Don Cherry fired by Sportsnet for xenophobic poppy rant

71 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture
Don Cherry fired by Sportsnet for xenophobic poppy rant

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/11/don-cherry-fired-racist-po...

"The 85-year-old Cherry, who has been criticized in the past for his outspoken conservative politics, seemed to single out new immigrants in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario, where he lives, for not honoring Canada’s veterans and dead soldiers. He said he didn’t see immigrants wearing poppies to honor the country’s fallen ahead of Remembrance Day.

'Forget it with downtown Toronto, nobody wears the poppy … You people who come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that,' Cherry said on Saturday night’s Coach’s Corner segment on Hockey Night in Canada, Sportsnet’s flagship hockey telecast. 'These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada, these guys paid the biggest price.'

 

Aristotleded24

I loved Jagmeet Singh's response:

Quote:
"Don, let me introduce you to '#youpeople'," Singh wrote on Twitter. "My great grandfather, Hira Singh, who served in WW1 & WW2 under the British. We honour all who served. #RemembranceSunday."

Don Cherry is a racist, a bigot, an extremist and a bully. The only reason anybody in this country took him seriously is that he (supposedly) knew a great deal about hockey. Why he's being fired now when all of that has been clear for decades mystifies me.

Mobo2000

Yeah, so long and good riddance.   Should have happened decades ago.  It was especially galling when he was on the CBC, earning 1.5 million a year, paid by us.   

voice of the damned

Mobo2000 wrote:

Yeah, so long and good riddance.   Should have happened decades ago.  It was especially galling when he was on the CBC, earning 1.5 million a year, paid by us.   

The brutal truth, though, is that a lot of the people paying his salary probably thought he was great.

JKR

voice of the damned wrote:

The brutal truth, though, is that a lot of the people paying his salary probably thought he was great.

... for ratings. Which he unfortunately probably was.

Mobo2000

Towards the end of my hockey viewing days, I was watching games on US stations to avoid him.   Also wanted to avoid Bob Cole, but that was because of his endlessly repeated catchphrases.   "You can't score if you don't shoot the puck" etc.  

Misfit Misfit's picture

His age may have had something to do with it. Apparently, he is 85 years old according to the first post. This was likely going to be his last year anyway. So they released him to make a grand statement because they were likely already planning for his replacement after the hockey season is over.

Ron MacLean apparently nodded in agreement when Don Cherry made his remarks. However, he not 85 and nearing the end of his career. It is just Don Cherry that gets the boot.

I don't trust the sincerity of this gesture by Sports Net.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

His age may have had something to do with it. Apparently, he is 85 years old according to the first post. This was likely going to be his last year anyway. So they released him to make a grand statement because they were likely already planning for his replacement after the hockey season is over.

Ron MacLean apparently nodded in agreement when Don Cherry made his remarks. However, he not 85 and nearing the end of his career. It is just Don Cherry that gets the boot.

I don't trust the sincerity of this gesture by Sports Net.

 

Maybe in some ways but they are not comparable for a business in the advertising and ratings business. Ron went on TV the next day to say he was wrong then and that he was responsible to have spoken up and failed to do so. Cherry could not fart out that he made a mistake. 

Perhaps Ron McLean should be replaced but keeping him is a compromise that may produce more acceptance for Cherry going. It does not matter that Cherry is old either: him having to leave for this ought to put a bit of a chill or scare into other racists who might decide to shut up to protect their jobs. That is a benefit.

It also is a victory for those who complain: busienss can expect boycotts and reaction and that is a good thing.

I do not care about thought control. I think it would be better not to have people hold disgusting opinions, however, censuring them for sharing them is a must. Same with employers: we cannot make employers less racist (other than by leveling the playing field so they are less "white") but when they show racism we can make them pay so dearly that they think twice about demonstrating it and perhaps some of them might even want to ask the question about why society is saying this is wrong.

I do not really care about the motives of business. I assume that business is about profit and is never sincere in saying anything else. For this reason I think we have to hit business when they do something we do not like in the wallet. We have to punish them with sanction, fines, lawsuits and boycotts. Thinking we can ask them to consider anything more than their own profit is a combination of fantasy, wishful thinking and our abdication of our responsibilities when consuming those products. The reason I am not right wing is in part that respect the role and function of government and business. Business is designed to make money for shareholders. Government is obliged to tax and regulate them and not leave it to the people to trust them to do anything more than generate profit for shareholders. I object to people on the left and especially the right for trying to sell the idea that business is responsible for anything else. They are unaccountable to anything other than the profit motive, law and regulation. Don't trust them, wait for them or hope for them: make them do what you need them to do, watch them, regulate them and tax them.

Bacchus

Its not like he will be poor or anything. They will pay out his contract and he will potter off to the bank

voice of the damned

I do not really care about the motives of business.

Yeah, I won't be nominating SportsNet for any Nobel Peace Prizes, but as far as self-interested business decisions go, it's nice to see one that bows to the sentiment that racism and xenophobia are wrong.

Unionist

This is a diversionary distraction. It will have no positive effect. At best, it's a piece of meat thrown to the alt-right alt-white carnivores. What a waste of tongue-wagging while the real criminals, who hold the fate of the world in their hands, go unscathed.

quizzical

Unionist wrote:

This is a diversionary distraction. It will have no positive effect. At best, it's a piece of meat thrown to the alt-right alt-white carnivores. What a waste of tongue-wagging while the real criminals, who hold the fate of the world in their hands, go unscathed.

this ^

Aristotleded24

quizzical wrote:
Unionist wrote:

This is a diversionary distraction. It will have no positive effect. At best, it's a piece of meat thrown to the alt-right alt-white carnivores. What a waste of tongue-wagging while the real criminals, who hold the fate of the world in their hands, go unscathed.

this ^

I always thought any extra attention to Cherry's rants only helped him. He is who he is, and he's not going to change his mind on anything. I remember when he made the news for saying that it was mostly Europeans and French guys who wore visors, there was one man who, when asked his opinion, said (in French) "he's a buffoon, just ignore him." He's doing this to get a reaction and to get people talking about him. I think the best response is to say, "these reprehensible comments speak for themselves and I'm not going to dignify them by talking about them further," then just drop the issue and move on to something else.

Debater

I read that Cherry went on Fox News tonight (Tucker Carlson's show).

It's a bit surprising that he finally got the boot because he's said things like this for years.  He's also insulted French Canadian men in the past by basically saying they are too effeminate to play hockey.

Big supporter of the Conservative Party, too.

Aristotleded24

Did this guy even know that much about hockey, or was he just a loudmouth who pretended that he did?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Did this guy even know that much about hockey, or was he just a loudmouth who pretended that he did?

Well, I haven't paid any attention to hockey for a very long time, but I seem to recall that Cherry was coach the the Boston Bruins when they won the Stanley Cup. I think Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito were both on that championship team, but I could very well be wrong (and I can't be bothered to look it up).

lagatta4

I also think the media and professional sport establishment are trying to cultivate a broader audience including many people of origins other than European white.

I almost always watch the matches in French; to be honest I'm far from the greatest hockey or pro sport fans; it is more of a matter of a lively evening in a pub or local Italian or Portuguese café. We have plenty of rednecks of our own in Québec, but they tend to have slightly better sartorial taste.

Jagmeet's answer was great; there were many people from majority "other than white" countries who played a major role in the World Wars and often got stuck in the toughest and most deadly situations. They had to bring in a bunch of white guys upon the liberation of Paris as a great many of the actual fighters were brown and black people from the colonies. Whom, of course, were treated dreadfully by the Nazi forces if taken prisoner.

MegB

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Did this guy even know that much about hockey, or was he just a loudmouth who pretended that he did?

Well, I haven't paid any attention to hockey for a very long time, but I seem to recall that Cherry was coach the the Boston Bruins when they won the Stanley Cup. I think Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito were both on that championship team, but I could very well be wrong (and I can't be bothered to look it up).

He played one NHL game, for Boston and spent the bulk of his career playing for the AHL, then coached for Boston for a few years. He has no particular insight into hockey, just a big mouth and bad taste in suits. He's been allowed to bloviate for all these years because, ratings. 

josh

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Did this guy even know that much about hockey, or was he just a loudmouth who pretended that he did?

Well, I haven't paid any attention to hockey for a very long time, but I seem to recall that Cherry was coach the the Boston Bruins when they won the Stanley Cup. I think Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito were both on that championship team, but I could very well be wrong (and I can't be bothered to look it up).

 

Harry Sinden and Tom Johnston were the coaches of the '70 and '72 winning teams.  Cherry coached a lot of good teams, but was never able to win the Cup.  Mostly because the Canadiens won it almost every year he coached.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Go Habs!!!

Debater

Screencap from his appearance on Fox News last night:

bekayne

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Did this guy even know that much about hockey, or was he just a loudmouth who pretended that he did?

Here's Don Saleski's comparison of Cherry with Fred Shero (who won two Stanley Cups)

bekayne

https://twitter.com/JMall95/status/1193989956756295690

My favourite Don Cherry moment is his first 3 years of owning the Mississauga Ice Dogs when he refused to have Europeans on his team. They won 16 of 204 games.

bekayne

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I do not really care about the motives of business. I assume that business is about profit and is never sincere in saying anything else. For this reason I think we have to hit business when they do something we do not like in the wallet. We have to punish them with sanction, fines, lawsuits and boycotts. Thinking we can ask them to consider anything more than their own profit is a combination of fantasy, wishful thinking and our abdication of our responsibilities when consuming those products. The reason I am not right wing is in part that respect the role and function of government and business. Business is designed to make money for shareholders. Government is obliged to tax and regulate them and not leave it to the people to trust them to do anything more than generate profit for shareholders. I object to people on the left and especially the right for trying to sell the idea that business is responsible for anything else. They are unaccountable to anything other than the profit motive, law and regulation. Don't trust them, wait for them or hope for them: make them do what you need them to do, watch them, regulate them and tax them.

I couldn't agree more. We need to think of businesses as machines without emotion or intellect with no one person responsible for their behavior. That is why they need to be regulated. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I do not really care about the motives of business. I assume that business is about profit and is never sincere in saying anything else. For this reason I think we have to hit business when they do something we do not like in the wallet. We have to punish them with sanction, fines, lawsuits and boycotts. Thinking we can ask them to consider anything more than their own profit is a combination of fantasy, wishful thinking and our abdication of our responsibilities when consuming those products. The reason I am not right wing is in part that respect the role and function of government and business. Business is designed to make money for shareholders. Government is obliged to tax and regulate them and not leave it to the people to trust them to do anything more than generate profit for shareholders. I object to people on the left and especially the right for trying to sell the idea that business is responsible for anything else. They are unaccountable to anything other than the profit motive, law and regulation. Don't trust them, wait for them or hope for them: make them do what you need them to do, watch them, regulate them and tax them.

I couldn't agree more. We need to think of businesses as machines without emotion or intellect with no one person responsible for their behavior. That is why they need to be regulated. 

You two have basically described the functioning of a sociopath.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

This is a diversionary distraction. It will have no positive effect. At best, it's a piece of meat thrown to the alt-right alt-white carnivores. What a waste of tongue-wagging while the real criminals, who hold the fate of the world in their hands, go unscathed.

I truly didn't mean it that way.  Just thought that it was something people might want to know of, in the midst of everything else, and say a few things about, while obviously spending far more time talking about other things.

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

This is a diversionary distraction. It will have no positive effect. At best, it's a piece of meat thrown to the alt-right alt-white carnivores. What a waste of tongue-wagging while the real criminals, who hold the fate of the world in their hands, go unscathed.

I truly didn't mean it that way.  Just thought that it was something people might want to know of, in the midst of everything else, and say a few things about, while obviously spending far more time talking about other things.

I wasn't in the least targeting or even thinking of you, Ken. The entire social and mainstream media in Canada have been agonizing over this absolutely irrelevant and diversionary story. Progressive people think they need to condemn Don Cherry and hail his dismissal, for some reason - as if his sorry ass mattered in the scheme of things. This is mass frenzy at its worst. And only our enemies will benefit from it.

Debater

Don Cherry is a big household name in Canada, so it's understandable it would get attention, and as mentioned above, it's also making news in the United States.

I get the sense that the Quebec commentators are also happy to see Cherry go.  ("Mieux vaut tard que jamais." Chantal Hebert said yesterday.)

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I hate Don Cherry. Always have. And finally he gets fired,

He's said worse things though with his sidekick right there to give the thumbs up.

The man has politicizedd the military, veterans, the flag and now he's politicized the poppy.

And he's kind of like Trump. He has followers who would follow him off a cliff if they had to. So my concern is he's going to point to us 'left wing kooks'. you watch. This man's career is still alive and will be after he croaks.

Good riddance.

Unionist

François Legault and Denis Coderre rejoice at the departure of Don Cherry

Please don't mention this to the anti-Québec crowd. It will cause too much cognitive dissonance for those who are convinced that Quebecers hate immigrants. And incidentally, it also shows that opposition to Don Cherry is no guarantee of progressive thought or action.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

I can't hate a man who loves a good fight too much.. 

He's an old guy and walked back from his statements later.
Not once has he said that he meant it in an anti-immigrant manner.
He's apologized repeatedly and even stated he offered to apologize and sportsnet asked him to do something that he wouldn't do to keep his job.

Online outlets like TheRebel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8rII6BPEbE

Are spinning it as he is sticking by an anti-immigrant stance, which he never had..
They're intentionally enciting hatred and probably want an eruption of racial violence.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

This is a diversionary distraction. It will have no positive effect. At best, it's a piece of meat thrown to the alt-right alt-white carnivores. What a waste of tongue-wagging while the real criminals, who hold the fate of the world in their hands, go unscathed.

I truly didn't mean it that way.  Just thought that it was something people might want to know of, in the midst of everything else, and say a few things about, while obviously spending far more time talking about other things.

I wasn't in the least targeting or even thinking of you, Ken. The entire social and mainstream media in Canada have been agonizing over this absolutely irrelevant and diversionary story. Progressive people think they need to condemn Don Cherry and hail his dismissal, for some reason - as if his sorry ass mattered in the scheme of things. This is mass frenzy at its worst. And only our enemies will benefit from it.

Fair point.

Unionist

jatt_1947 wrote:

I can't hate a man who loves a good fight too much.. 

He's an old guy and walked back from his statements later.
Not once has he said that he meant it in an anti-immigrant manner.
He's apologized repeatedly and even stated he offered to apologize and sportsnet asked him to do something that he wouldn't do to keep his job.

Online outlets like TheRebel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8rII6BPEbE

Are spinning it as he is sticking by an anti-immigrant stance, which he never had..
They're intentionally enciting hatred and probably want an eruption of racial violence.

All that is actually true - especially the final part about Rebel Media. It's sad how sometimes the honesty and integrity of progressive folks leads them straight into traps set by our enemies.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Lavant should be caged in a really small box. My hatred of right wingers can be explained instantly just by people like him.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Don Cherry has done an exceptional job of marginalizing all voices for peace as progressive people rush to tell about their ancestors who fought in bloody wars. Ready Aye Ready for generation after generation in the British Empire.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

This is nothing new. Strange that it took like 35 years .

I hate him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-sG6u_Sats

lagatta4

I watched a couple of minutes, but that was plenty. He sounds like the kind of guys who deliberately close in on me with their SUVs when I'm cycling (though I'm in a dedicated cycle lane).

pietro_bcc

Unionist wrote:

François Legault and Denis Coderre rejoice at the departure of Don Cherry

Please don't mention this to the anti-Québec crowd. It will cause too much cognitive dissonance for those who are convinced that Quebecers hate immigrants. And incidentally, it also shows that opposition to Don Cherry is no guarantee of progressive thought or action.

The reason so many Quebec commentators are rejoicing at Don Cherry getting fired isn't because of his views on immigrants, its because of his views on Francophones (Don Cherry has been Quebec bashing since at least the 90's probably longer). François Legault loves Bock Coté for god's sake are we really going to pretend that he doesn't hate immigrants because he's happy Cherry got fired.

Unionist

pietro_bcc wrote:

Unionist wrote:

François Legault and Denis Coderre rejoice at the departure of Don Cherry

Please don't mention this to the anti-Québec crowd. It will cause too much cognitive dissonance for those who are convinced that Quebecers hate immigrants. And incidentally, it also shows that opposition to Don Cherry is no guarantee of progressive thought or action.

The reason so many Quebec commentators are rejoicing at Don Cherry getting fired isn't because of his views on immigrants, its because of his views on Francophones (Don Cherry has been Quebec bashing since at least the 90's probably longer). François Legault loves Bock Coté for god's sake are we really going to pretend that he doesn't hate immigrants because he's happy Cherry got fired.

My post was short - didn't make it to the last sentence? "... it also shows that opposition to Don Cherry is no guarantee of progressive thought or action."

My point was that both Legault and Coderre felt the need to say that denigrating immigrants was a bad thing - whether they believe it or not, whether they practise what they preach or not. Because denigrating immigrants is not a popular theme in Québec. Contrary to popular belief in various quarters.

So for my edification, please provide me with a list of other premiers or mayors or ex-mayors who have applauded Cherry's firing and condemned his comments on immigrants. I'm not saying there aren't any - I'm just confessing my ignorance - would like to see the list please. All I've seen so far are some stomach-turning tweets from a few federal figures protesting that hey, yes, c'mon, here are some immigrants that fought in our wars for freedom too!

Thanks in advance.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Don Cherry has done an exceptional job of marginalizing all voices for peace as progressive people rush to tell about their ancestors who fought in bloody wars. Ready Aye Ready for generation after generation in the British Empire.

 

Good point.  It's disgusting that this episode may be helping to perpetuate the Harper canard that Canada is a nation which owes everything to war and for whom participation in war is the only valid demonstration of loyalty and love of country.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I loved Jagmeet Singh's response:

Quote:
"Don, let me introduce you to '#youpeople'," Singh wrote on Twitter. "My great grandfather, Hira Singh, who served in WW1 & WW2 under the British. We honour all who served. #RemembranceSunday."

Sorry I only noticed this now, A24.

And sorry too that the response you loved makes me ill.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Harper canard that Canada is a nation which owes everything to war and for whom participation in war is the only valid demonstration of loyalty and love of country.

 

It's certainly the highest.

Debater

Don Cherry and Roger Stone both go down in the same week.

Has the day of reckoning for right-wing old men finally come?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

jatt_1947 wrote:

Harper canard that Canada is a nation that owes everything to war and for whom participation in war is the only valid demonstration of loyalty and love of country.

 

It's certainly the highest.

No.  War is the lowest, most vile form of patriotism.  With the possible exception of some of World War II, war has never brought anything but destruction, misery, and slaughter to the world.   War is the enemy of anything positive, transformative, hopeful or liberating in life.  It murders whole generations in their youths for the sake of redrawing lines on maps.  It can no longer free anyone or empower anyone.  It can no longer end any injustices, right any wrongs, heal any wounds.  In our time, war can do nothing but scar for the sake of scarring.

The highest form of love of country-if love of "country", rather than universal love and respect for all th0se we share the planet with, is still a concept with any value or meaning, with any point at all-is to express that love by working to make the countries we inhabit into places free of all hatred, all greed, any desire for anyone to hold power over anyone else; to to fill those places with creativity, beauty, kindness, laughter, generosity of spirit, and the universal conviction that no one within those places, should ever be shamed, bullied, excluded, "Othered", anathematized, disparaged, devalued, or excluded.

To work for that is the one valid and positive form of "love of country"-that is, if we must still have love of country in a world where the concepts of nations and of national borders do nothing but harm.  For the rest of history, war can be nothing but a lethal expression of nationalism, and nationalism can be nothing but a gateway to fascism.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Thanks for laying out my own thoughts more eloquently than I would be able to do, Ken.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Debater wrote:

Don Cherry and Roger Stone both go down in the same week.

Has the day of reckoning for right-wing old men finally come?

Yes. But there's still a lot of cockroaches out there that need to be exterminated. Oh What A Wonderful World This Would Be.

Also, these 2 geriatrics dress the same....as assholes.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..yes thanks for #45 ken. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Thanks for laying out my own thoughts more eloquently than I would be able to do, Ken.


I appreciate the support. And please know you have posted many, many eloquent things here.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Yes, so laying down one's life to protect the innocent is less holy than champagne socialism. :) ^_^

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Thanks for laying out my own thoughts more eloquently than I would be able to do, Ken.


I appreciate the support. And please know you have posted many, many eloquent things here.

Just adding my own appreciation and support for your comments, Ken.

Pages