2010: Don Cherry and Ron MacLean of Hockey Night in Canada walk to centre ice in Dundas, Ontario.Dave Sandford / NHLI via Getty Images

Im responding to Norman Ostonals letter Folks will be missing loud Cherry in his loud suits.

Ostonal claims that Don Cherry ought to have been just ignored and allowed to stay, and the so-called offence let slide. Although I agree Cherry should not have lost his job for his remarks, he needs to be held accountable. Ostonal claims that it was Cherrys opinion to support his claim that the whole thing should have been ignored. The problem with this is that even if Cherrys opinion were true in his assumptions, it does not mean that Cherry is free from the consequences of his remarks.

Cherrys words carried significant weight for many people, and although he is free to express his opinion, it does not change the fact that he hurt a lot of people in the process. Ostonal goes on to say that there are many reasons why people, without meaning any disrespect toward veterans, dont bother wearing poppies. However, Cherry is old school and sees things differently, and the implication is made that he should be let off the hook. This is merely an excuse for his actions and an irrelevant reason for justification. As a public figure, he ought to know better, even if he is old school. Ostonal implies further that Cherry should be let off because people know what kind of a person Cherry is and anyone who has seen Cherry should know that he doesnt care what people think of him. This, again, is only an excuse for Cherrys words and an irrelevant reason for justification. Even if Cherry did care what people thought of him, it wouldnt change the nature of what he said.

Cherrys comments and his subsequent firing shed light on a much larger issue of polarization in Canada. The two-sided dialogue about whether Cherry was rightfully sentenced for his social justice crime or wrongfully chastised by the big scary political correctness monster shows how much we lack the ability to have tough conversations.

There is a lack of empathy from both sides of the conversation. It needs to be recognized that Cherrys words were divisive and hurtful to many Canadians, but it also needs to be recognized that well never reach a solution by burning people at the stake for their mistakes. With our recent federal election, it wasnt long ago that our prime minister was facing backlash for his mistakes of blackface. Like Cherry, it needed to be recognized what Justin Trudeau did was wrong, but it was also appropriate that he was not (relatively speaking) crucified for his mistakes. The dialogue about Cherry mirrors so many other political conversations, with two sides unable to hear the other. It is only with empathy that such tensions can be resolved. If in Canadas efforts to embrace diversity we become more divided, what strength is there in such diversity? The strength is not absent in diversity, but it is mute if we allow our immaturity to prevail in our conversations as a society.

Reece Doppenberg, Aldergrove

Further to the letter on private health care, I had a similar experience. I know that seniors go to the bottom of the list. I hope the Supreme Court, if it decides against private health care, that it adds a caveat that politicians will no longer get special treatment and go to the bottom of the list with us.

Jim Briden, Peachland

Letters to the editor should be sent to provletters@theprovince.com.

CLICK HEREto report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Emailvantips@postmedia.com.

Read the original:

Letters to The Province, Nov. 25, 2019: There is a lack of empathy from both sides of the Don Cherry conversation - The Province