So let me get this straight. The CRTC approves a Canadian version of Fox News for broadcast in Canada with the proviso that it include Canadian content and gets accused of censorship. The Canadian Olympic Committee selects an athlete who voted in favour of Quebec sovereignty in 1995 to lead the Canadian team at the opening ceremonies and this causes a controversy.
Let me lay this out:
An organization with a mandate to regulate broadcasting and ensure Canadian content tries to actually, you know, regulate broadcasting and ensure Canadian content and there's a hue and cry across the land that they're acting like thought police. This is a bad thing even though there's no proof that the decision was made for reasons that relate only to partisan politics.
But if an organization that's wholly concerned with amateur sport was to keep track of the political opinions of athletes and make decisions on that basis, if the COC actually did act like thought police, this would be a good thing?
Is there a definitive manual out there somewhere that explains all this in language that's easy to understand? 'Cos I'm really lost now.
Does this mean that if we get to a point where Canadian hotels are barring the doors and escorting people off their property based on how those people voted in a referendum nine years ago, this will be a good thing? Or a bad thing? Can somebody help me out here?
(Yes, the slippery slope argument is still a fallacy. But I'm cranky again today. Indulge me.)
Welcome to the world of the wingnut where nothing they say or do makes any sense.
...and people wonder why I drink.
The flagbearer is someone who is representing CANADA at the Olympics. If they do not believe in Canada, then how exactly can they do a good and proper job of this? It's not a question of censoring Gill's views - it's a case of picking an appropriate person for the job.
Has he ever said he doesn't believe in Canada? He just believes in Quebec more. But when he's competed in the past, he's worn the maple leaf as he will this time.
But the real point is this: how was the COC supposed to be guaranteed to know his politics unless they were keeping tabs on the politics of all the athletes? And why should a body concerned with amateur sports be doing that?
Personally I think it's healthy that we can allow for the diversity of opinion and not disqualify the guy from an honour he's otherwise earned because of his politics. See Ronstadt, Linda.
Now what kind of message does it send to the citizens of Quebec if we start disqualifying them from various things because of the way they voted nine years ago? Do we want them to leave?
Do we want them to leave?
I have a hard time, being from South of the Border, understanding why you wouldn't want them to leave. But that's a whole different argument. I have to agree with you, pogge; this is not really something that an athletic organization ought to conern itself with.
They should stick to doping; plenty to worry about there without getting distracted.