QMJHL Player 'fired for not signing flag for troops'

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Allright, what if he was in the paper, saying things like the Jews are responsible for every war, and that black people should all be deported?
Those have nothing to do with hockey, whould the owner be justified for kicking him off the team then?

The fact of the matter is that the owner sees this kid not signing the flag as reflecting badly on the team. If you tarish the team immage you should be sent packing.

Tarnish the team image? How so? This would be a non-issue if the team hadn't brought it up in the first place. Nobody would have ever heard of it. I've never even heard of this team before, let alone the player. I'm pretty sure the soldiers in Afghanistan are a little too busy to happen to notice if ol' Bouchard, who they have never heard of, didn't sign the damn flag.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Maybe its just me, bu it feels like your grasping at straws here. What if this, what if that? THe fact of the matter is, none of your "what if" scenarios happened. He's not preaching hatred, he simply didn't want to sign a flag. He's well within his right to not do so.

And my point is that he is not living up to his obligation to the team. In this case it would be to sign the flag and keep his mouth shut. Doing otherwise makes the team look bad as a whole and should be suficient for the owner to send him packing.

Whether his comments are about his coach, Jews, soldiers, or not making comments at all, and simply refusing to sign something is irrelevant, and my examples were merely to show you that you can in fact can someone for thier opinion regardless of whether it is based on hockey or not.

He certainly is well within his rights to not sign the flag, and the owner is certainly within his rights to say that isn't the kind of kid I want on my team.

[the_hound]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And my point is that he is not living up to his obligation to the team. In this case it would be to sign the flag and keep his mouth shut. Doing otherwise makes the team look bad as a whole and should be suficient for the owner to send him packing.

Whether his comments are about his coach, Jews, soldiers, or not making comments at all, and simply refusing to sign something is irrelevant, and my examples were merely to show you that you can in fact can someone for thier opinion regardless of whether it is based on hockey or not.

He certainly is well within his rights to not sign the flag, and the owner is certainly within his rights to say that isn't the kind of kid I want on my team.

Only if it infringes on the rights of others, which he did not do.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And my point is that he is not living up to his obligation to the team. In this case it would be to sign the flag and keep his mouth shut. Doing otherwise makes the team look bad as a whole and should be suficient for the owner to send him packing.

Whether his comments are about his coach, Jews, soldiers, or not making comments at all, and simply refusing to sign something is irrelevant, and my examples were merely to show you that you can in fact can someone for thier opinion regardless of whether it is based on hockey or not.

He certainly is well within his rights to not sign the flag, and the owner is certainly within his rights to say that isn't the kind of kid I want on my team.

This is where I totally disagree with you. A player has to adhere to a specific set of political ideologies in order to play on a team??? No way! What's next? If the coach were Catholic would he not allow Jews or Muslims to play on his team?

Having a certain political outlook should not be a prerequisite to play on a team, nor should maintaing those political views be an obligation of any player.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by the_hound

Exactly, and what has been the growing concensus among other countries of the world since then on their foriegn policy ? NOT GOOD. Ever since WW2 they seem to think they are "World Police" of somesort and are constantly angering other countries by interfering, especially when they go against the United Nations policy. (IE: Iraq)

So you expected the US to do 'nothing' about 9/11?

Nothing about Iraq invading Kuwait? Nothing about North Korea invading South Korea?

Isolation doesn't work...WW2 proved that.

[Looger]

like it or not, being on a team means giving up your individualism here and there.

i feel the coach's position is extreme but as was said above by Azure i believe, this was probably not all there was, it's the straw that broke the camel's back.

teams have a comunity responsibility and at the higher levels that means the athletes make appearances, sign autographs, etc.

at lower levels it takes on less loud, less obvious responsibilities.

what those responsibilities exactly are is somewhat at the discretion of the coaches, like it or not.

[the_hound]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

This is where I totally disagree with you. A player has to adhere to a specific set of political ideologies in order to play on a team??? No way! What's next? If the coach were Catholic would he not allow Jews or Muslims to play on his team?

Having a certain political outlook should not be a prerequisite to play on a team, nor should maintaing those political views be an obligation of any player.

By in which if this is the "real" reason he was released by the club that he should deffinately be able to form a lawsuit.

[the_hound]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you expected the US to do 'nothing' about 9/11?

Nothing about Iraq invading Kuwait? Nothing about North Korea invading South Korea?

Isolation doesn't work...WW2 proved that.

And neither does trying to get involved in other countries affairs ...... Vietnam proved that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by the_hound

And neither does trying to get involved in other countries affairs ...... Vietnam proved that.

So you think the US should go back into isolation?

I'm still trying to figure out what YOU think the US should have done after 9/11. Isolate themselves even more?

[the_hound]

I'm definately not saying that they should go back to a policy of isolationism, just since WW2 they seem to have gotten very pushy regarding global issues even when they dont affect them.

What I would like is for the USA to involve themselves more with the UN rather than sit and use the veto when they dont agree, or them saying "we're gonna do what we want no matter what you say" when the UN opposes them.

I do agree that they responded well with the 9/11 situation INITIALLY....
But shortly after started using it as an excuse for alot of questionable actions.

[Azure]

And when the US does something with the UN...China or Russia will veto it. Just like the US veto's something they don't agree on.

Or France will veto it. The UN is useless as long as the world powers have veto power.

[the_hound]

Originally Posted by Azure

And when the US does something with the UN...China or Russia will veto it. Just like the US veto's something they don't agree on.

Or France will veto it. The UN is useless as long as the world powers have veto power.

YESSS !!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by the_hound

What if the coach wanted him to go on TV and say those things and he refused? Kick him off the team?
It swings both ways.

And who decides what reflects badly on the team and who would know he didnt sign it if it were'nt for them making a big stink?

What tarnishes the teams image more than this story making headlines is making it into a big deal, if you ask me thats worse.

The owner of the team decides what image he wants portrayed. And if he wants his team to go on Jew hating rants, or they are off the team then if they want to stay on the team they better start talking like Mel Gibson. Hopefully they'd all refuse, as it is also their responsibility to decide if the team image is one they want to portray.

Sometimes to work for a company or play for a team we have to do things that we don't necessarily agree with. Some people can justify this and some can't (you probably don't see too many pacifists working in nuclear bomb factories).

People have to decide if it is more important to tow the company line and keep their jobs, or to start looking for a new employer. Is this unreasonable? I'd say no.

[Resolute 14]

FWIW, the kid is saying that he thought someone else signed on his behalf. He hasnt said (to my knowledge) that he does not support the war in Afghanistan, etc.

[the_hound]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The owner of the team decides what image he wants portrayed. And if he wants his team to go on Jew hating rants, or they are off the team then if they want to stay on the team they better start talking like Mel Gibson. Hopefully they'd all refuse, as it is also their responsibility to decide if the team image is one they want to portray.

Sometimes to work for a company or play for a team we have to do things that we don't necessarily agree with. Some people can justify this and some can't (you probably don't see too many pacifists working in nuclear bomb factories).

People have to decide if it is more important to tow the company line and keep their jobs, or to start looking for a new employer. Is this unreasonable? I'd say no.

That goes against the CR&F


Section 1
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Charter of Rights protects those basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians that are considered essential to preserving Canada as a free and democratic country. It applies to all governments – federal, provincial and territorial – and includes protection of the following:

• fundamental freedoms, democratic rights
• the right to live and seek employment anywhere in Canada
• legal rights: the right to life, liberty and personal security
• equality rights for all
• the official languages of Canada
• minority language education rights
• Canada's multicultural heritage, and
• Aboriginal peoples' rights.

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.
Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

• the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
• the government's response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/pr...uarantee_e.cfm

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by the_hound

That goes against the CR&F


Section 1
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Charter of Rights protects those basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians that are considered essential to preserving Canada as a free and democratic country. It applies to all governments – federal, provincial and territorial – and includes protection of the following:

• fundamental freedoms, democratic rights
• the right to live and seek employment anywhere in Canada
• legal rights: the right to life, liberty and personal security
• equality rights for all
• the official languages of Canada
• minority language education rights
• Canada's multicultural heritage, and
• Aboriginal peoples' rights.

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.
Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

• the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
• the government's response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/pr...uarantee_e.cfm

That'd be great if playing amateur hockey was employment, but it isn't so your point is pretty irreleavant. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find playing hockey anywhere in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But either way.

All it says is that people have the right to live and SEEK employment any where in Canada. It doesn't say that someone cannot fire an employee who the person feels is degrading the public image of the company. Supporting troops or not, is not something that is protected such as religion.

If i say something that will alientate customers at my job, I can and should get fired. If this kid does something to alienate fans from his team he should be kicked off the team.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

If i say something that will alientate customers at my job, I can and should get fired. If this kid does something to alienate fans from his team he should be kicked off the team.

The fans wouldn't have even known about this if the team didn't announce it to the world.

There is a lot more to this story than we are hearing. This moron coach obviously wanted to dump the kid and give him some tar and feathers for the ride home.

It's a nice way to treat kids. First you cut them, then you badmouth them in the media. If I had a son on his way to the Q, I'd do my best to get him on that Saint John squad. It sounds like a really classy organization.

[the_hound]

Websters dictionary of law states:
Main Entry: em·ploy·ment
Function: noun
1 : an activity or service performed for another esp. for compensation or as an occupation
2 : the act of employing : the state of being employed


Regardless of how much, the players DO get paid, thus making them employees.

And yes it does say "SEEK" employment, but I did produce the link so you can see the rest of the charter for yourself (probably get in trouble for pasting it as a whole )