Everyone is missing the point here, including you, Ek.

It wasn't Sportsnet that said 'you people', it was Don Cherry. He may represent Sportsnet in that he is an employee, but for years and years he said what he was thinking, not what CBC or Sportsnet was thinking. People tuned in for coach's corner to get insight into what Don Cherry, hockey legend, thought. It is, and always was, an opinion segment. Very rarely did he even discuss the current game being broadcast for more than a minute. He always wanted to show a highlight of his favourite players, show a lowlight of guys he didn't like, give his opinion on a current sports story, or a political story. Ron was there to make it clear that the sometimes extreme views of the Coach on Coach's corner were clearly not shown to be representative of anyone other than Don.

Sometimes, some people are more interesting than others, and while their opinions are no more valuable, listening to their opinions is more interesting. Networks and news papers and websites give these people blogs, columns, or tv segments to discuss their personal opinions. That's what Coach's Corner was, an opinion segment. If Don didn't have strong controversial opinions, it wouldn't have been Coach's Corner.

Do I agree with Cherry? Nope. I understand where he is coming from, though I'm not a big military supporter myself. I think his mini-rant doesn't exactly speak for politically correct people or myself. But that's okay! Opinions are what makes Canada and the USA great nations, and the right to have them. If I can only have an opinion within the boundaries agreed upon by the majority, then that's not really freedom.

You may say Cherry is free to have his opinions, but Sportsnet is free to fire him, but I disagree. If a network gives you an opinion segment, you voice your opinion, and then you get fired, that is censorship of an opinion. This wasn't a comment made by Jim Hughson during the play by play. This was an opinion (a controversial one) on a segment designed to be about controversial opinions.

It's a very scary road we are headed down, where people are fired for voicing opinions, or for allegations of misconduct without ever being proven guilty. The mob rules now, and it finds someone outside the pack and goes for blood. As soon as they bleed, the mob is on to the next outlier.
- matty12345

WELL SAID, HERE, HERE! Thank you for saying so. We may differ on our views of the military, but a veteran would be the first to tell you that he fights for your right to have an opinion. These rights may be universal in our world, but not every corner of the world agrees. Let's not forget that. We need to be able to have different opinions without name calling and blame games.

I think Rogers has every right to fire him but it is funny that they were cool with letting him rant about off-topic things in the past, if they only told him to stick to hockey in the first place then it never would’ve gotten to this point.

I don’t watch Sportsnet to hear someone talk about society and politics.

What’s next? The weather man deciding to skip over his forecast for the week to talk about how his fantasy football team did this week? Free speech, right??!?
- Nucker101

Perhaps they should have told him to "stick to hockey". Then maybe he would have quit...like everyone at Deadspin did.

That's the thing though. This has NOTHING to do with free speech. Free speech simply means you can say what you want (with some limitations - ie hate speech, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a theater , etc) without fear of retribution from the government. Freedom of Speech does NOT protect you from backlash from the public or your employer. You can say what you want, but speech is action and actions can have consequences.
- Sens2k5

Sportsnet had every right to fire him. Same as Don had every right to say what he said. We can debate the words he said but you're right firing him had nothing to do with free speech. If he had been banned from a public forum it or faced legal action that would be different

Perhaps they should have told him to "stick to hockey". Then maybe he would have quit...like everyone at Deadspin did.
- buffalofan19

They 100% should have. They opened Pandora's box and eventually something like this was going to happen. They deserve criticism in this as well.

Sportsnet had every right to fire him. Same as Don had every right to say what he said. We can debate the words he said but you're right firing him had nothing to do with free speech. If he had been banned from a public forum it or faced legal action that would be different
- HealthyScratch6

Hey Ek, you said "What Cherry did here made Canadiens feel like they weren't watching CBC, but rather coverage they'd see on an American news network." Are you referring to Fox and are you equating the two? You also stated that "And beyond their common sense of decency looking like America on immigration is an implication Canadiens couldn't stomach." If that is the case, why are there 60 million Hispanics in the U.S. and only around 1 million in Canada? If Canada really wanted to look like America on immigration they would need to let 5.5 million more Hispanics into the country. That would put the Hispanic population at 18%, just like the U.S. Until that happens, I don't know how you can say they have some kind of moral high ground!!

- sjfpp

Ummmmmm...

Hey Ek, you said "What Cherry did here made Canadiens feel like they weren't watching CBC, but rather coverage they'd see on an American news network." Are you referring to Fox and are you equating the two? You also stated that "And beyond their common sense of decency looking like America on immigration is an implication Canadiens couldn't stomach." If that is the case, why are there 60 million Hispanics in the U.S. and only around 1 million in Canada? If Canada really wanted to look like America on immigration they would need to let 5.5 million more Hispanics into the country. That would put the Hispanic population at 18%, just like the U.S. Until that happens, I don't know how you can say they have some kind of moral high ground!!

- sjfpp

LOL
If you can find 5.5 million Hispanics who want to spend half the year in -30 degree weather, send 'em over! We'll happily take them in!

Ummmmmm...
- Atomic Wedgie

I was gonna reply but there's just too much derp to go through, my reply would've been longer than his post

Sportsnet had every right to fire him. Same as Don had every right to say what he said. We can debate the words he said but you're right firing him had nothing to do with free speech. If he had been banned from a public forum it or faced legal action that would be different
- HealthyScratch6

I disagree completely with Ek's (and Sportsnet's) view on this.
"You people" Is poor grammar, but in no way racist.
Imagine a school principal at assembly addressing the students. He's upset about all the trash littering the halls and says "Your people need to put your trash in the can provided". Is that racist? Offense worthy? No and no.
Don Cherry use the words in the exact same way. Naming immigrants, suggesting (strongly) what he believes they should do and why, in regards to the poppy, and summed up saying "You people". How, for those not TRYING to be offended, is that offensive? And THAT's worthy of firing after 35 years?!
The weak, safe-place-needing, thin-skinned people of this generation strike again.

That's the thing though. This has NOTHING to do with free speech. Free speech simply means you can say what you want (with some limitations - ie hate speech, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a theater , etc) without fear of retribution from the government. Freedom of Speech does NOT protect you from backlash from the public or your employer. You can say what you want, but speech is action and actions can have consequences.
- Sens2k5

In no way shape or form would I insinuate it does, that's not what I believe.

I believe that a free society is contingent upon us not turning on each other demanding we lose the ability or right to earn a living or provide a service for money because we disagree. We can, I don't think we should.

That is far more dangerous than anything Cherry said.

I'm not saying either are good or okay I'm just saying there's a difference between being critical of an ideology or culture represented by a large population and being critical of someone because they look different. Either way there are good people from all walks of life and I think labeling people by religious affiliation, skin color, sexual orientation or nationality is dangerous and causes more harm.
- HealthyScratch6

There is a difference, literally. They are doing the same thing, IMO, just different targets.

In no way shape or form would I insinuate it does, that's not what I believe.

I believe that a free society is contingent upon us not turning on each other demanding we lose the ability or right to earn a living or provide a service for money because we disagree. We can, I don't think we should.

That is far more dangerous than anything Cherry said.
- gcomella34

cherry has not lost the right to earn a living....

Quite frankly, by alienating viewers, he's causing issues with other people's right to earn a living, and those others have done absolutely nothing.

I disagree completely with Ek's (and Sportsnet's) view on this.
"You people" Is poor grammar, but in no way racist.
Imagine a school principal at assembly addressing the students. He's upset about all the trash littering the halls and says "Your people need to put your trash in the can provided". Is that racist? Offense worthy? No and no.
Don Cherry use the words in the exact same way. Naming immigrants, suggesting (strongly) what he believes they should do and why, in regards to the poppy, and summed up saying "You people". How, for those not TRYING to be offended, is that offensive? And THAT's worthy of firing after 35 years?!
The weak, safe-place-needing, thin-skinned people of this generation strike again.
- TroyTech

You are making the facts fit your argument. He didn't say "you people." and stop. He said, "You people come here and love our way of life, love our milk and honey..." That is totally different. And anyone who says it was not intended to call out a small group which is completely made up of immigrants is willfully ignorant.
It is a racist comment. Then he decided to stand behind his racist comment instead of making amends.
And, he hasn't worked for Rogers for 35 years. He has worked on HNIC for 35 years. Rogers bought the rights what, 3 years ago. Now, he wasn't even working for a publicly funded broadcaster. They are a private company and free to dismiss employees as they see fit.

James Tanner constantly mentions politics in his blogs

Hey Ek, you said "What Cherry did here made Canadiens feel like they weren't watching CBC, but rather coverage they'd see on an American news network." Are you referring to Fox and are you equating the two? You also stated that "And beyond their common sense of decency looking like America on immigration is an implication Canadiens couldn't stomach." If that is the case, why are there 60 million Hispanics in the U.S. and only around 1 million in Canada? If Canada really wanted to look like America on immigration they would need to let 5.5 million more Hispanics into the country. That would put the Hispanic population at 18%, just like the U.S. Until that happens, I don't know how you can say they have some kind of moral high ground!!

- sjfpp

In no way shape or form would I insinuate it does, that's not what I believe.

I believe that a free society is contingent upon us not turning on each other demanding we lose the ability or right to earn a living or provide a service for money because we disagree. We can, I don't think we should.

That is far more dangerous than anything Cherry said.
- gcomella34

The thing about a free market is that if you disagree with what a company does you can choose not to support them. That being said it's difficult in Canada due to all the monopolies that exist here. It's easy to say you won't support Rogers but there are not many other options. It's the reason why telecom and air fair are so expensive here. No competition.

he did nothing wrong but voice his opinion.
- daryl stanley

I agree with you, but in today's world you are not allowed to have an opinion. I have an opinion on lots of things just like Don and if it hurts you where you sit oh well TS.

Hey Ek, you said "What Cherry did here made Canadiens feel like they weren't watching CBC, but rather coverage they'd see on an American news network." Are you referring to Fox and are you equating the two? You also stated that "And beyond their common sense of decency looking like America on immigration is an implication Canadiens couldn't stomach." If that is the case, why are there 60 million Hispanics in the U.S. and only around 1 million in Canada? If Canada really wanted to look like America on immigration they would need to let 5.5 million more Hispanics into the country. That would put the Hispanic population at 18%, just like the U.S. Until that happens, I don't know how you can say they have some kind of moral high ground!!

- sjfpp

Ummmm, you may want to re read that part of the blog. The point of that sentence had nothing to do with population percentages of a particular ethnicity.

You completely missed the point.

The thing about a free market is that if you disagree with what a company does you can choose not to support them. That being said it's difficult in Canada due to all the monopolies that exist here. It's easy to say you won't support Rogers but there are not many other options. It's the reason why telecom and air fair are so expensive here. No competition.
- HealthyScratch6

I agree with the first part, I just think we should be cautious before we do stuff like this.


Really I blame my evangelical brethren here in the States because they started this boycott mentality with the "Moral Majority". Nonsensical things like boycott these stores because they don't say "Merry Christmas" but instead say Happy Holidays.

Yeah, that didn't backfire on them.

James Tanner constantly mentions politics in his blogs
- Tedge77

Nobody reads his blogs, so it's OK.

Everyone is missing the point here, including you, Ek.

It wasn't Sportsnet that said 'you people', it was Don Cherry. He may represent Sportsnet in that he is an employee, but for years and years he said what he was thinking, not what CBC or Sportsnet was thinking. People tuned in for coach's corner to get insight into what Don Cherry, hockey legend, thought. It is, and always was, an opinion segment. Very rarely did he even discuss the current game being broadcast for more than a minute. He always wanted to show a highlight of his favourite players, show a lowlight of guys he didn't like, give his opinion on a current sports story, or a political story. Ron was there to make it clear that the sometimes extreme views of the Coach on Coach's corner were clearly not shown to be representative of anyone other than Don.

Sometimes, some people are more interesting than others, and while their opinions are no more valuable, listening to their opinions is more interesting. Networks and news papers and websites give these people blogs, columns, or tv segments to discuss their personal opinions. That's what Coach's Corner was, an opinion segment. If Don didn't have strong controversial opinions, it wouldn't have been Coach's Corner.

Do I agree with Cherry? Nope. I understand where he is coming from, though I'm not a big military supporter myself. I think his mini-rant doesn't exactly speak for politically correct people or myself. But that's okay! Opinions are what makes Canada and the USA great nations, and the right to have them. If I can only have an opinion within the boundaries agreed upon by the majority, then that's not really freedom.

You may say Cherry is free to have his opinions, but Sportsnet is free to fire him, but I disagree. If a network gives you an opinion segment, you voice your opinion, and then you get fired, that is censorship of an opinion. This wasn't a comment made by Jim Hughson during the play by play. This was an opinion (a controversial one) on a segment designed to be about controversial opinions.

It's a very scary road we are headed down, where people are fired for voicing opinions, or for allegations of misconduct without ever being proven guilty. The mob rules now, and it finds someone outside the pack and goes for blood. As soon as they bleed, the mob is on to the next outlier.
- matty12345

Censorship of opinion exists everywhere... We self censor all the time, and if we didn't keep at least some of our thoughts to ourselves, the world would be much worse off. If Don wants to make statements like this around family or friends, there's no stopping him.

I would also wager that Rogers/Sportsnet have a code of conduct or ethics which applies to all employees, regardless of what their job is. If in breach of those policies, they have a duty to hold him just as accountable as Ron MacLean, the producer behind the desk or the janitor down the hall.

If Don had a problem with (all) people not wearing poppies, then make a blanket statement. Once you attack a portion of the population (especially in an illegitimate, fact devoid way like he did), you cross boundaries. He's crossed a number of boundaries over the years and someone finally held him accountable for it.

The perpetually offended SJWs claim another scalp.

Don, please remember this; "A sane person in an insane society must appear insane."

You are making the facts fit your argument. He didn't say "you people." and stop. He said, "You people come here and love our way of life, love our milk and honey..." That is totally different. And anyone who says it was not intended to call out a small group which is completely made up of immigrants is willfully ignorant.
It is a racist comment. Then he decided to stand behind his racist comment instead of making amends.
And, he hasn't worked for Rogers for 35 years. He has worked on HNIC for 35 years. Rogers bought the rights what, 3 years ago. Now, he wasn't even working for a publicly funded broadcaster. They are a private company and free to dismiss employees as they see fit.
- Tonybere

The milk and honey comments were in reference to the small farming towns which he stated supported the troops by purchasing poppies vs the cities that did not. I think his intent was good in that everyone who lives in Canada whether you're from here or not should buy a Poppy more than a chance for him to go on a racist rant. He slipped up in how he presented it and that was enough for the mob to jump on him.

Nice comparison. Bring Don & C.C. to Buffalo.