?

Bacchus

yup the same as if he was proclaiming prochoice or equals rights for all

quizzical

huh?

Unionist

Sineed wrote:
I can't seem to make the link work. If you cut and paste the whole text of the line ending in "fulltext" into your browser, you can see the abstract of this article.

Here's a working link to your abstract:

http://goo.gl/E7ZjW

 

onlinediscountanvils

Michelle wrote:

NHL stars working to rid hockey of homophobia

Considering that this story I linked to above involves more than 30 hockey players speaking out against homophobia, supported by and organized by officials within the NHL, does that prove that actually Hockey = pro-human rights?

My answer would actually be, no, no more than the story in the beginning of the thread proves that Hockey = anti-human rights.

There is a lot of racism, sexism, and homophobia within hockey, as within greater society.  I don't assume that hockey as a whole is promoting anti-choice values because one moron who sings before the games for one of the teams has decided this is his pet political project on the side.  Especially when the hockey team itself has publicly distanced themselves from his political viewpoints.

 

Thanks, Michelle. I agree.

onlinediscountanvils

For those in the Ottawa area: [url=https://www.facebook.com/events/332935406782854/]MANIF PRO-CHOIX - PRO-CHOICE DEMO RESPONDING TO THE ANTI-ABORTION CARAVAN!!![/url]