Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[Reggie Dunlop]

"It is what it is" is not what it is.

[Yeah_Baby]

It's really no wonder active queer players in the league stay in the closet publicly.

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

"It is what it is" is not what it is.

Yeah....that stuck out to me too.

[Locke]

Oh NHL....

[ben voyonsdonc]

There are two ways that players will take a stand:
1) Extreme bravery to put themselves out there alone
2) With solidarity with a group of other players who act together.

I don't hold it against players who aren't quite ready to be the lone one who does it on their team. It's not easy to take a stand in public alone and to face scrutiny and risk being seen as a distraction. The Colin Kaepernick story is a scary one.

[OILFAN #81]

Originally Posted by Engine09

Worthwhile of a bump, everyone needs to be reminded that Eric Staal and James Riemer are pieces of garbage.

It must be a Staal family thing because Marc Staal as well.

[Mazrim]

Maybe the NHL can reverse this decision and instead ban "it is what it is" from player interviews.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

It must be a Staal family thing because Marc Staal as well.

They're both from religious (dutch extraction) family backgrounds.

The dutch folks I went to school with where quite conservative too, and I was even at Christian school.

[Reggie Dunlop]

One of the ramifications of this decision will be the CSEC will be dis-invited from any official Calgary Pride events, and likely other NHL cities will follow.

So, no Wranglers, Stampeders, Hitmen or Roughnecks either.

They're really picky about these things.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

I've already decided I am not watching the NHL this season. The NHL made it very clear, hockey isn't for everyone.

Watch the Flames. We're victims in this crazy league. Good leaders and Zadorov!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

One of the ramifications of this decision will be the CSEC will be dis-invited from any official Calgary Pride events, and likely other NHL cities will follow.

So, no Wranglers, Stampeders, Hitmen or Roughnecks either.

They're really picky about these things.

I don’t see that as likely. CSEC will likely still hold Pride night and do everything else outside of having the players wear the jerseys during warmup.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t see that as likely. CSEC will likely still hold Pride night and do everything else outside of having the players wear the jerseys during warmup.

That's their own gig... it won't have any involvement from Pride Calgary.

They won't be in the annual parade/festival. Any sponsorship will be dropped too.

[Yeah_Baby]

I really depends on how/if the team responds. If they team still keeps whatever grass roots work they're doing with Pride Calgary I can seem their applications to the parade etc going ahead still. I mean they let the ANDP in and they'll gladly step over queer people to get votes so.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I really depends on how/if the team responds. If they team still keeps whatever grass roots work they're doing with Pride Calgary I can seem their applications to the parade etc going ahead still. I mean they let the ANDP in and they'll gladly step over queer people to get votes so.

They have banned them before.

Put it this way, if TD Bank were to stop their employees from wearing t-shirts for, say National Coming Out Day, would they be kept on as a sponsor?

CSEC is a corporate partner. The NDP is not.

[dustygoon]

What happens if you break this dumb rule and have tape on your stick anyway?

A letter? A warning? A fine? I would love to see a player get fined, start a gofundme to "pay the fine" and proceeds go to charity.

Just make the league look ridiculous.

If someone on here knows a player willing to bend the rules a bit, we could easily make this go viral and raise a whack of money for a good cause.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

https://twitter.com/user/status/1711803291099926913

https://twitter.com/user/status/1711805133611565409

Dang, Ras is one of my favourite players but that's a bunk response.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

Dang, Ras is one of my favourite players but that's a bunk response.

Since he’s openly a supporter, I took it more as a filler sentence with cameras in his face. I’m not sure it’s worth dwelling on or digger for deeper meaning.

Are we going to now dislike players who openly support LGBTQ+ but also aren’t big on rocking the boat with the league? Had he never said this out loud, but also never complained to the league himself… do we still like him? ####s getting weird.

[FanIn80]

This one's a tough one for me. At a personal level, I feel strongly that people should be allowed to love who they love without prejudice or persecution... actually, not even just that, it should be with acceptance and equality, not merely just a lack of punishment.

But in terms of asking your employees to publicly support a cause they may not personally believe in? Like, we don't really have a society that reacts well to people who don't do whatever it wants. People just want to go to work and earn a living. Do they really need to be forced into situations where their only choice is to either sacrifice their own personal beliefs or face societal wrath? Now, keep in mind there's an ocean of difference between someone who simply doesn't want to wear a jersey, and is otherwise respectful and tolerant, vs someone who actively hates whatever the jersey stands for and demeans, belittles, etc. Those people should be rooted out and dealt with accordingly... not becuase they don't believe, but because of their comfort level in being evil little pricks with zero sense of consequence.

I think if the goal is inclusion, then including people who are respectfully "just not there yet" should also be on the table. Let's not forget that a lot of people were raised by and in situations that were not very openminded. There's that "lead a horse to water" saying, but I think with some folks it goes beyond that. Like, sometimes you just have to be ok with letting the horse know where the river is and letting them figure out for themselves when and how to get there before you even worry about whether or not they drink anything. Instead, society seems to want to drag the horse and throw it in the water and openly mock and throw rocks at any horse that resists.

Anyway. I guess my ultimate point is that if people weren't ostracized for not wanting to wear a jersey, then we'd still have Pride jerseys... but because we can't seem to figure out how to not throw rocks at people who don't do what we want them to, well... to quote the great Rasmus Andersson, it is what it is.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This one's a tough one for me. At a personal level, I feel strongly that people should be allowed to love who they love without prejudice or persecution... actually, not even just that, it should be with acceptance and equality, not merely just a lack of punishment.

But in terms of forcing your employees to publicly support a cause they may not personally believe in? Like, we don't really have a society that reacts well to people who don't do whatever it wants. People just want to go to work and earn a living. Do they really need to be forced into situations where their only choice is to either sacrifice their own personal beliefs or face societal wrath? Now, keep in mind there's an ocean of difference between someone who simply doesn't want to wear a jersey and is otherwise respectful and tolerant vs someone who actively hates whatever the jersey stands for and demeans, belittles, etc. Those people should be rooted out and dealt with accordingly, not becuase they don't believe, but because of their comfort level in being evil little pricks with zero sense of consequence.

I think if the goal is inclusion, then including people who are respectfully "just not there yet" should also be on the table. Let's not forget that a lot of people were raised by and in situations that were not very openminded. There's that "lead a horse to water" saying, but I think with some folks it goes beyond that. Like, sometimes you just have to be ok with letting the horse know where the river is and letting them figure out for themselves when and how to get there before you even worry about whether or not they drink anything. Instead, society seems to want to drag the horse and throw it in the water and openly mock and throw rocks at any horse that resists.

Anyway. I guess my ultimate point is that if people weren't ostracized for not wanting to wear a jersey, then we'd still have Pride jerseys... but because we can't seem to figure out how to not throw rocks at people who don't do what we want them to, well... to quote the great Rasmus Andersson, it is what it is.

Who’s suggesting players be forced to do anything?

[Kidder]

I do not use pride tape. I have a roll somewhere given to me as a gift and I’ve never broken the seal.

But let me explain why, as the reasons underline the importance of such an initiative.

I grew up in the era of shame, when lockerrooms mandated a closet where I changed amongst my peers, hidden but privy to anti-gay sentiment and rhetoric.

The hardfast rule was don’t react. Any flinch or any reaction, could give away my secret and, as I believed at the time, ruin and end my life.

Some in my position join in the harmful banter. Hard to be accused when you are the accuser. I’m thankful I never partook in bullying to conceal my identity. But sitting in silence absorbing the lockerroom talk, it left a lasting effect on my self esteem and self confidence that exists today — like a scar on the soul.

I left organized hockey. But I love the sport so much. I’d play street hockey with my buddies every day after school. I’d watch every Flames game I could, or listen to Peter Mahr as I went to sleep on nights I couldn’t. The sport resonates with me like almost nothing else in life. I actually never feel more like myself than when I’m out on a hockey rink.

I’m happy to say I eventually returned to hockey. Not only as a player, but as an instructor and a coach. Where I could share my passion and knowledge of the game I immersed myself in as a child and adolescent. It also gave me opportunity to ensure I could cultivate an environment welcoming to everyone. Race, gender, orientation, ability. Doesn’t matter. All are valued.

In essence the work I do is to protect future generations from the pain I had to endure. But despite my efforts, I can’t seem to fully undo the effect it had on me.

This past weekend I was involved in a charity hockey event, and got into conversation with a mom I greatly admire, and I know the respect is mutual. We’ve volunteered in the same circles for a while and she praises the work I’ve done with her kid in his development. So I’m in the midst of a story about a previous event where I had helped deliver the leftover uneaten food items to my former boyfriend’s work… and I tripped over the word. To where I bumbled my way to eventually settling on “friend.” Censoring myself and filling my body with anxiety and trepidation.

I’m not proud of that moment. It’s basically why my pride tape remains unrolled. It summons up the anxiety and fear of the vitriol that consumed me in my formative years. It’s painful and embarrassing to even admit. I’m essentially the person Ebola thinks we all should be. Letting the shame we grew up with because of our “choice” keep us in the shadows.

And that’s why I have great respect for all those that do dawn the pride tape. The allies especially. It’s just a subtle, silent reminder that times have changed, and there is support and inclusion out there. It does make an important difference in those lives connected to hockey.

Lastly I’d like to thank this Calgarypuck community, as some have already done. To watch the debate unfold on here over the decades, there have always been allies and advocates who have stood up and defended the lgbtq+ community. Not just those who were allies from the start, but to those who entered debates and discussions with open minds and reformed their opinions as they encountered new perspectives and differing viewpoints.

I’ve learned it’s imperative to focus on the support and not the detractors as we battle through life, and CP has developed into a wonderful welcoming community, evidenced by this thread.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This one's a tough one for me. At a personal level, I feel strongly that people should be allowed to love who they love without prejudice or persecution... actually, not even just that, it should be with acceptance and equality, not merely just a lack of punishment.

But in terms of forcing your employees to publicly support a cause they may not personally believe in? Like, we don't really have a society that reacts well to people who don't do whatever it wants. People just want to go to work and earn a living. Do they really need to be forced into situations where their only choice is to either sacrifice their own personal beliefs or face societal wrath? Now, keep in mind there's an ocean of difference between someone who simply doesn't want to wear a jersey and is otherwise respectful and tolerant vs someone who actively hates whatever the jersey stands for and demeans, belittles, etc. Those people should be rooted out and dealt with accordingly, not becuase they don't believe, but because of their comfort level in being evil little pricks with zero sense of consequence.

I think if the goal is inclusion, then including people who are respectfully "just not there yet" should also be on the table. Let's not forget that a lot of people were raised by and in situations that were not very openminded. There's that "lead a horse to water" saying, but I think with some folks it goes beyond that. Like, sometimes you just have to be ok with letting the horse know where the river is and letting them figure out for themselves when and how to get there before you even worry about whether or not they drink anything. Instead, society seems to want to drag the horse and throw it in the water and openly mock and throw rocks at any horse that resists.

Anyway. I guess my ultimate point is that if people weren't ostracized for not wanting to wear a jersey, then we'd still have Pride jerseys... but because we can't seem to figure out how to not throw rocks at people who don't do what we want them to, well... to quote the great Rasmus Andersson, it is what it is.

Okay, right, meeting people where they're at, I get that, to a certain degree .

The thing is, the pride tape thing isn't that. It's saying players don't have a choice. And isn't your argument that the pride jersey hold outs should have had their choice?

Also if someone wants to deny the right for someone to exist, I think throwing rocks at them is okay. How do you sit at the table when part of the table denies the right of Queer and Trans people to exist and call us 'groomers'.