Bill Peters Under Investigation

[ericdaoust]

It’s always been hate speech but everyone who uses a hate word once should never work again?

He should be made to apologize. There’s so much more to learn from that.

He would be getting fired from one job, by one team. Doesn't prevent him from working again. If he's seeking redemption he should get to work on trying to make hockey a better place. Actions speak louder than words/apologies.

[tweetdrivr]

It’s always been hate speech but everyone who uses a hate word once should never work again?

He should be made to apologize. There’s so much more to learn from that.

No. Don’t care if you’re an NHL coach or a dude working at the local doughnut shop. It’s hate speech. There isn’t any leeway there. Society has determined that the history of that word and everything it represents is unacceptable and it’s been that way for over 60 years. There is no gray area.

[Rylant]

No. Don’t care if you’re an NHL coach or a dude working at the local doughnut shop. It’s hate speech. There isn’t any leeway there. Society has determined that the history of that word and everything it represents is unacceptable and it’s been that way for over 60 years. There is no gray area.

I agree with this. Yes, people deserve second chances, but this is something I have a tough time looking past. He was an adult when he did this. Are people feeling bad for him right now? And his apology feels 100 percent fabricated out of necessity. It seems insincere and the reason we are getting it, is because the situation has come to light not because he means it. I have no problem saying this; Seriously, f**k that guy...

Rylant

[agentzero]

He would be getting fired from one job, by one team. Doesn't prevent him from working again. If he's seeking redemption he should get to work on trying to make hockey a better place. Actions speak louder than words/apologies.

And how do you propose he does this? Education? Training? Increased Exposure? Community service? All of these things can happen as he remains employed.

I’m not saying it’s good conduct, I’m saying firing him accomplishes less than trying to get him to correct his behaviour while remaining employed. Employment law is geared towards this principle.

[agentzero]

He would be getting fired from one job, by one team. Doesn't prevent him from working again. If he's seeking redemption he should get to work on trying to make hockey a better place. Actions speak louder than words/apologies.

And how do you propose he does this? Education? Training? Increased Exposure? Community service? All of these things can happen as he remains employed.

I’m not saying it’s good conduct, I’m saying firing him accomplishes less than trying to get him to correct his behaviour while remaining employed. Employment law is geared towards this principle.

Also, he was already fired without cause from that employer albeit for other reasons. Calgary is a new employer trying to decide what to do about their employee and his actions with a former employer. This distinction matters.

[blayze]

"The statement was made in a moment of frustration and does not reflect my personal values."
"I have regretted the incident since it happened..."
"...it was an isolated and immediately regrettable incident."
"I am truly sorry."


I thought the letter was genuine and acceptable.

You poor gullible soul...

[agentzero]

You poor gullible soul...

It’s not much better to be disillusioned..

I’m all about restorative justice in cases like this. Accomplishes more for society.

[ericdaoust]

Calgary is a new employer trying to decide what to do about their employee and his actions with a former employer. This distinction matters.

That only matters with regards to whether or not the contract is terminated vs he gets paid to go home. Otherwise they get to decide whether or not this person (plus all of the new baggage) gets to represent the team in public and gets to lead their 23-man roster.

[agentzero]

That only matters with regards to whether or not the contract is terminated vs he gets paid to go home. Otherwise they get to decide whether or not this person (plus all of the new baggage) gets to represent the team in public and gets to lead their 23-man roster.

I.e. Termination with or without cause. Exactly. It matters. They can terminate him without cause for waking up in the morning but they gotta pay him. Isn’t that the easy way out? I’d rather the harder way, either terminate for cause (which they don’t have) or make him reform in public (if you still like him as a hockey coach).

[ericdaoust]

I.e. Termination with or without cause. Exactly. It matters. They can terminate him without cause for waking up in the morning but they gotta pay him. Isn’t that the easy way out? I’d rather the harder way, either terminate for cause (which they don’t have) or make him reform in public (if you still like him as a hockey coach).

Personally I'd have an issue putting him back in my team's dressing room after this. As for termination with/without cause I'd let the lawyers deal with that (it's not cut and dry). The outcome of that doesn't concern me either way.

[agentzero]

Personally I'd have an issue putting him back in my team's dressing room after this. As for termination with/without cause I'd let the lawyers deal with that (it's not cut and dry). The outcome of that doesn't concern me either way.

And that’s what they’re presently dealing with. That’s why they’re investigating, otherwise they’d have fired him, because you can fire someone for sneezing. The reason they haven’t yet is exactly that, and perhaps testing the truth of all this. I wouldn’t want a racist as my hockey coach, but first let’s prove he’s a racist, then let’s decide what to do with the coach.

Nothing in termination of employment (or law for that matter) is cut and dry, but the mob that is the media and the internet is cut and dry, certainly.

Anyway, we wait I guess.

[ericdaoust]

And that’s what they’re presently dealing with. That’s why they’re investigating, otherwise they’d have fired him, because you can fire someone for sneezing. The reason they haven’t yet is exactly that, and perhaps testing the truth of all this. I wouldn’t want a racist as my hockey coach, but first let’s prove he’s a racist, then let’s decide what to do with the coach.

Nothing in termination of employment (or law for that matter) is cut and dry, but the mob that is the media and the internet is cut and dry, certainly.

Anyway, we wait I guess.

Actually no it isn't cut and dry because not everyone on the internet is part of this "mob" that you're referring to. You're incorrectly making a blanket statement. There's also tons of good on the internet yet you focus on the negative. There's some very valid reasons for people to want him fired despite those views not aligning with yours.

[agentzero]

Actually no it isn't cut and dry because not everyone on the internet is part of this "mob" that you're referring to. You're incorrectly making a blanket statement. There's also tons of good on the internet yet you focus on the negative. There's some very valid reasons for people to want him fired despite those views not aligning with yours.

My point is you don’t need a reason to fire a coach in the NHL. You can just decide to do it and do it. But the people who are not involved in this matter at all who want him fired based on the shreds of evidence and public statements they’ve read, based on their impressions of the situation, their opinion, nothing more, and who’ve made up theirs minds and decided they want him fired based on that.. that’s what I’m calling out. Heck, call for his firing for all I care, but you’re doing it entirely on media reports and second hand information and lawyer letters. I’d advise against making up your mind unless you have direct access to true evidence and can make solid determinations of credibility.

That’s what I’m saying. It’s not a blanket statement, it’s an assessment of the vast majority of the coverage and opinions being thrown on the matter.

[tweetdrivr]

My point is you don’t need a reason to fire a coach in the NHL. You can just decide to do it and do it. But the people who are not involved in this matter at all who want him fired based on the shreds of evidence and public statements they’ve read, based on their impressions of the situation, their opinion, nothing more, and who’ve made up theirs minds and decided they want him fired based on that.. that’s what I’m calling out. Heck, call for his firing for all I care, but you’re doing it entirely on media reports and second hand information and lawyer letters. I’d advise against making up your mind unless you have direct access to true evidence and can make solid determinations of credibility.

That’s what I’m saying. It’s not a blanket statement, it’s an assessment of the vast majority of the coverage and opinions being thrown on the matter.

Uhhhh...the dude signed a letter admitting he said it. There’s a link to an image of it earlier in the thread. He said it. He’s done. There’s no more to it than that.

[saucelife90]

The people calling for his head are the same people who voted for Trudeau a couple months ago.

You can't reason with unreasonable people.