This has been a very tense, very divisive, very telling week in Canada, to put it mildly.
I thought the country was divided when it came to the federal election, but that was nothing in comparison to the online conflict spurned by Don Cherry’s termination from Sportsnet.
What Don Cherry says doesn’t affect me, and my view on his rant doesn’t matter. I’m far more concerned about the tone and content of society’s reaction and response to issues like this. It says a lot more about us than I’d like.
Here are a few things I’ve learned because of Don Cherry.
First, there are many people in Canada who don’t understand that we are not governed by the U.S. Constitution. The most common phrase I’ve heard in the past week is some version of, “Haven’t they ever heard of a little thing called the First Amendment? Freedom of Speech?”
Everyone has, of course, but few people (at least the ones I’ve seen posting on-line) seem to have an awareness that the United States Constitution doesn’t apply to us. That Canada has our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which includes, in Section 2, protection of the fundamental freedom of expression. That a solid knowledge and understanding of your rights as a citizen in Canada should come more from actual knowledge and understanding and less from the ability to regurgitate phrases from repeats of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.
And that probably sounds rude, but it doesn’t make it any less true. If someone doesn’t know the most fundamental aspects of society’s governance, it’s very difficult to really value or give much consideration to their opinion on complicated rights issues. It’s been hard to watch.
The second and most important thing I’ve learned is that many people don’t understand exactly what freedom of expression protects – or, perhaps more specifically, what it doesn’t protect.
In Canada, freedom of expression protects you from most government restrictions on the content of speech and ability to speak – so you can’t be arrested for standing on the lawn of Parliament Hill and telling people you’re against the Liberal party, just because the government doesn’t like what you’re saying.
Freedom of expression – and Freedom of Speech, for that matter – does not mean that anyone can say whatever they want, whenever they want, without recourse. And I think that’s the most misunderstood aspect of the Don Cherry debacle.
Cherry was not arrested and persecuted for his views. He wasn’t banished from Canadian soil and he wasn’t flogged in the street. He wasn’t even banned from television. He was merely terminated by his employer for conduct that they decided was inappropriate, as is their right to do. So while he may be an icon and a legend to a great number of Canadians, what we’re talking about here is a human resources situation between an employer and an employee at a private company. Although the masses seem to be unhappy with Sportsnet’s code of conduct, it’s a company decision. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses.
I get that people are upset, I do. And that I can’t really understand their frustration because I’m not an ardent fan. Don Cherry has had the same personality for years and has never been punished for it before, they’ll say. And they’re right.
So should we be able to dictate to Sportsnet how they discipline their staff? The situation seems to indicate we can, as it was public backlash that reportedly motivated the termination. I guess if people are that upset that Cherry got a raw deal, they have a right to let Sportsnet know, with their statements (like complaints) and actions (like boycotting the station), that they’re not happy with the decision. And then, based on that reaction, the company will decide if any corrective action has to be taken.
This is the same as people offended by Don’s words who let Sportsnet know, with their statements (like complaints) and actions (like boycotting the station), that they weren’t happy. And then, based on that reaction, the company decided that corrective action had to be taken.
My point is, freedom of expression isn’t absolute, and it’s important that Canadians have a better understanding about which actions are rights, and which are unprotected behavioural decisions for which individuals have to be accountable.