Hockey = anti-human rights

as much as i disagree with him, on principle the idea of firing someone from a job for being politically active seems wrong.  Also, he's the singer so perhaps a more appropriate thread title would be "Opera=anti human rights..."

milo and Sven, as hilarious as you both are finding the word-play in quizzical's thread, the issue of access to abortion for women is damn serious. Just because you both don't find it so, in the FEMINISM forum, doesn't mean it isn't.

This man is using his anthem-singing notariety and his celebrity to promote an anti-woman politics. While he may have the right to do so, we have the right to challenge him, in the FEMINISM forum, without men like you two coming in and making fun of our arguments and shitting on us.

Right?

Generally when you have a public association to an employer the law allows you to take some normal political views but not those of a scandalous nature. Some employment is even more directly an association of the personal with the employer and in that case if you damage the image you are selling as associated it is tantamount to a frustrated contract in value and damaging to boot.I think that for most workers there is little to no limit on what you can do but when what you are selling is your brand being associated with another brand that is something else. People have a choice as to whether they decide on a career that makes themselves a brand but if they do so and then sell that brand then I think it is difficult to back out of that. I think that part of being a celebrity (and it has a number of benefits) is the acceptance and responsibility of the personal association you are selling which is a major part of your commodity. Put another way, if it were not the fact that he is a celebrity we would not be talking about him at all and the media would not have reported on the story. It is unfair to suggest that his message has nothing to do with the Canucks when only because of his association with them are we even hearing about this.

Not all workers brand themselves and sell that brand. Few do. Those who do get paid well for their celebrity status and then face limits on what they do with that. For example, someone who shills on TV for Coke may have a contract that prevents them from shilling for Pepsi. And for anything else. Those who do not turn themselves into a brand and market that brand have no restriction but also tend to get less attention.

With respect to the actual content of his political stance I have an even harder view. I think this goes beyond a political position. To my mind he is inciting hate against women in general, those who champion the right to choose or exercise it and those who provide the services. People have been harmed and some killed connected to this hatred that he is inciting. I think that the message he is bringing is intended to offend, does offend and is scandalous by nature. Further it is one that harms people directly. In that case I could not see how his employer could have any obligation not to fire him. He has no right to impose that association on his employer unless they had previous knowledge of his intention prior to them contracting with him. In other words this recent demonstration of his was not part of the bargain of what he sold the Canucks.

The Canucks, however, may have a responsibility requiring a firing as well. They too are a brand that has been marketed. Other brands that advertise at their games are also implicated. I would happily support a boycott of those brands if the Canucks did not fire him. I would support someone demanding a refund on any Canucks-brand merchandise if they do not fire him. They not only damage and harm their own brand by not firing him (if they decided not to) but the brand of every company-- or even personal reputation of every individual that associates with them. For this reason you can see that they have a legal obligation to fire him.

I can add some agreement that the thread title is not actually fair-- as this just happened and hockey in general or the Canucks in particular have not had a choice or opportunity to respond. The thread title would only be fair if the Canucks did not fire this guy. Otherwise you could say that singing is anti-human rights. Fairly, Mark Donnely is anti human rights and for now that is far as that thread title should have gone. A little latitude for anger could be given but I don't think that a defence of the thread title is all that fair personally- assuming I have a right to comment on a thread title in this forum which I am not clear that I do. Nonetheless, I have taken the risk of making the comment hoping not to offend by doing so.

I do think it is fair to say the ball is in the court of the Canucks and the NHL as to whether they want to respond appropriately or make the thread title true. I don't think they have long to respond either.

Thanks Maysie and Unionist. This is a no-brainer. If Dickwad Donnelly were famous for being an opera singer and used that celebrity for promoting anti-choice views--and if opera had a long history of anti-feminist, anti-queer and racist tropes--it would indeed be fair to say that opera = anti-human rights. But that's not the case. It is with hockey.

Catchfire wrote:

Thanks Maysie and Unionist. This is a no-brainer. If Dickwad Donnelly were famous for being an opera singer and used that celebrity for promoting anti-choice views--and if opera had a long history of anti-feminist, anti-queer and racist tropes--it would indeed be fair to say that opera = anti-human rights. But that's not the case. It is with hockey.

'Dickwad'? Isn't that a rather sexist slur analgous to 'bitchwad'? Because I thought such things were of great importance here, best not use them, especially mods.

FYI, Mark Donnelly sang for Harper's election rally in Burnaby during the 2011 campaign. I was part of a group of protesters outside, and when Donnelly walked in I told him he should be ashamed of himself. His response: "We all want the Canucks to win." 

quizzical wrote:

mark donnelly Canucks anthem singer is using his fame to try and destroy women's human rights. Canucks have shoddily tried to distance themselves from him but IMV they've got to be held accountable and remove him as their anthem singer.

I agree totally that he is using the fame garnered from singing at hockey games to attack women's  rights. I think protests the next time he is scheduled to sing would be appropriate but then I think that the loudmouthed lout on Coach's Corner should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for his shilling for imperialism. 

Hockey is the problem not opera.

Maybe questionning the players themselves asking them if this is their position is another way to go.

However, can someone post a link to the Canucks stating that his opinion was his own business?  -- I think we should get to read and respond to that. I could not find it and I think a boycott should be based either on a statement like that or a refusal to give a statement or whatever their actual position is.

to be honest after doing some searching on the web, since no links were provided here, i'm more inclined to agree with the idea of getting rid of him now.

not only was he front and centre in the launch of the "anti-abortion caravan" (a reference to the abortion caravan in the 70's) he is absolutely using his association with the canucks to give it legitimacy by actually singing the anthem at anti abortion events.

i guess what i'm worried about is that it's easy to say someone should be fired for their beliefs/actions when i disagree with them, but what happens when it's something i/we all support?  i worry about this because i have a tendency to voice my opinions and get involved in activism, yet i still need to have a job and if my employer decides that my anti capitalist views, etc are "objectionable" or they see me in a pro palestine protest is that grounds for getting fired even if i'm voicing those opinions outside of work?

Hi milo, in case Rebecca's post at #8 wasn't explicit enough, please don't post in this thread again. Thanks.

Gerry:

As per babble policy: "babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum."

So, essentially, "pro life" advocates are not especially welcome. They are, of course, free to carry to term an unplanned pregnancy if they so choose -- that is what being pro choice is all about.

No Babble considers a baby to be a human being that is born already.

I believe in choice and my daughter's mother believes in choice and so they know they were wanted-- that is also a human right

It appears you have come here with your vision of what those things mean. We believe in those concepts but define them differently. I don't get the impression, at least so far, that you are that interested in learning about what we think and why.

But here is a clue: rights are not absolutes they are relative and conflict often. You have to rank them. One person's right to not be harassed may trump another's right to say what they feel like. You seem to view rights as if they are all in separate bubbles.

I'll give you another clue-- I was a book publisher for 14 years. I believe in freedom of expression and suspect that I have invested in it as much as you have-- and I say that without knowing anything more about you other than your rather simplistic linear grasp of the meaning of rights.

Now this is a feminist forum. If you are truly interested in a discussion about these things we should take it somewhere else as this is a place that assumes rather than debates womens' rights. Ok?

I think if you want to you might be able to learn about people with a different outlook than your own but if you are here just to provoke I suspect you will be gone within hours so I think you may only have a little window to establish your intentions.

If you want you can start a thread elsewhere than this section.

I think they should trade Donnelly for a snow cone machine. He's so shitty a player that I can't find his stats anywhere.

Gerryhurt wrote:

So, babble considers the killing of a baby to be a "human right". Got it.

Rates of abortion have been found to be the same or lower in those places that provide easy and legal access. Restricting access to abortion only increases the number of unsafe abortions that either kill women, or maim them, sometimes destroying their reproductive potential. So if the anti-choice people really want to reduce the number of abortions, they should fight against restrictive abortion legislation everywhere.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61786-8/fulltext

From "Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008 (The Lancet 18 Feb 2012 pp. 625-32):"

Quote:

Findings

The global abortion rate was stable between 2003 and 2008, with rates of 29 and 28 abortions per 1000 women aged 15—44 years, respectively, following a period of decline from 35 abortions per 1000 women in 1995. The average annual percent change in the rate was nearly 2·4% between 1995 and 2003 and 0·3% between 2003 and 2008. Worldwide, 49% of abortions were unsafe in 2008, compared to 44% in 1995. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2008. The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05).

Edited to add: I can't seem to make the link work. If you cut and paste the whole text of the line ending in "fulltext" into your browser, you can see the abstract of this article.

Thanks Sineed.

Here's your link.

NHL stars working to rid hockey of homophobia

Considering that this story I linked to above involves more than 30 hockey players speaking out against homophobia, supported by and organized by officials within the NHL, does that prove that actually Hockey = pro-human rights?

My answer would actually be, no, no more than the story in the beginning of the thread proves that Hockey = anti-human rights.

There is a lot of racism, sexism, and homophobia within hockey, as within greater society.  I don't assume that hockey as a whole is promoting anti-choice values because one moron who sings before the games for one of the teams has decided this is his pet political project on the side.  Especially when the hockey team itself has publicly distanced themselves from his political viewpoints. 

yup the same as if he was proclaiming prochoice or equals rights for all

Sineed wrote:

I can't seem to make the link work. If you cut and paste the whole text of the line ending in "fulltext" into your browser, you can see the abstract of this article.

Here's a working link to your abstract:

http://goo.gl/E7ZjW