Should Don Cherry Have Been Fired?

[jacee]

9 minutes ago, DrYouth said:

Booo....

The problem with the current "cancel culture" left is that they come off as cowardly and controlling.

They insist on firing people they don't agree with .... IMMEDIATELY.

This is something the dumb-as-bricks left seem incapable of comprehending.

Don Cherry was a flawed human... but he also brought a lot of good to his community and his colleagues who obviously respected him.

Cancelling him and mob brow beating him is a sad statement about our country today.

He deserved better.... but he did screw up.... so I don't really disagree with benching him. More dignity though... that is what I'm asking for.

Cherry hasn't shown any dignity, failed to apologize, just endless 'explanations' and glossing over the racism in his remarks.

"Browbeating"?  The public backlash is what got him fired, and rightly so. 

Edited November 25, 2019 by jacee

[DrYouth]

15 minutes ago, jacee said:

Cherry hasn't shown any dignity, failed to apologize, just endless 'explanations' and glossing over the racism in his remarks.

"Browbeating"?  The public backlash is what got him fired, and rightly so. 

He did whine a bit... and play the victim...

But given his long career as the host of one of the most iconic programs in Canada...

He was owed a more dignified exit.

Like I said... he was flawed... but he was far from evil... when Ron described the rest of that very same episode this is obvious.

But this "cancel culture" thing thrives on moralistic floggings...

It's like some sort of Sharia state... where we send the morality police out to virtually flog any offenders.

It's pretty sad.

Edited November 25, 2019 by DrYouth

[jacee]

2 minutes ago, DrYouth said:

He did whine a bit... and play the victim...

But given his long career as the host of one of the most iconic programs in Canada...

He was owed a more dignified exit.

Like I said... he was flawed... but he was far from evil... when Ron described the rest of that very same episode this is obvious.

But this "cancel culture" thing thrives on moralistic floggings...

It's like some sort of Sharia state... where we send the morality police out to virtually flog any offenders.

It's pretty sad.

Oh, ya, let's just get Sharia law paranoia in there. Lol 

Another white supremacist.

Quelle surprise.

[DrYouth]

6 minutes ago, jacee said:

Oh, ya, let's just get Sharia law paranoia in there. Lol 

Another white supremacist.

Quelle surprise.

So I'm a white supremacist now!

LOL

You see how quickly this goes?

[Iceni warrior]

2 hours ago, DrYouth said:

So I'm a white supremacist now!

LOL

You see how quickly this goes?

LOL

Dr Youth the champagne Xenophobe.

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, DrYouth said:

So I'm a white supremacist now!

LOL

You see how quickly this goes?

Jacee is sure giving that label a workout!

Now, anyone who didn't agree with Don Cherry being fired is a WHITE SUPREMACIST!     

[Cannucklehead]

The NHS results showed that the Philippines was the leading country of birth among people who immigrated to Canada between 2006 and 2011.^Footnote3In 2011, around 152,300 newcomers were born in the Philippines, 13.1% of all newcomers.

It was followed by China, from which roughly 122,100 newcomers or 10.5% arrived, and India, from which about 121,400 or 10.4% originated.

Completing the top 10 countries of birth were the United States, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, Iran, South Korea, Colombia and Mexico.

Of the recent immigrants who were born in Africa, the three leading countries of birth were Algeria, Morocco and Nigeria. Colombia, Mexico and Haiti were the top three source countries of newcomers from the Caribbean, Central and South America region. The top source countries of recent immigrants from Europe were the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Federation.

What I dont understand is why you people have to make everything about the muslim/sharia. 

[jacee]

5 hours ago, DrYouth said:

So I'm a white supremacist now!

LOL

You see how quickly this goes?

When the shoe fits ... 

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

The NHS results showed that the Philippines was the leading country of birth among people who immigrated to Canada between 2006 and 2011.^Footnote3

Link please.

[DrYouth]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

When the shoe fits ... 

Not even close.

But you seem pretty intent on jamming it on my foot.

[Yzermandius19]

19 hours ago, jacee said:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/11/24/yes-your-boss-can-fire-you-for-things-you-say-what-recent-controversies-tell-us-about-the-limits-of-free-speech.html

“The victim narrative is that he’s somebody who’s being muzzled, which is absurd, because Don Cherry has a voice, he has a name and he has technology at his disposal. In this day and age, to be taken off a popular TV spot is far from being muzzled. You’re just losing a very privileged platform.”"

Funny how everyone who agrees with jacee gets to keep their job and everyone who disagrees with jacee has to lose their job. Lefties are entitled to an adoring audience and anyone who disagrees must be forcefully prevented from coming to their events, while righties aren't entitled to an adoring audience and their events being cancelled is clearly a paragon of free speech. Only the left is allowed free speech, those who aren't popular with jacee aren't allowed their free speech.

[Right To Left]

10 hours ago, Shady said:

Absolutely, if they're governed properly.  You really have low expectations of non-white people huh?

On the contrary, I know the level of violence and coercion needed to make global capitalism function.

[Cannucklehead]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Link please.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm#n3

[Iceni warrior]

On 11/17/2019 at 7:20 PM, Cannucklehead said:

 

 

After 9/11 they should consider themselves fortunate the u.s. did not use the nukes imo. 

You think they were lucky that the US didn't nuke innocent Afghan men, women and children as retribution for an attack carried out by radical Islamists financed by and mostly made up of Saudis?

In your opinion.

[Cannucklehead]

2 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

You think they were lucky that the US didn't nuke innocent Afghan men, women and children as retribution for an attack carried out by radical Islamists financed by and mostly made up of Saudis?

In your opinion.

The amount of hate that was generated in america when 911 happened was unbelievable.  The u.s. is famous for overdoing things when it comes to war.  

[jacee]

11 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Funny how everyone who agrees with jacee gets to keep their job and everyone who disagrees with jacee has to lose their job. Lefties are entitled to an adoring audience and anyone who disagrees must be forcefully prevented from coming to their events, while righties aren't entitled to an adoring audience and their events being cancelled is clearly a paragon of free speech. Only the left is allowed free speech, those who aren't popular with jacee aren't allowed their free speech.

Examples please?

Vague claims with no evidence ... 

[jacee]

12 hours ago, DrYouth said:

Not even close.

But you seem pretty intent on jamming it on my foot.

Yes, I suppose extremist-Zionist would be another reason for throwing anti-Muslim slurs in irrelevant places. 

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Yes, I suppose extremist-Zionist would be another reason for throwing anti-Muslim slurs in irrelevant places. 

 

There aught to be laws to criminalize folks who like Don Cherry and dislike your pet religion.

Edited November 26, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Iceni warrior]

14 hours ago, DrYouth said:

Not even close.

But you seem pretty intent on jamming it on my foot.

9 likes already though Doc, the white supremacist label seems to make you pretty popular around here.

 

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

9 likes already though Doc, the white supremacist label seems to make you pretty popular around here.

 

 

Ultimately, Boudicca ended-up dead...likely at her own hand after losing to the Romans...badly.

[Iceni warrior]

28 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Ultimately, Boudicca ended-up dead...likely at her own hand after losing to the Romans...badly.

Ulimately we all end up dead.

She had a damn good run at kicking them out though.

Came pretty close in fact. Makes you wonder what Britain would look like now if she'd suceeded.

More like Ireland or Scandinavia maybe?

Edited November 26, 2019 by Iceni warrior

[Rue]

On 11/24/2019 at 2:41 PM, jacee said:

Rue, freedom of expression only means protection from punishment by the state - ie, freedom from legal/criminal consequences. 

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social, employment or political  consequences.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee you an adoring audience, nor an audience at all.

Alt-right demand a public stage and audience silence for creepy crap no one wants to hear anyway? Speech has consequences. They get booed. So do politicians and others. Oh.well. 

If you are as incapable of comprehending that as the alt-right racists, then I can't help you. I am a bit surprised though, as despite frequent disagreement I still thought you had a more developed sensibility.

1. No it does not. Freedom of expression is defined by common law and by the Charter of Rights  and is not defined as only meaning protection from punishment by the state which akes no sense-many states punish which is why we then allow people under the UN Convention for Refugees convention to flee to Canada to claim unfair punishment and refugee status.

2. Your second comment makes no sense. Freedom of speech allows people to speak out about social, employment or political issues. It has nothing to do with freedom from consequences but the right to express one's beliefs.

3.In regards to 3, you or I do not get to decide who gets to express their opinion based solely on our subjective beliefs.  The fact you may s ubjectively find someone creepy, stating something you disagree with does not give you the right to shut it down. If speech incites violence or hatred then there are criminal laws to deal with that. Those laws were never violated by Don Cherry he violated no criminal or hate speech laws.

4.Jacee this is about freedom of speech-it is the basic right for us to disagree with one another. You can't just shut someone down you dislike. I am the first to defend your right to say what you do-as I do now, it has nothing to do with whether I agree with what you say or not. I say Jacee, there are people I wish would shut up like you for the same reasons-they say things you and I could both disagree are in fact hateful-however that is not enough. We can't be afraid to let them speak and that gives us then the same right to speak out as well. If we censor them they go underground. You and I and everyone agrees if speech goes too far and incites violence or hatred then there are laws for that. We also have the civil tort law of defamation of character.

With due respect, you are sounding like an extreme right winger on this or extreme left winger take your pic. Either extreme in politics comie or facist becomes one and the same shutting down open honest debate.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Rue

[Rue]

4 hours ago, jacee said:

Yes, I suppose extremist-Zionist would be another reason for throwing anti-Muslim slurs in irrelevant places. 

You keep throwing out labels. What makes your labels accurate? They are subjective and so as a result not a logical way to

determine what should be expressed openly. That is why we have a Criminal Code that defines what constitutes hate crimes and

common law decisions defining what constitutes hate crime and/or defamation of character which are the only limitations to freedom

of expression. It is also possible not to  be an extremist Zionist and challenge Muslim ideology and it is also possible people who make

anti Muslim comments are not slurring anyone or breaking any laws just expressing opinions you do not agree with.

[jacee]

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

1. No it does not. Freedom of expression is defined by common law and by the Charter of Rights  and is not defined as only meaning protection from punishment by the state which akes no sense-many states punish which is why we then allow people under the UN Convention for Refugees convention to flee to Canada to claim unfair punishment and refugee status.

2. Your second comment makes no sense. Freedom of speech allows people to speak out about social, employment or political issues. It has nothing to do with freedom from consequences but the right to express one's beliefs.

3.In regards to 3, you or I do not get to decide who gets to express their opinion based solely on our subjective beliefs.  The fact you may s ubjectively find someone creepy, stating something you disagree with does not give you the right to shut it down. If speech incites violence or hatred then there are criminal laws to deal with that. Those laws were never violated by Don Cherry he violated no criminal or hate speech laws.

4.Jacee this is about freedom of speech-it is the basic right for us to disagree with one another. You can't just shut someone down you dislike. I am the first to defend your right to say what you do-as I do now, it has nothing to do with whether I agree with what you say or not. I say Jacee, there are people I wish would shut up like you for the same reasons-they say things you and I could both disagree are in fact hateful-however that is not enough. We can't be afraid to let them speak and that gives us then the same right to speak out as well. If we censor them they go underground. You and I and everyone agrees if speech goes too far and incites violence or hatred then there are laws for that. We also have the civil tort law of defamation of character.

With due respect, you are sounding like an extreme right winger on this or extreme left winger take your pic. Either extreme in politics becomes one and the same shutting down open honest debate.

Rue, you are just wrong wrong wrong.

And since you don't comprehend at all what rights of Freedom of Expression mean, there is no point in discussing it further. 

I can express myself freely while you are doing the same. The Charter does not say anything about taking turns. My reaction to your speech is as valid as your speech. 

And neither of us can be arrested for either. 

[jacee]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

You keep throwing out labels. What makes your labels accurate? They are subjective and so as a result not a logical way to

determine what should be expressed openly. That is why we have a Criminal Code that defines what constitutes hate crimes and

common law decisions defining what constitutes hate crime and/or defamation of character which are the only limitations to freedom

of expression. It is also possible not to  be an extremist Zionist and challenge Muslim ideology and it is also possible people who make

anti Muslim comments are not slurring anyone or breaking any laws just expressing opinions you do not agree with.

Anti-Muslim comments are as much slurs as anti-Jewish comments.