Is it true? And other questions

In all the blather over Don Cherry's comments about visors and "Europeans and French guys," I have yet to hear anyone ask the question: Is it true? Is it in fact the case that most of the players who wear visors in the NHL are of European or French-Canadian descent? Well now at last somone has -- at least with regard to Canadian-based teams. And it turns out that, indeed, 76% of the players on these six teams who wear visors fit Cherry's terms. And since I'm pretty sure Europeans and French-Canadians make up rather less than that proportion of the teams' rosters, that means that, in the case of of these six teams at least, Cherry was right. Now all we need is for someone to do the math for the league as a whole. The law of defamation carries with it the defense of truth. If what Cherry said is not true, then he has defamed these players (on the assumption that it is a grievous insult to be identified as a visor-wearer), and needlessly stirred up trouble between French- and English-speaking Canadians. If it is true, he might still be criticized for stirring up trouble. But then at least we would know that it was not what he said that was wrong, but the fact that he said it. OF COURSE, just because it's true doesn't mean it needs to be said: not every truth has to be blurted out loud, let alone on national television. And mere fact, robbed of context, can still be misleading or inflammatory. It was "true" that a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities in the 1995 Quebec referendum voted "No." And so, in a sense Jacques Parizeau was right to complain in his infamous referendum-night speech that the separatists lost "because" of the ethnic vote. But he could just as easily have sliced up the electorate on other lines: older people also voted disproportionately federalist, as did women, and Catholics, and any other number of different demographic groups. (In a 50-50 vote, it could hardly be otherwise.) Why not say he lost "because" of them? Because he cannot see Quebec society except as one divided on linguistic and, yes, racial lines. Whether it was a calculated attempt to inflame those divisions, or merely the bubbling up of his subconscious in the bitterness of defeat, it was hugely revealing. Such a simple-minded analysis, on such a charged topic, at such a time, would have been scandalous coming from an academic or journalist. From the premier of the province, it was an outrage. Back to Cherry. He has a right to his point of view on visors, and it's a legitimate subject of debate whether they reduce or increase injuries. It is even, I suppose, legitimate to debate whether those who wear visors are cowardly. But why not leave it at that? What purpose is served by injecting ethnicity into it? AT THE SAME TIME, what purpose is served by censoring Cherry? Okay, so he insulted French-Canadians. Why is that something that must be suppressed? Suppose he had singled out a particular player he disliked, and sneered at his manliness for wearing a visor. That would be rude and unpleasant, but no one would be calling for his head over it. Why is it beyond the pale to insult a group, and not to insult an individual? Well, there's a simple answer to that. If I insult you as an individual, it is just between you and me. But if I do so as a member of one group (race, sex, whatever) to another, it immediately expands our little fight to a much larger and more serious level: indeed, that is the point. It summons up the whole history of injustice that one group might have suffered at the hands of the other. It tells the recipient that, not only is he going to have to take this from me, but he and every other member of his group can expect the same treatment from every member of mine. Small wonder that NHL players who call and are called every name under the sun without batting an eye go ballistic when a racial epithet is used. BUT HERE'S ANOTHER distinction that should be borne in mind. Not every group is in a similar situation. There's a reason why no one much minds if people joke about Scots being stingy, but everyone shudders with disgust if the same is said of Jews. It is because, in recent times at least, the Scots have not been the victims of oppression. So while some were quick to ask, what if Cherry said the same about black players, the fact is the situations are not comparable. Whatever mistreatment either group may have suffered in the past, French-Canadians do not face anything like the kind of prejudice that black people still suffer from today -- least of all French-Canadian hockey players. Which may be why most of them simply laughed off Cherry's comments. FINAL QUESTION: Does the CBC's treatment of him amount to censorship? Surely the corporation is allowed to exercise editorial judgment, after all, and is not obliged to air every stray comment, no matter how objectionable. That would be true, if the CBC were a private corporation, and if it were not subject to the intrusive regulatory oversight of the CRTC, and if the politicians had not waded into the issue en masse. But given that it is goverment-owned and government-regulated, its capitulation to political pressure is a matter of censorship. Indeed, had Cherry not been an employee of the "public" broadcaster, it probably wouldn't have been an issue. Another reason to privatize the CBC. IN SUM: Cherry was probably right in fact, but wrong to say it. But those who took offense should have thicker skin, the politicians and bureaucrats should have found other things to occupy them, and the CBC was wrong to muzzle him.