Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
As we both know...there are none.
My entire point is why there are such double standards in this stuff. 99% of the population who heard the Peters story fully expected him to be out of a job at the end of it...for a variety of reasons it was the right thing to do and only logical conclusion.
Why should we not expect that from the party leading the country too? Why are they very much allowed to get away with condoning racist pasts by their collective inaction? Why are private companies held to a higher standard than our elected representatives who set policy for all this kind of stuff?
In short...why is some past racism forgiven and other is not?
Its part of the discussion moving forward that has to be addressed IMO, if there is to be any real headway made in the whole topic.
Just my thoughts on it is all.
|
As has been said repeatedly, it's a matter of context and each incident needs to be addressed individually. That isn't to say that each incident should exist entirely in a bubble as it all ripples outwards, but we do still need to consider a narrow scope specific to the situation if we really want to answer your bolded question.
For instance, the difference between Trudeau's blackface and Peters' comments are intent. I view Trudeau's actions as ignorant, indirect, and offensive. I view Peters' comments as hateful, direct, and offensive.
Trudeau has a documented track record of ownership, apology, and reconciliation through policy, legislation, and commentary. I'm not going to speak definitively on the Peters situation in Rockford, but I tend to lend more credence to a player's story that has been corroborated by 2 independent sources in the room at the time that Peters was unrepentant. The stories of abuse carrying over to further employment in Carolina doesn't help to change my mind, nor does the contrived generalized apology to Treliving and the Flames either.
Both are admonishable, and both are forgivable. While I can do the former in my own capacity, I only have limited control over the latter and only when it comes to Trudeau (because I can vote on his position). Plus it's not really my place to accept either apology. It's entirely the Flames organization's prerogative with respect to Bill Peters.
I hope that lends you a little insight into why I don't believe this is a double standard situation and why I can understand that the Liberals decided to keep Trudeau and the Flames decided to remove Peters.