Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

Controversial Discussions.


kinot-1

Recommended Posts

Controversial Discussions.


Now, we all have read the code of conduct here on the forums,,,,,,,,,,,,haven't we :) ? No bashing others,,, no belittling others,,,,,or putting them down for their opinions or beliefs.

I just want to make it clear to everyone that the powers that be will be monitoring this thread :mellow: .


Dual citizenship. I have problem with those who cannot or will not choose a country. "Some" people have said that there are those who would prefer a country that has all of the benefits (read democracy), while having the right to return to their homeland, without difficulty.

However, it does seem odd that when a dual national has difficulties with the authorities in their homeland, they then turn to their "new" country for assistance. It seems to be an all to common occurrence these last few years.


IMO, they should choose one and renounce the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ya know,,,, I read this in the paper today, and it just floored me that Black Lives Matter would do this.

Here's the (partial) article:

"TORONTO — Canada’s largest Pride parade was stopped for about 25 minutes on Sunday when protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement staged a protest on the parade route.

At about 3:15, the BLM protesters, who had a float at the front of the parade, stopped about two thirds of the way along the route at Yonge and College, saying they would not move until Pride agreed to a list of demands. Soon after, Pride Director Mathieu Chantelois met with the protest and signed the document.

A few moments later, the parade continued."

Now,,, the way I see it, is that BLM is about cops shooting blacks. So far so good. But WTH do they have to do with the Pride Parade? Are BLM also LGBT?

IMO, they should not only be protesting cops shooting blacks, but they should also be protesting blacks shooting blacks. It seems everyday there's a shooting in T.O. with a black person shooting another black person. Why doesn't BLM target those people? And to hold the LGBT parade hostage while they negotiate until they get what they want, well, let's just say that the BLM group should not have even been in that parade.

Protest all you want, but don't hijack someone else's parade for you own agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest archey

BLM...

There used to be a more ample representation of race at the blues jams I go to, but now it's mostly white so there's that.

The more is that one would wish to see colored air choices readily available which I allude to only because the voice of brass in the sax is pointing me to notice that I personally could use it to further my agenda of no racism, no bigotry. ( I have to say that generally speaking black and white voices are NOT comparable and the register and expressions are limited to one register on the sax or the other...which is to say real choices when unannunciated except by such like as colored air are too difficult to notice normally, this separating the races along foolishly mundane differences.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to ask them "What would you do if you were attacked,,,or assaulted, or carjacked? Would you call your BLM members, or the police?"

BTW, tonight in Dallas there was a protest with police presence, where 4 officers died from (allegedly) by 2 snipers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest archey

I would love to ask them "What would you do if you were attacked,,,or assaulted, or carjacked? Would you call your BLM members, or the police?"

BTW, tonight in Dallas there was a protest with police presence, where 4 officers died from (allegedly) by 2 snipers

When I lived in Dallas a suspect drowned. He was being rowed across a lake by police. No charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When I lived in Dallas a suspect drowned. He was being rowed across a lake by police. No charges.

I'm sure there is more to this story.

Ya know, I get pretty upset when "some" people have a political agenda, and no-one in authority has the gumption to call it what it is. I refer to the Black Lives Matter group.

I watched CNN tonight, and they played a video clip of BLM walking down the street shouting ""What do we want, Dead Cops, when do we want it, Now".

That clip changed my whole perspective of the BLM group. IMO, they should be classified as a terrorist group for inciting hatred against an identifiable group, and murder, but even Obama sides with them, even inviting them to the White House.

With what happened in Baton Rouge yesterday (ambushing police officers), I sympathize with all of the police forces, no matter what country they reside in.

I know I couldn't get a straight answer from any of the leaders of the BLM group, but I would like to ask them, "Who would you call if you were car high-jacked,,,, assaulted, son or daughter murdered,, or robbed?".

Stay tuned,,,, I'm sure the parade in Vancouver will have more controversy.

I see in the Vancouver paper today, that they are having a Pride Parade there, and have invited the BLM group to be in the parade as the parade marshal. I have absolutely no idea as to why they were invited, as they disrupted the Pride parade in Toronto. The BLM group in Vancouver has stated the they want no police float in the parade, and basically a just a "neutral" float from the police and fire departments.

BTW,,, how about "Cops Lives Matter?".

JM2C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a touchy subject. And it seems as soon as someone puts on the badge, their culture and identity disappear. They are no longer associated as Irish, Aisian, Jamaican, etc... Simply put, they are a cop.

Just because they wear a badge, does not mean they don't have family, friends, loved ones, etc...

Unfortunately, racism is still an issue today. But, when you make it open season on cops, you're not helping anything, simply switching the discrimination.

So basically, they're guilty by association?

I think it's horrible that people complain about being discriminated against and turn it around to discriminate against another group of people.

Nothing is resolve, the hate continues and unfortunately, innocent people get caught in the middle. To those cops who have robbed a family of their brother, father, mother, etc... Shame on them, they should pay for their crimes. And on the flip side, someone with a criminal history, who kills a cop simply because the cop wears a badge, shouldn't be exempt from paying for their crimes either.

Murder is murder, discrimination is discrimination, regardless of your skin colour, race, religious views, sexual orientation, whether you prefer paper over plastic, a crime is still a crime and those committing crimes should pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Ya know,,,the only way to get proficient at something is to practice,,,, practice,,, practice. Most of us know that.

However, whenever I go shopping, I inevitably come across some newer Canadians, talking in their first language, rather than try to speak either French or English. Now,,,, I know that there are English as a Second Language or French as a Second Language classes available to those who wish to integrate into their respective new countries.

Even when they have children, whom I suspect are in school, the parents inevitably speak their first language, instead of at least trying to speak English or French.

IMO, the newcomers are not trying very hard to learn their new language, which in turn makes it difficult for their children to learn it fluently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ya know, I'm all for protests,,,, peacefull protests that is, but what I seen on TV this morning just makes me wonder about these "protests" that can effectively disrupt public hearings. I'm referring to the National Energy Board hearings on the Energy East pipeline held in Montreal today. The officials at these hearings stopped them and walked out due to the chaos that some protesters felt was warranted. I don't blame them one iota. One protester was arrested. A large contingent of Canadian Piping Trades Union Local 144 members showed up in support of the project.

The Energy East pipeline would carry oil from Alberta thru Canada to the east coast.

The "only" way to transport oil is either by transport trucks, rail, or a pipeline. So, do these protesters have an alternative method of transporting the oil? Methinks not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Habs, short for habitants, means a national who is a member of a minority. It springs from the Wilson peace treaty days after WWI.

I also understand that minorities tend to see themselves as groups up and until the point that they are rejected as an individual within that group. However that is not always the case.

I have nothing to add to the discussion if there arises one except to say that proselytizing should be met with Weber-like defense. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick is refusing to stand for the national anthem protesting racial injustice at the hands of rogue police offers. What are the comments on this?

Your's is the 1st. Personally, I feel that doing so during the national anthem is most inappropriate. He and his teammate, who also did the same, were out of line.

Back in the 1968 Mexico City's Olympics there were 2 African-Americans who held a similar protest when they won gold (Tommie Smith), and bronze (John Carlos). At the ceremony, (taken from Wikipedia), this happened:

" The two US athletes received their medals shoeless, but wearing black socks, to represent black poverty.[3] Smith wore a black scarf around his neck to represent black pride, Carlos had his tracksuit top unzipped to show solidarity with all blue collar workers in the US and wore a necklace of beads which he described "were for those individuals that were lynched, or killed and that no-one said a prayer for, that were hung and tarred. It was for those thrown off the side of the boats in the Middle Passage." (Middle Passage means the Atlantic Ocean between Africa and the Americas).

The IOC's response at the time:

"International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Avery Brundage deemed it to be a domestic political statement unfit for the apolitical, international forum the Olympic Games were intended to be. In response to their actions, he ordered Smith and Carlos suspended from the US team and banned from the Olympic Village. When the US Olympic Committee refused, Brundage threatened to ban the entire US track team. This threat led to the expulsion of the two athletes from the Games."

Now,,, back to the NFL game protest. IMO, the NFL and by extension the 49er's and even Obama's reaction. IMO, each and every one of them fell down on the job. If those players were to go on speaking tours, or protest,,, then good on them, but to use sports as a media to further your cause, is just wrong.

There are appropriate times and places to raise issues that are concerning. During the '68 Olympics, there were millions of people watching the national anthem being played for the American gold metal ceremony, so they all saw what happened. In the NFL game only maybe 50,000 people (if that) saw what happened, but the media picked it up and game on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan. All the first amendment discussion misses the mark completely: He's an employee of a private corporation, representing it publicly. People much more worthy and better informed than him can and have been fired for making actually legitimate political statements worth listening to.

If this personification of hyper-privilege thinks the United States—a country in which a middling football player with no other apparent merit is given tens of millions of dollars for playing as little as possible—is so dreadfully unfair, there's plenty of other places to go. Have at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My loving people,

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.

I compare to this quote by Elizabeth remembering we are a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan. All the first amendment discussion misses the mark completely: He's an employee of a private corporation, representing it publicly. People much more worthy and better informed than him can and have been fired for making actually legitimate political statements worth listening to.

I agree that the first amendment discussion misses the mark, but I also think that your second sentence focusing on how it misses the mark also misses the mark a bit :P. Free speech isn't important to this because it just isn't relevant - as you said, the NFL is a private company. But regarding your second point, I don't think I've actually seen much conversation about whether or not he should be fired. Lots about whether it was right or wrong, or whether he picked the wrong venue, but the NFL for its part doesn't even seem all that bothered. Yes they distanced themselves from it by saying that they don't endorse it, but their statement basically said that individual players can do what they want.

I doubt that he's expecting to do his career any favours with this in any case - as you said, it's not exactly like he was a star to begin with - so no matter whether he's considered to be worthy or well-informed you've got to admit that it really seems like he's at least coming at this with pure intentions.

If this personification of hyper-privilege thinks the United States—a country in which a middling football player with no other apparent merit is given tens of millions of dollars for playing as little as possible—is so dreadfully unfair, there's plenty of other places to go. Have at.

The thing is, though, he's only able to do this because he's a hyper-privileged athlete. I get that it's a bit silly to hear this sort of thing coming from someone who makes as much as he does just for playing a game, but pro athlete is one of only three occupations that I can think of (the others being the equally frivolous musician or actor) where what he did gets noticed and maybe raises some eyebrows.

Even if, say, an equally wealthy banker tried a similar protest, do you think anyone outside of the room he did it in would notice? I can't say for sure, but my bet is on no. And what about the non-rich people who are actually most affected by the issues that he's raising, do you think that they'd get heard if they tried something like this? In this case I can say for sure the answer is no... because they've already been trying for years.

So since we've established that Kaepernick's in a pretty unique position as one of the handful of people who might actually get noticed, and if you agree that he seems to be doing this with genuine intentions, the only real question left is whether sitting through the anthem at a sporting event is an appropriate form of protest. Well in my opinion it's an absolutely perfect form of protest. My reasons, in ascending order of importance

4) It's visible. People will take notice of what you're doing without you having to make a big deal promoting it and coming off as attention-seeking (even if it did take people a few games to catch on).

3) It's noteworthy. Sports networks will talk about it. News networks will talk about it. Bloggers and whatever will talk about it. Word of what you're doing is going to reach a lot of people with diverse interests in every socio-economic class, which is exactly what he needs to do if his message is going to have any impact.

2) It's relevant. When people stand for an anthem they're generally doing it to express pride in a country and whatever values that country stands for. In this case Kaepernick's entire message is that those values that America purports to stand for do not in any way match the life experiences of millions of American citizens. It's a pretty direct and on-the-nose protest, and I think it does a pretty good job of getting his point across. Especially since...

1) NOBODY IS GETTING HURT. Nobody is getting hurt physically, nobody's getting hurt emotionally, nobody's getting hurt financially. Hell, nobody is even being inconvenienced in the slightest - unlike the classic favourite, the protest march with signs, this one isn't even making anybody late for work :).

So I guess to sum up, I personally don't see what the big deal is about someone not standing for an anthem. But maybe the anthem does mean something to you, and in that case, ask yourself why. What does the flag represent that makes it important? And then think about whether the flag would represent the same thing to the millions of citizens in the country who don't get a fair shake at life for something that's completely out of their control? And if you're a public figure who doesn't think that everyone gets a fair shake, what could be wrong with voicing that opinion in such a benign way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the first amendment discussion misses the mark, but I also think that your second sentence focusing on how it misses the mark also misses the mark a bit :P. Free speech isn't important to this because it just isn't relevant - as you said, the NFL is a private company. But regarding your second point, I don't think I've actually seen much conversation about whether or not he should be fired. Lots about whether it was right or wrong, or whether he picked the wrong venue, but the NFL for its part doesn't even seem all that bothered. Yes they distanced themselves from it by saying that they don't endorse it, but their statement basically said that individual players can do what they want.

I doubt that he's expecting to do his career any favours with this in any case - as you said, it's not exactly like he was a star to begin with - so no matter whether he's considered to be worthy or well-informed you've got to admit that it really seems like he's at least coming at this with pure intentions.

The thing is, though, he's only able to do this because he's a hyper-privileged athlete. I get that it's a bit silly to hear this sort of thing coming from someone who makes as much as he does just for playing a game, but pro athlete is one of only three occupations that I can think of (the others being the equally frivolous musician or actor) where what he did gets noticed and maybe raises some eyebrows.

Even if, say, an equally wealthy banker tried a similar protest, do you think anyone outside of the room he did it in would notice? I can't say for sure, but my bet is on no. And what about the non-rich people who are actually most affected by the issues that he's raising, do you think that they'd get heard if they tried something like this? In this case I can say for sure the answer is no... because they've already been trying for years.

So since we've established that Kaepernick's in a pretty unique position as one of the handful of people who might actually get noticed, and if you agree that he seems to be doing this with genuine intentions, the only real question left is whether sitting through the anthem at a sporting event is an appropriate form of protest. Well in my opinion it's an absolutely perfect form of protest. My reasons, in ascending order of importance

4) It's visible. People will take notice of what you're doing without you having to make a big deal promoting it and coming off as attention-seeking (even if it did take people a few games to catch on).

3) It's noteworthy. Sports networks will talk about it. News networks will talk about it. Bloggers and whatever will talk about it. Word of what you're doing is going to reach a lot of people with diverse interests in every socio-economic class, which is exactly what he needs to do if his message is going to have any impact.

2) It's relevant. When people stand for an anthem they're generally doing it to express pride in a country and whatever values that country stands for. In this case Kaepernick's entire message is that those values that America purports to stand for do not in any way match the life experiences of millions of American citizens. It's a pretty direct and on-the-nose protest, and I think it does a pretty good job of getting his point across. Especially since...

1) NOBODY IS GETTING HURT. Nobody is getting hurt physically, nobody's getting hurt emotionally, nobody's getting hurt financially. Hell, nobody is even being inconvenienced in the slightest - unlike the classic favourite, the protest march with signs, this one isn't even making anybody late for work :).

So I guess to sum up, I personally don't see what the big deal is about someone not standing for an anthem. But maybe the anthem does mean something to you, and in that case, ask yourself why. What does the flag represent that makes it important? And then think about whether the flag would represent the same thing to the millions of citizens in the country who don't get a fair shake at life for something that's completely out of their control? And if you're a public figure who doesn't think that everyone gets a fair shake, what could be wrong with voicing that opinion in such a benign way?

It would have been more noteworthy if Kaepernick had knelt, walked off the field and quit the game. But that would have cost him too much and he wasn't prepared to pay that much of a price for something he believes in. In reality, he's just paying lip service to his cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But regarding your second point, I don't think I've actually seen much conversation about whether or not he should be fired. Lots about whether it was right or wrong, or whether he picked the wrong venue, but the NFL for its part doesn't even seem all that bothered...

I doubt that he's expecting to do his career any favours with this in any case - as you said, it's not exactly like he was a star to begin with - so no matter whether he's considered to be worthy or well-informed you've got to admit that it really seems like he's at least coming at this with pure intentions.

I'm not necessarily saying I want him to lose his job; his lack of ability will likely handle that organically soon enough. There's just been a lot of bleating about the first amendment down here in discussion of it, and it's gotten on my last nerve. :lol:

The thing is, though, he's only able to do this because he's a hyper-privileged athlete...

...Even if, say, an equally wealthy banker tried a similar protest, do you think anyone outside of the room he did it in would notice?

Well, we've had to put up with Jamie Dimon and similar cohorts condescending to us about the dire necessity of austerity measures—paired with finance-favourable regulation, of course.

1) NOBODY IS GETTING HURT. Nobody is getting hurt physically, nobody's getting hurt emotionally, nobody's getting hurt financially. Hell, nobody is even being inconvenienced in the slightest - unlike the classic favourite, the protest march with signs, this one isn't even making anybody late for work :).

So I guess to sum up, I personally don't see what the big deal is about someone not standing for an anthem. But maybe the anthem does mean something to you, and in that case, ask yourself why. What does the flag represent that makes it important? And then think about whether the flag would represent the same thing to the millions of citizens in the country who don't get a fair shake at life for something that's completely out of their control? And if you're a public figure who doesn't think that everyone gets a fair shake, what could be wrong with voicing that opinion in such a benign way?

I must admit, though, that without getting too political/controversial (even for the controversial discussions thread ;)), I thought the "meat" of the statement was utterly ridiculous falderal, and if I heard anyone make it I'd dismiss it rather strenuously. I think it's low-grade agitprop that was tiresome and suspect in the 60s and completely below serious discussion now. Having an ideological statement—even one I might be predisposed to agreeing with—made to me by an individual with a pamphlet-level grasp on it is not my cup of tea. Particularly when the manner in which it's done denigrates the lives of men and women orders of magnitude more honourable and courageous than the demonstrator.

I also don't agree that no one is hurt by it. The uncritical repetition of questionable (at best) assertions on this subject as if articles of faith by the media and segments of the political establishment in the US has contributed to an environment of nebulously supported grievance that's gotten good people getting killed by terrorists in recent months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been more noteworthy if Kaepernick had knelt, walked off the field and quit the game. But that would have cost him too much and he wasn't prepared to pay that much of a price for something he believes in. In reality, he's just paying lip service to his cause.

But what does one have to do with the other? If someone's building a toxic waste dump next to my kid's school maybe I'd want to protest it. But am I not allowed to protest unless I quit my job? Would anything less just be lip service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily saying I want him to lose his job; his lack of ability will likely handle that organically soon enough. There's just been a lot of bleating about the first amendment down here in discussion of it, and it's gotten on my last nerve. :lol:

Well, we've had to put up with Jamie Dimon and similar cohorts condescending to us about the dire necessity of austerity measures—paired with finance-favourable regulation, of course.

You won't get any argument from me on that one :P. It's the same up here in Canada and we don't even have complete freedom of speech.

I must admit, though, that without getting too political/controversial (even for the controversial discussions thread ;)), I thought the "meat" of the statement was utterly ridiculous falderal, and if I heard anyone make it I'd dismiss it rather strenuously. I think it's low-grade agitprop that was tiresome and suspect in the 60s and completely below serious discussion now. Having an ideological statement—even one I might be predisposed to agreeing with—made to me by an individual with a pamphlet-level grasp on it is not my cup of tea. Particularly when the manner in which it's done denigrates the lives of men and women orders of magnitude more honourable and courageous than the demonstrator.

I also don't agree that no one is hurt by it. The uncritical repetition of questionable (at best) assertions on this subject as if articles of faith by the media and segments of the political establishment in the US has contributed to an environment of nebulously supported grievance that's gotten good people getting killed by terrorists in recent months.

I guess I have no idea how smart Kaepernick is or isn't. I don't know the guy, and in fact I don't even follow football and hadn't heard about him before last week. But just because someone isn't articulate, or because someone may not grasp all the finer points of the centuries-long discussion of systemic racism in America, I don't think that precludes a person from being able to say what he wants to say. And when you distill the point he's trying to make, "black people feel like they're being discriminated against by people in authority",it's not really all that complicated and I think he's done a good enough job getting it across. Especially now that he's clarified his position and indicated that he has nothing but respect for the military, which seems cover the reasons most people were mad at him in the first place.

As for people having been hurt by it, I still say that this is the most non-intrusive form of protest he could have used. If the message itself is seen as inciting people to do terrible things like what happened in Dallas that's a different (and probably a much more political) discussion - but that part of the equation doesn't change whether he kneels for an anthem or quits his job or stands naked in the streets of San Francisco carrying a sign.

At the risk of getting too controversial for the controversial discussions thread, I'll just add one more quick paragraph. First off, I'm not black and I don't know anything about what it's like to grow up black in America. I'm not a cop and I don't know anything about what it's like to be a cop in America. In fact, 99% of what I know about both of those things comes entirely from repeated viewings of The Wire :P. But what I see looking at all of this as an outsider is a group of people who feel that they're being continually disrespected and treated differently throughout their lives. If some are angry, well, I'd probably also be angry if I felt that that was happening to me. If some are so angry that they commit crimes, well, those individuals should be punished just like anybody else would be who commits the same crimes. But for Colin Kaepernick and the majority who are like him, his only goal is to tell people who otherwise wouldn't be aware that "hey, look, there's a problem here and something needs to be done about it". If people are violent or whatever that's not on him. I think that rather than looking at laying blame against those who bring the issues to the public consciousness it would be a lot more productive to actually have a look at fixing the root cause of the anger - the issues themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know, whenever I have gone to the U.S., (mainly Michigan), I have driven along a road that has numerous houses along it. I've noticed that in most blocks, I've seen around 5-7 American flags hanging outside on both sides of the street. I'm sure that the people who fly the flag, are very patriotic and believe in the constitution, the anthem, and the flag. To some of them,,,, what he did is an affront to America.

If he went on talk shows and talked about his protest, then not many people would hear of it. But, he knew that he would create controversy by doing what he did, and when he did it. He knew exactly what the media would ask him.

Yes, he brought the plight of the African-Americans to the forefront (as if it wasn't already with BLM), and have people talking about, but, IMO, he chose the wrong way to "protest".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know,,, I'm sure there are some fans of the Tragically Hip that won't agree with me on this one. In late May, Gord Downie announced that he has terminal cancer.

Within a week of that news, the band announced that they would be going on a tour of Canada. They ended up with 15 dates in locations from B.C. to Ontario, (why they didn't go to the east coast is beyond me).

A few days ago, the band announce a new album would be coming out in October of this year, probably their last one.

Now, I haven't anything against the band, but, it seems to me that the band is really capitalizing on Gord Downie's cancer.

As far as I know,,, (and I could be wrong), I don't believe that they are donating any of their income from the tour and album to Brain Cancer Research.

IMO, they're cleaning up on back of Downie's cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know,,, I'm sure there are some fans of the Tragically Hip that won't agree with me on this one. In late May, Gord Downie announced that he has terminal cancer.
Within a week of that news, the band announced that they would be going on a tour of Canada. They ended up with 15 dates in locations from B.C. to Ontario, (why they didn't go to the east coast is beyond me).
A few days ago, the band announce a new album would be coming out in October of this year, probably their last one.
Now, I haven't anything against the band, but, it seems to me that the band is really capitalizing on Gord Downie's cancer.
As far as I know,,, (and I could be wrong), I don't believe that they are donating any of their income from the tour and album to Brain Cancer Research.
IMO, they're cleaning up on back of Downie's cancer.

And what put you in such a cynical mood? :lol::lol: Are they just supposed to fall off the face of the earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...