At first, I had to do some research
to find out what all the fuss was about in the Shane Doan/French
Canadians/Hockey Canada story. I quickly discovered that some MPs were
in a tizzy over allegations that Doan, who offered last week to step
down as captain of Canada’s team at the 2007 world hockey championships,
was accused in 2005 at a hockey game in Montreal after losing to the
Canadiens and commented on francophone officials, said, “Fucking
Frenchman. Did a good job.” Some reported last week that left-winger
Ladislav Nagvy of Slovakia uttered the offending remark and this
admission is expected to enter court records in Doan’s defamation
hearing against Liberal MP Denis Coderre.
Still, I don’t understand what “F”
word was the insulting one. I don’t get it. Was it the one that starts
with “F-U” or “F-R?” I don’t want to be dropping the F-bomb again in
this column, so I’ll use the word “flick” instead. Mind you, I'm not
even original here. Capitalizing on the popularity of some swear words,
the Ontario government even used it to defend the environment: “We need
you to FLICK OFF, and tell everyone you know to FLICK OFF. The more you
do it, the cooler it gets. The planet, that is.” So, I assume, it’s not
the “flick” that upsets our federal legislators in Ottawa. I’m sure they
know that if they ban the use of this word from day to day
conversations, they’ll be choosing the next captain of Team Canada from
an old Benedictine monastery.
So, assuming that “flicking” is not
their problem, I want to examine the moral and semantic implications of
the other “F” word, “Frenchman.” (I promise I’ll try to refrain myself
from writing it too many times).
In fact, let me split it in two
parts: “French” and "man".
With so many campaigns going on, I
might have missed something; however, I still believe that being a "man"
is neither a sin, nor a criminal offence, yet. I even checked the last
decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and, thanks to the Charter of
Rights and Freedom, we still can be legally “man.” Mind you, we won’t be
parachuted in any riding to run for the Liberal Party any time soon, but
still we are legal.
So, “man” is okay.
What about the alleged slur:
“French.”
Is “French” a bad word?
Well, if you ask Marco Materazzi
(remember the Italian soccer player “head-butted” by Zinadine Zidane?) I
might understand. But that’s soccer and we’re talking about hockey here.
Head-butting during a hockey game is just like handshaking during a
chess championship.
It might have been more upsetting
for Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe had Shane Doan called the
linesman Michel Cormier “Canadian.” By wait a moment, is it possible
that Duceppe might be reviewing his sovereignty policies and is upset
because Cormier was called “French” instead of “Canadian.” Isn’t this a
blatant case of discrimination? Nah.
I’m called “Italian” at least once
a day, and definitely every time I’m on Parliament Hill. Should I be
offended? I know that for some on the Hill, being of Italian origin is a
big handicap. I don’t agree so I'm not offended. Maybe I should be. You
know what, I'll think about it and I'll make a decision only after I
read the report of the Parliamentary committee on, “National issues on
stupidity” (there are quite a few, I mean committees and issues).
I know, for example, that
Parliamentarians are very sensitive to this “cultural heritage” issue. I
remember members of the Bloc Québécois up in arms against Jacques
Parizeau when, in 1995, he regretted the “ethnics” rights to vote in a
Québec referendum. We, the “ethnics,” were so upset because, we thought,
he wanted to revoke our Canadian citizenship. In reality, it was the
other way around: he didn’t like that we imposed one on him. And he
still has it.
Back to the "F" words and the
serious consequences of this issue on our national sport, hockey. One
politician said last week that this problem weakens our interest towards
this sport.
He is right.
It’s not the strikes, the
mediocrity of our teams or the violence on and off the ice that can kill
hockey in Canada: stupidity can.
