Don Cherry — no more insufferable than your loud, least-favourite uncle
Chris Selley
Nov 8, 2011
People don’t like Don Cherry. Fair enough. He says obnoxious things, holds unpopular opinions, can’t string a sentence together, yells a lot. I don’t like him either. But is he a prolific, all-purpose bigot?
When Royal Military College decided to bestow an honorary doctorate on Mr. Cherry at its Nov. 17 convocation — which he has declined, citing the inevitable circus — French instructor Catherine Lord distributed a letter claiming that “on many occasions,” he has “publicly expressed his contempt for many groups of the Canadian population, notably for the French-speaking Canadians, for the LGBT community and for the immigrants.”
These are serious allegations. Yet neither Ms. Lord nor some media outlets mentioned a single example of his crimes. Why bother? In polite Canadian society, Mr. Cherry is like a totem of intolerance, broadcasting disharmony throughout Canada and the world. To hear some commentators, you’d think Canada had never fought a war, or two hockey players each other, before he came along. It’s well worth revisiting his actual record.
First, let’s consider his “many” expressions of “contempt” for the gay community. But this is awkward: I can’t find any. He sometimes mimics his busybody critics using an effeminate voice — does that count?
Mr. Cherry didn’t even have to be convinced about same-sex marriage: He declared it no skin off his back way back in 2004.
He certainly has a long and distinguished history of infuriating francophones. In 1991, he sympathized with a young Eric Lindros, who didn’t want to play in Quebec City. In 1993, he feigned bafflement at the phrase “Coupe Memorial” — which was to be played in bilingualism-averse Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. In 1998, after the Bloc Québécois complained of too many Canadian flags in the Olympic Village in Nagano, and moguls skier Jean-Luc Brassard lamented the distraction of carrying the flag in the Opening Ceremonies, Mr. Cherry called Quebecers “whiners.”
In 2004, he suggested French-Canadian and European hockey players disproportionately wear visors (which was true), and that most high-sticking penalties were committed by players wearing visors. These were separate statements in a long, baffling rant, but once they were cleaned up and stitched together, many believed he’d accused French-Canadians and Europeans of playing dirty hockey and, by extension, of being inferior beings.
This brings us to immigrants. In 1989, Mr. Cherry pointed out that Winnipeg Jets coach Alpo Suhonen shares a first name with a brand of dog food. He once referred to the war in the Balkans as “Lower Slobovia attacking Slimea.” There’s the whole visor thing. And if you totted up the mean things he has said about players over the years, it’s safe to say Europeans would bear a disproportionate, but by no means exclusive, brunt.
To my mind, the worst thing Mr. Cherry has ever said was after two Russian athletes tested positive for drugs at the Salt Lake City Olympics: “I’ve been trying to tell you people for so long about the Russians, what kind of people they are, and you just love them in Canada with your multiculturalism. They’re quitters and evidently they take a lot of drugs, too.” I can think of no defence to offer him in this case, and I’m not here to defend him anyway.
The question at hand, basically, is whether Don Cherry is fit for polite society — fit to broadcast his opinions and have the occasional honour bestowed upon him. A good test might be to scan your friends, relatives and colleagues for similar opinions about Canadian society: Quebecers whine; official bilingualism is stupid; marriage should be between a man and a woman. How many of us would come up empty? In fact, these are perfectly mainstream opinions. You hear them on talk radio every day. Mr. Cherry just happens to have a huge audience and a gig at the CBC, which makes it Everyone’s Business.
People rightly criticize Mr. Cherry for talking politics, instead of hockey. But the same people routinely turn hockey talk into politics: When Mr. Cherry criticizes a European player, he’s anti-immigrant. But he’s not complaining about their accents, religions, food or driving habits. He’s complaining about his perception of the way filthy-rich foreign hockey players play the game, compared with filthy-rich Canadians. If he’s wrong, who cares?
Again, people ought to scan their friends, family and colleagues — and themselves — for Cherry-esque sentiments before they condemn. When Canadian fans lionize the national team’s tough play, what are they saying about the other teams? When Montreal Canadiens fans bemoan the lack of Québécois players on their team, what are they saying about the current roster? Why do the well-dressed, bien-pensant fans at Toronto’s Air Canada Centre cheer terrible Canadian players more lustily than much better European ones?
Call it bigotry if you want, but sports is inherently xenophobic. Our boys heroes, your boys villainous scum. It’s war without death. Over the years, Mr. Cherry has said a few reprehensible things, and yet he’s been hounded for dozens more that were just harmless word farts. Politicians have risen in the House of Commons. The Official Languages Commissioner has investigated. What is the point of this endless vendetta, when he’s on CBC for 10 minutes a week? I think he’s actually a rather good reflection of a Canada that exists despite the fondest wishes of people like Ms. Lord. But he’s certainly no more insufferable than your loud, least-favourite uncle — and he comes with a mute button.
National Post
Email: cselley@nationalpost.com
:remembrance:
