[Flame On]

Originally Posted by New Era

For the reasons you suggest. It comes off as petty and vindictive. It cheapens his message. It provides an ulterior motive that brings into question the sincerity of the complaint. The decade it took for him to speak up is problematic, and if he is going for a cash grab and using a racial slur as a means to get some money, then that is a game changer, no?



Peters has an actual contract with the Flames, so he has every right to monetize his situation. He is being penalized, rightly or wrongly, by his current employer for something that happened a decade a go when he was with another employer in a different league. His contract is likely written where he is paid for his service and it all based on his performance as a member of the Calgary Flames organization. I highly doubt that his actions as a coach of the Chicago Wolves were taken into consideration when he was contracted for this job. Any morality clause would likely be drafted for behaviors displayed while a member of the organization. This is likely why this is taking the time it is. The Flames know they have to sack Peters, but they are making sure that when they dismiss him they are not leaving themselves open to a wrongful termination suit and penalties from damaging Peters' ability to find employment in the industry again. This is it for Peters and he likely knows it. He's done in hockey and he has to leverage this contract to the max. So there is a significant difference between the two situations.



A lot of people would argue that. Society has expectations as to how all people should act, and even victims of a real crime are held to certain expectations. I'm not questioning Aliu's feelings, I'm just a little iffy on his motives and actions. He has every right to be offended and hurt, but at the same time there has to be a limitation on how long you get to harbor your feelings for being called a name, no matter how derogatory. Timing is everything. Just like the #metoo movement, some have more credibility than others in their claims because of their behaviors after the incident and the amount of time they allowed to tick by on the clock. At a time when behavioral norms are being assaulted by the most powerful, we should still be very cognizant of how we want people to behave and what we consider right and wrong ways of correcting past or current transgressions against those norms or the law.

Sounds like tone policing to me. We don't like how you're coming forward so we don't have to deal with it. We don't like when you're coming forward, or how polite you're being or the platform you're doing it on. All ways in order to sweep the problem away.