Is the expectation that, for one to be ethical, one cannot support ANY endeavour that is, in some way, linked to a businessman or business-group that may commit unethical acts? If this is the implication, then I fear that you will have to disassociate yourself from several more affiliations/interests that you currently possess...
In large part, only those who have made their fortunes in business can afford to throw money towards entertainment-based industries, like sports. It would be foolish to think that 100% of these owners/financiers have been completely scrupulous in their non-sports related businesses.
Having said this, is it not possible both to support certain aspects of an individual's work, and not others? Certainly, the Mount Polley situation is abhorrent. However, could not this situation and the fact that Edwards also has a share in the Flames be considered two separate entities?
I think many of us have struggled with dilemmas like these. My point here is that it is possible to condemn a person's involvement with one event while supporting the same person's involvement with another.
With respect to the greater environmental discussion, if this issue is as important to you as it seems to be, then you are doing well to continue to discuss, debate and share your opinions. If Edwards turns out to be especially negligent in this situation, then it is possible to call him out on it while still supporting the Flames' players. I think most of us on here would do so if anyone affiliated with the team committed a wrong away from the team.
|