Comments by "sharper68" (@sharper68) on "Palestinian-Canadian Journalist Speaks Out After Getting Fired From CTV News" video.

@woden_arbosa Terrorism is bad, be it from those who live in an open air prison or by a state backed by the strongest militarily in human history. One can call out Hamas as monsters and recognize the Israeli response is horror show too.
5
This has nothing to do with Canada and everything to do with the corporation that fired her. As a representative of their firm they have a right to distance themselves from what their on air employee's say publicly. I am not defending CTV's actions, but they do not reflect on Canada.
4
Won't be able to, political speech is not protected especially in the case of on air personality who signs an agreement limiting what they share publicly.
2
She has no grounds to do so. Her contract gave them the right to part ways when she says something publicly they dislike. The time to address this was when she signed it, not now.
2
She won't be able to, the discrimination is not racial, it is political and as a public figure in a media company they have always controlled what their anchors say.
2
@Jim-nt7xy Exactly! They have a perspective they wish to push and are willing to let go of employee's that publicly do not share it.
2
Canada is open to debate, CTV and bell are corporations that are basically totalitarian. It is what we should expect from them.
1
This is a corporate decision, has nothing to do with rights or the country.
1
@Lambdamale. Multiculturalism is not the problem, tiny minded insular ignorant bigots of all races are the root issue. They create all the chaos and casually crush "others". The first nations were invaded, starved murdered, no one valued their culture and they were systemically destroyed by monster's of your mindset. Their culture did not fail them, the level of their technology when meeting them ensured they would be crushed by those who did not value integrating cultures any more than you do. Your head is broken if you think the wanton destruction of the native culture as a failure of multiculturalism. It is exactly the opposite.
1
@cameranmanner4701 The stipulations around what you can say publicly in these types of contracts are standard and well tested. On air personalities say yes to these contracts because they want the job and do not have the personnel marketability to have the clauses removed. There is nothing illegal in asking a representative who amounts to face of the company to toe the companies line or move on. I am not defending these types of contracts, I am just explaining their nature and the fact they are not illegal. Even in Canada where the rules protecting workers are much more robust. If she has any documented evidence of the bigotry and the stratified workplace she described, the labor board will be happy to address that.
1
@spamfilter32 Different issue than her being let go over these comments. On this it is pretty cut and dry, they have the right to let her go if they dislike what she says publicly. She should bring her charges of discrimination forward if and she will have to validate those claims. But that will not be attached to her being let go over issues associated with what she said publicly. The company had a right to fire her because clauses every on screen personality has in their contract public speech conflicting with the corporations spin. This is pretty boiler plate stuff for this kind of job. If indeed there was discrimination she will have a case as long as she documented it properly.
1
Nothing to investigate, the owners can put out the coverage they want to and employ the reps they like. This may be an uncomfortable truth but these organizations are private and innately totalitarian. There is no legal mandate to be balanced on any issue including this one. Now if you want to argue there should be a mandate to do so that is a different conversation
1
This is not a freedom of speech issue, she signed a contract that she broke when she decided to share what she thinks publicly. This not a new thing and has ALWAYS been the case. She has a right to say whatever she wants, she does not have a right to a job as a journalist. I loathe they fired her but we need to say what is actually happening here and not let it get burred in this free speech misdirection.
1
You are incorrect, the first amendment was to stop the government restricting your speech. These kind of limitations in employment contracts exist in the US too. You can be fired more easily in the US over being on the wrong side of a public statement than you can in Canada. This is not a free speech issue at all. She is not being stopped by the government from saying something, this is an employment contract issue.
1
chipmouse4921 They are being fired and censured in the US because the first amendment protects you from the government restricting your speech, it does not protect you from the employment contracts you sign that limit it.
1
Not even neutral in this case, they overtly only give one side of the narrative and demonize anyone who breaks ranks.
1
@custos3249 Every single souce of information has a perspective, an innate bias in a specific direction. It needs to in order to effectivly convey the information and shape the way it is presented. The best we can hope for is that the source states it's perspective up front so we can weigh that in. Corporate media pretends they do not even have a bias, they most certainly do.
1
@custos3249 it did have a bias, a bias based on the new data that validated the claim. The bias in this case was not toward an idology, it was based on a conclusion drawn from data focusing on patient well being. The bias is clear and stated up front, the merits outside that we agree on. But thier bias correct or not if honestly evaluated is clearly stated.
1
This has nothing to do with Canada, everything to do with a totalitarian corporation that has an agenda to push.
1
@2ndgradeuscitizen I don't cry when bigots get fired, you did not cry when the same goofs fired people for coming out as gay in the past. These corporations have always canceled anyone they think the market dislikes. That they are not canceling bigots and those who openly hate others was a refreshing change from the fact in the past they entirely ignored them while crushing only those on the left. The "left" cancels no one, the actual left has no power! Corporations are the only ones with option to cancel anyone, they own this fail and always have.
1