DON CHERRY FIRED: Outraged Canadians react to the firing of an icon
Canadians have made it clear that they are outraged over Don Cherry’s firing. After the news broke, Sportsnet released a statement explaining why they had chosen to boot the Canadian icon.
In a statement, quite clearly written by some Bay Street PR firm, the media organization said that “Sports brings people together—it unites us, not divides us. Following further discussion with Don Cherry … it has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down.”
Although Sportsnet desperately attempted to limit the damage, the vast majority of reactions to their post was negative. In the statement’s comment section, thousands of tempestuous hockey fanatics (some of whom would’ve grown up with Cherry), made their feelings known.
Some respondents labelled Don Cherry’s firing as a symptom of cancel culture, while others thought that Cherry’s removal was long overdue.
As well as this, some Twitter users vowed to never watch Sportsnet again. One man even declared that upon hearing the news he called his service provider to cancel his families subscription.
There has been much commentary over how Cherry is preferred by the older generation, rather than the younger. Indeed, many young hockey fans did not comprehend the older generation’s reverence of the pundit. One young Canadian made this point tersely.
All in all, Sportsnet’s decision has already proven to be deeply contentious for Canadians. Although the goal of the petition, cancellations, and public outrage is to get Cherry back into Coach’s Corner, it seems unlikely to occur.
Yet another woke record store has decided to ban British pop icon Morrissey from its shelves. This time, the Glasgow Evening Times reports that Glasgow’s “Monorail Music said it would continue to sell records by the Smiths but ‘like many of our colleagues’ would not be selling the singer’s 13th studio album, ‘I am not a dog on a chain.’”
This follows last year’s indie music store ban on Morrissey’s last album, “California Son.” Cardiff’s Spillers, which calls itself “the oldest record shop in the world,” declined to carry the record in retaliation for Morrissey’s political views. These views include support for Brexit, saying that the word “racist” is meaningless because it’s used so liberally, and that crime in London cannot be properly dealt with if the perpetrators are viewed as victims.
Morrissey responded to the last round of smears and bans by saying, “I straighten up, and my position is one of hope. The march backwards is over, and life has begun again. With voice extended to breaking point, I call for the prosperity of free speech; the eradication of totalitarian control; I call for diversity of opinion; I call for the total abolition of the abattoir; I call for peace, above all; I call for civil society; I call for a so-far unknowable end to brutalities; ‘No’ to Soviet Britain.”
Of course, the bans and smears don’t work. These kinds of actions will not stop Morrissey’s fans from buying the new album. The Guardian has consistently tried to smear Morrissey, and in response, Morrissey wore a t-shirt reading “Fuck The Guardian.” Fans know that Morrissey’s being able to speak his mind means that they are free to speak theirs, to hold opposing views, and to still listen to the new tracks Morrissey releases with consistent quality year after year.
Bookshops and record stores are not required to carry anything that they don’t wish to, obviously, but there is something sinister in the refusal to carry selections by such a popular, long-standing pop star, whose music on last year’s “California Son” was not political, and who lifts other artists through collaboration, simply because he’s not afraid to speak his mind.
Writer Fiona Dodwell responded to the ridiculous ban by tweeting: “How about businesses stock and store products and let customers choose what they want? This achieves nothing, Morrissey will still sell albums – with or without your company “banning” his records. People simply go elsewhere (and learn where NOT to shop next time!)”
How many pop stars have heterodox views but don’t say them out of fear of retaliation? Probably plenty, they just don’t say it, because they don’t want their work to suffer the same fate of being banned by distributors.
Morrissey has made his entire career out of being an iconoclast who “will not change and will not be nice.” So much the better for his fans, who strive to lead lives according to their own value systems, and not those imposed by a hypocritical society hell-bent on squashing free thought and individuality while claiming to uphold those very qualities they persistently deride.
When the new album drops on March 20, it will be interesting to see which other shops signal their virtue by refusing to carry it, and which ones instead cater to consumers and offer it for sale. Not carrying “I am not a dog on a chain” has more to do with the owner’s false sense of righteousness than punishing Morrissey. Time and time again, Morrissey has shown that he can’t be shelved and forgotten. His work is too essential and beautiful for that.
Students can now get paid to snitch on their peers at the University of Sheffield. The students will earn £9.34/hour to be “race equality champions,” and their training for the work will include teaching them how to “lead healthy conversations” on racism, microaggressions, and how to deal with those peers who commit infractions. Hours range from two to nine hours per week, like any part-time work-study job. But Sheffield University’s foray into “snitch culture” sounds alarm bells.
Following a report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that cautioned about the “common occurrence” of racism for some students on campus, the University decided to combat the problem by weaponizing other students. Twenty, lucky kids will get this job, and it’s probable that plenty more would have done it for free, as have their authoritarian forebears.
This new job, such as it is, is rightfully being hailed as completely authoritarian and crazy. Anyone who has studied 20th-century history knows that the worst dictators and totalitarians of that era counted on citizens to report on one another, under threat of punishment if they did not.
Citizens in the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Spain, and other nations with brutal, paranoid leaders impressed upon their citizens how important it was that they rat out their friends, family, and co-workers.
Now that trend has some to the ultimate allied nation, the U.K. The students who take these jobs will undoubtedly think they are doing the right thing in carrying out their duties. But in trying to overcome racism, they are dividing them further.
Part of the job description is for students to call out their peers for microaggressions.
If a fellow student says to another “Stop making everything a race issue,” that’s considered a microaggression and is a reason for reporting under this new plan. If a student says “Why are you searching for things to be offended about?” That’s considered “not okay,” and that peer must be punished. The question “Where are you really from?” is apparently out of bounds, and other geographical infractions like “I don’t want to hear about your holiday to South Africa. It’s nowhere near where I’m from” is a reason to call out a kid for being racist.
Students complained about the microaggression of “Being compared to black celebrities that I look nothing like,” which would be pretty annoying for the kid who got that wrong, but is it a reason to be reported?
The University of Sheffield claims that they are just “opening up a conversation” by paying students “to help their peers understand racism and its impact.” In 2018, the University suffered some racially motivated incidents, with racial slurs found written on a whiteboard, and slurs yelled at games.
Of course, there’s no place for racism on campuses, but the way to root it out is through education and conversation, not monetized McCarthyism. Call-out culture, snitch culture, and the reframing of the conversation around how to control our thoughts does not alleviate racism; it buries it where it can fester.
Fighting racism is a positive project, but it’s not done through dividing us, through pitting peers against each other, but through a culture of egalitarianism and equality. Knowing that we are different is not as important as recognizing all the ways in which we are the same.
Progressives affected by Trump Derangement Syndrome will say that Vince Vaughn’s career died several years ago, which prompts me to wonder why his appearance last night with President Trump is making such a stir. Clearly, Vaughn’s still relevant, and no amount of fraternizing with the Don is going to change that.
The actor, best known for his roles in Wedding Crashers, Swingers, and Dodgeball, is facing a round of outrage after video of him meeting with President Trump emerged last night on social media in a post by former Deadspin writer Timothy Burke.
“I’m very sorry to have to share this video with you. All of it, every part of it,” wrote Burke, seemingly gleeful at the thought of cancelling the actor.
Vaughn’s crime, apparently, was to speak to and shake hands with the President. How dare he? The outrage he now faces is similar to the anger Ellen DeGeneres sparked after she was spotted mingling with former President George W. Bush at a football game last year. Does anyone even remember when that happened? Clearly not, because the outrage brigade moved past her—just as they’ll move past Vaughn—well within a week before moving on to some other target.
When that happened, DeGeneres acknowledged the outrage mob (even though she didn’t need to) and shared what remains perhaps some of the wisest words to come out of this election cycle: “We’re all different. And I think that we’ve forgotten that that’s OK that we’re all different.”
Nevertheless, all eyes are on Vaughn now, and multiple outlets have published articles to cover the outrage—many of which are chiding the actor for audaciously treating the President of the United States of America with dignity instead of yelling in his face as many of these people wish to, if they could get within 50 feet of him.
Never one to fall in line with the rest of the Hollywood flock, Vaughn has been out and open about his divergent political beliefs. From as far back as 2012, Vaughn, among several other celebrities—including Snoop Dogg—openly endorsed libertarian and Republican congressman Ron Paul. Unlike Snoop Dogg, whose politics have in recent years move farther towards the left, Vaughn has remained a staunch and steadfast libertarian, even doing an interview with the Ron Paul Institute late last year. Vaughn is also a good friend of Rand Paul, having introduced him at a libertarian event in 2011.
It’s impossible to say who Vaughn voted for in 2016 given that he still keeps some things about himself private—not that it matters—but it probably wasn’t Hillary.
For all the talk of “cancellation” and unpersoning of Vaughn among cultural and entertainment commentators on mainstream publications, his career in Hollywood hasn’t taken much of a dent as he continues to build film credits as both an actor and a producer with seven new projects in the works.
Unlike DeGeneres, Vaughn is unlikely to respond to the outrage brigade. These people don’t watch his movies anyway, and those who’ve already had him on their personal blacklists decided he was a verboten subject given his continued friendship with Mel Gibson, who’s persona non grata to liberal keyboard warriors on social media.
Naturally, some leftist commentators have been quick to downplay the burgeoning outrage against Vince Vaughn. Posting on Twitter, Vox reporter Aaron Rupar wrote: “Democrats aren’t mad about Vince Vaughn chatting with Trump. Nobody cares. Fox & Friends and Hogan Gidley are making stuff up.”
If that were truly the case, one might wonder why so many media outlets are eager to write about his oh-so-unacceptable interaction with President Trump. Is it all just a bunch of fake news, then? Or does the liberal media just make things up as they go along? After all, they can’t issue stern condemnations of Vince Vaughn well after every conservative commentator predicted it—at least, not without looking like the easily manipulated schmucks that they are.
Don Cherry’s name has been taken off of the Western Hockey League’s “Suits up” fundraising project. On Friday night the Edmonton Oil Kings held an event that has previously been advertised with his name.
For the two previous seasons, the event was called “Suits Up with Don Cherry to Promote Organ Donation.”
CTV News reported that this year they have changed the name to “Suits Up to Promote Organ Donation.” This will be the wording for the game between the Oil Kings and the Prince Albert Raiders on January 17
For the promotion, the players trade their regular jerseys for suit-themed ones that resemble the suits Don Cherry is famous for wearing during Hockey Night in Canada.
Cherry was recently fired from the program for his controversial comments regarding people not wearing poppies.
He said, “You people … that 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. These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada, these guys paid the biggest price.”
Cherry also made an announcement letting people know that he will not be coaching the Canadian Hockey League prospects game. The game is an annual event that Cherry has been involved in since 1996 along with his good friend and hockey legend—Bobby Orr.
The WHL has 17 “Suits up” games being played from January to March. The games help fund the Kidney Foundation of Canada. In the first two years of the events, they have raised close to $500,000 for the charity.