@deepgreendesign.bsky.social:
What if we created The Racist Order of Canada?
canadiancynic.bsky.social:
PREDICTION: Cherry will get the award because the Carney government is shamelessly looking for the support of racists and bigots.
@lynboyle4.bsky.social:
Don Cherry has proven to be supporter of racism, anti French, women, and immigrants. He PROMOTED VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY! He probably did more to create an atmosphere that made it okay for players to sexual assault young women. He doesn’t represent in anyway distinguishing service to Canada or humanity
@house-of-stu.bsky.social:
Wasn’t born in Canada and was indifferent to hockey as a kid, until my family moved to a house within a stones throw of the house Bobby Orr grew up in.
The low-key bigotry that Don Cherry endorsed definitely helped fuel the xenophobic beatings I took as a kid. Learnt to hate hockey pretty quick.
So if by chance anyone is listening, hear me when I say this; fuck Don Cherry.
@chuckwoot.bsky.social:
Don Cherry,misogynist,racist,bigot & facist is entitled to his opinions & free speech.What he’s not entitled to is an Order of Canada awarding him for those opinions.
@ramirezplayer.bsky.social:
So no wonder it’s Andrew Lawton behind this as he’s also a misogynist, racist, bigot and fascist.
@barsans.bsky.social:
He represents an older era of attitudes that Canada has largely moved beyond. I’m not sure why conservatives are bringing this up now.
@fuzzywuzzyto.bsky.social:
Because it’s extremely divisive and plays very well with conservative bigots. Again, they’re not attracting new voters, merely pandering to their base
@sashafury.blackskycomra.de:
Danielle Smith about to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to get Don Cherry into the Order of Canada.
@renmccormacksghost.bsky.social:
Don Cherry also promoted concussions and the long term effects of concussions instead of warning about concussions and the long term effects of concussions for decades.
MP Andrew Lawton, an avid convoy chronicler, proposed honouring Cherry with the Order of Canada. He wrote: “For decades, Don Cherry has celebrated hockey, honoured veterans, and said what millions think — without apology.”
Nope nope nope. thestar.com/sports/nhl/why…
@bellriots30.bsky.social:
A hateful racist. Misogynistic bully. What’s to honour?
@spinned25.bsky.social:
There are MANY anglo-Canadians who do not like, approve of, or agree with, Don Cherry.
@doctorwho123.bsky.social:
this bigoted and racist asshole doesn’t deserve a damn thing!
he’s basically maple MAGA- brainless, uncouth and appealing to the lowest denominator
how many hockey players have had their careers cut short or suffer pain to this day because of his cos-playing tough guy mantra
fuck Don Cherry!
@notyetjohn.bsky.social:
He does not deserve it!
@davidhamer1951.bsky.social:
One can well imagine how the citation would read were Don Cherry actually to receive the Order of Canada: “For services to boorishness, broadcasting ignorant remarks nationwide beloved by every yahoo in the country, remarks that they would be embarrassed to utter in public themselves.”
Only @theglobeandmail.com’s resident Trumpist, Robyn Urback, could be dumb enough to pose this question, and then to answer it in the negative. She then goes on to equate Don Cherry with Tommy Douglas as a worthy recipient of the Order of Canada.
Don Cherry has never been one of ‘Canada’s most significant individuals’. At most he was a tolerated embarrassment and at worst an entitled, narcissistic jerk. That is all.
The Neanderthal Don Cherry was rightly fired by Sportsnet in 2019 and should remain shrouded in the obscurity he now so richly deserves.
The fact that neofascists Pierre Poilievre and Danielle Smith want him appointed to the Order of Canada says all that need be said.
@canadiancontent.bsky.social:
More like James Keegstra than Tommy Douglas.
@thecakeisnotalie.bsky.social:
Anyone that supports Don Cherry continuing to breathe is a fucking monster. The idea that thing should be given one of Canada’s highest honours is beyond engaging, it is grounds for rebellion.
“In addition to Pierre Poilievre & other front-bench Conservative MPs publicly supporting the nomination, the Conservative Party has a link on their official website promoting it as well” The CPC’s list-building & learning is something. Analyzing which issues the base & swing voters care about…
Supriya Dwivedi @supriya.bsky.social:
oh yeah their data mining operations are generally unmatched
No Order of Canada for Cherry? That’s the pits, sour grapes Conservatives insist, MAGA Alberta has its collective knickers in a wedgie about what has to be the dumbest wedge issue in a decade by David Climenhaga, March 18, 2026, Alberta Politics
… Meanwhile, Alberta’s most prominent enabler of separatism, Premier Danielle “I’m-Clearly-Fighting-for-Canada” Smith, naturally enthusiastically joined the effort to elevate Mr. Cherry, who is also inexplicably known as Grapes.* “Don Cherry is a Canadian icon, a hockey legend and is loved by Albertans,” she said, exaggerating shamelessly.
You do not speak for me Smith, ever. I despise fucking fascist asshat Cherry as much as I despise you and your bestie, Mark Carney, also both fascists. Cherry disgusts me as much as you do Smith …
@ihavethatonvinyl.com:
fuck don cherry
@mightygodking.com:
People gonna talk about Cherry’s “contributions to hockey culture” or something and man, if you were looking for a better exemplar of why hockey participation in Canada has been steadily declining for decades you couldn’t do much better than Cherry, who personified everything shitty about the game
@calculizer.bsky.social:
he’s a huge insufferable racist sexist dick
Don Cherry getting the Order of Canada would be bad; Unnecessarily politicizing it is even worse by Philip Moscovitch March 23, 2026, Halifax Examiner
Don Cherry, as pictured on the Conservative Part of Canada’s petition to honour him with the Order of Canada, Credit: Conservative Party of Canada
Over the last few weeks, there has been a push by federal Conservatives, including Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the official opposition, to award the Order of Canada to Don Cherry.
Don Cherry, now 92, was a middling NHL coach who parlayed his coaching years into a decades-long gig on Hockey Night in Canada, called Coach’s Corner. Coach Cherry, known for his loud suits and outlandish opinions, would show highlights from the game, and offer his commentary, often introducing his remarks by saying something like, “Watch this, kids” as though imparting wisdom to the younger generation.
I will confess to have found Cherry entertaining for a while, but over time his analysis became shoddier, he rambled more and more, and then there were, well, his opinions themselves. Francophone players were crybabies. Europeans were wusses who would back away from a fight. Don Cherry’s archetypal player was the down-home prairie farm boy who would beat the crap out of any opponent who got in his way, or who disrespected him or his team. As time went on, Cherry also embraced a hyper-masculine “respect the troops” attitude, and a full-throated with-us-or-against-us patriotism, all while wearing loud suits with floral patterns. (Don’t get me wrong; I love a good loud floral pattern.)
Cherry believed women sports journalists did not belong in NHL locker rooms, that only Europeans and “French guys” wanted to wear visors on the ice, that Francophones hate the Canadian flag but love the Canadian dollar, and that, famously, immigrants love to come here and benefit from Canada but refuse to wear a poppy to honour veterans. (That’s the one that finally got him fired.) TVA Sports has a nice little rundown of these comments here.
The full quote about immigrants and the poppy is as follows:
You people that come here, whatever it is — you love our way of life. You love our milk and honey. At least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that. These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada. These guys paid the biggest price for that.
Any time a quote starts with “you people” you know it isn’t going anywhere good.I was born in Canada. I don’t wear a poppy because I am anti war, anti fascist, anti profit by the military machine pimped by most of our owned politicos. In my view, Remembrance Day is propaganda to keep the masses keen on war, no matter how many die or how much earth is destroyed and polluted.
The push to nominate Cherry for the Order of Canada originally came from Conservative MP Andrew Lawton, and was quickly taken up by Poilievre. The Conservative Party of Canada now has a petition on its website called “Appoint Don Cherry to the Order of Canada.” The petition refers to Cherry’s “candid and unapologetic style” which “reflects a spirit of authenticity and independence that resonated with millions ofracist misogynistic bigoted anti immigrant ass hat Canadians.” (Of course, like every political party petition, this one serves primarily as a way to give the Conservative Party your contact information, so they can start hitting you up with appeals.)
I have no idea whether the person we saw on Coach’s Corner was the real Don Cherry, or an oversized persona he put on for the cameras. Maybe what started as a bit gradually took him over. Who knows. I spoke to Cherry once, and he was nothing like the way he appeared on TV. But that might have had something to do with the subject of our conversation. Cherry had an interest in books on maritime history, and I was interviewing him about his book collection, and his habit of visiting second-hand bookshops in cities where he travelled. I never got to finish the interview or write the story, because Cherry got called away by news that the Canadiens had just fired general manager Serge Savard. (Savard is now an Officer of the Order of Canada.)
What bothers me about this whole Don Cherry for the Order of Canada business though is not whether or not Cherry actually receives the honour.
It’s the unnecessary politicization and grandstanding by politicians hoping to score cheap points.
If you want Don Cherry to be appointed to the Order of Canada, the first step is not to create a petition. It’s to go to the Governor General of Canada’s website and navigate to the “Nominate someone” page:
Do you know someone who’s changing the game? A role model whose achievements stand above the rest? From community volunteers to scientists, from artists to entrepreneurs, the members of the Order of Canada have enriched the lives of others and made our country a better place. All individuals who make outstanding contributions to their field of endeavour are eligible for appointment to the Order of Canada.
Why not nominate someone today? Anyone can do it, and there is no deadline for submissions.
Well, that’s pretty easy, isn’t it.
Nominations are considered by a non-partisan advisory council, chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada. The council meets to discuss nominations, votes on them, and then shares its recommendations with the Governor General. The panel is not some secret cabal. The names of them members are right on the website. Here they are:
The Right Honourable Richard Wagner, P.C.
Chief Justice of Canada (Chair)Dr. Françoise Baylis, C.M.
President, The Royal Society of CanadaMr. Francis Bilodeau
Deputy Minister, Canadian HeritageThe Hon. Ethel Blondin Andrew, P.C., O.C.
Dr. Marie Yvonne Delorme, C.M.
Ms. Stephanie Dixon, C.M.
Mr. Daniel Germain, C.M., C.Q., M.S.M.
Ms. Cheryl Hickman
Chair of the Board, Canada Council for the ArtsDr. Joy Johnson
Chair of the Board of Directors, Universities CanadaMrs. Karina LeBlanc, C.M.
Dr. Patricia Livingston, O.C.
Mr. Michael Sabia, O.C.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the CabinetDr. P. Kim Sturgess, C.M.
(O.C. refers to Officer of the Order of Canada; C.M. is Member of the Order of Canada.)
The advisory council also abides by a “statement of best practices.”
But I guess you can’t get your base fired up with a message that says, “Let’s go through the proper channels and fill in a nomination form, and then trust that our nominee is approved through the deliberations of the advisory council.”
I am not naive enough to think that there are no politics involved in the Order of Canada selection process. Is anarchist poet/writer/musician Norman Nawrocki likely to get the Order of Canada anytime soon? Probably not. (Maybe I should nominate him.)
Are there venture capitalists and business people whose work has arguably done more harm than good on the list of recipients? Yes.
If you look at the most recent round of appointees, you’ll see a mix of academics, researchers, people in medicine, performers, athletes, and others. Nova Scotians who were named to the Order most recently include Mi’kmaq historian and archaeologist Roger Lewis, gymnast Ellie Black, Dal president Kim Brooks,* and Dal professor Patrick Croskerry, described as “a leading expert in emergency medicine.”
Can you argue with the list? Sure. But that’s the nature of any award.
I think it is perfectly fine to critique the selection process, if you have issues with it, or the selections themselves. But that’s different from launching a public campaign with the sole aim of polarizing and politicizing the process. I doubt Poilievre gives a rat’s ass whether or not Don Cherry gets the Order of Canada. What he cares about is getting people fired up about some trumped up injustice, and liberals and woke people refusing to honour a true Canadian hero, and on and on and on.
The thing is, it’s not even smart politics. Québec Conservative MPs are pissed off. A CBC story quotes a couple of them:
Luc Berthold, MP for Mégantic-L’Érable-Lotbinière, said if Cherry were to be awarded the Order of Canada, it would “irreparably discredit” all previous recipients.
Many Quebecers who have accomplished extraordinary things, particularly in the regions, deserve this honour far more than this commentator,” he said in a social media post in French…
Fellow Conservative Gérard Deltell, MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent-Akiawenhrahk, said Friday that Cherry has made “unacceptable and contemptuous” remarks toward “francophones, among others.”
Quoted in Le Devoir, Université Laval political science professor Yannick Dufresne said embracing Cherry could have a significant impact for Conservatives in Quebec:
The power of the “symbol” that Don Cherry represents has “touched an important nerve” among a segment of the population that’s “significant” for Conservatives in Québec.
“Honouring a man who has held anti-Québec positions…We know that one potential area of growth for the Conservative Party in Québec is among people with nationalist leanings. So this is definitely not going to be good for them,” he said. [My translation.]
And, in Policy Magazine, Daniel Béland, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, writes:
Poilievre’s decision to support Cherry’s nomination to the Order of Canada created tensions within the Conservative caucus while further alienating Quebec voters who, in general, are already not keen to support the party.
Yet, beyond Quebec, Poilievre’s endorsement is also problematic because, when you have long sought to distance yourself from Trump and you clearly need to improve your standing among female voters, embracing a polarizing, hypermasculine figure like Cherry, who has much in common stylistically with the U.S. president, is problematic to say the least…
Embracing Cherry is very unlikely to help Poilievre expand his base, including and especially among both women and more centrist voters. Quite the opposite.
One final note: What the heck is with that jacket in the image above? A combined Canadian-American flag motif? That seems like just the right message for the times, doesn’t it?
*As originally published, this story incorrectly identified Brooks as the former president of Dalhousie University. Brooks is the current president.
Refer also to:
2006: POETIC JUSTICE Minority Interests by John Allemang, The Globe and Mail
News item: Commons committee rejects former oil-and-gas executive Gwyn Morgan for a federal position after questioning remarks he made about violence among Jamaican and Asian immigrants.
Forgive our best-loved CEO
Whose best-laid plans were soon laid low
By MPs who smelled some disgrace
In his home truths on crime and race.
Gwyn Morgan knows of what he speaks:
Vacations that can last for weeks
Show smart men all the skills you lack
When you’re a poor, Jamaican black.
And if you’re Asian, so much worse:
While you live off the public purse,
And claim to be a refugee
(Though business titans clearly see
Their empires threatened by your knives),
Right-thinking white men give their lives
To fear-filled warnings we won’t hear,
Not even for a buck a year.
The wisdom gained from piping gas
Should give you licence to kick ass,
And help root out each off-white foe
Who might dilute your status quo.
How can they term your rants uncouth?
When you’ve been gifted with the truth,
You have to call a spade a spade
And show that you are unafraid
To tell the Fraser Institute:
“Beware the man who shuns a suit.”
Tough talk’s your thing, you always say,
Which makes it strange you ran away
When all those PC nags you hate
Declined to let you set us straight —
So different from the glowing raves
You’re used to from your workplace slaves.
PRIME MINISTER HARPER NOMINATES FIRST CHAIRPERSON OF THE PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION April 21, 2006, Prime Minister of Canada
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was pleased to announce today the nomination of Gwyn Morgan as the first Chairperson of the new Public Appointments Commission. This proposed appointment will be referred to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Government Operations and Estimates for review. The Government of Canada looks forward to receiving the results of the Committee’s review as soon as possible. …
2006: Eminently Unsuitable Nikiforuk on Gwyn Morgan
When parliamentarians dismissed former EnCana CEO Gwyn Morgan’s nomination to the new Public Appointments Commission as “unsuitable” on May 16, they mostly cited his comments about the violent proclivities of certain Jamaican immigrants. Canadian Council of Chief Executives president and chief executive Thomas d’Aquino quickly denounced the vote as “sad and deplorable,” adding that “Gwyn Morgan ranks among the highest in competence, integrity and commitment to his country.” But making a partisan Tory (and party fundraiser) head of a department designed to usher in “more open, honest and accountable government for Canadians” just wasn’t a good fit from Day 1.
In fact, the 60-year-old’s record on transparency and ethics merits closer examination. First comes the notorious Wiebo Ludwig crisis in 1998. After the angry landowner declared war against Morgan’s firm and others due to persistent toxic pollution and leaks, the executive repeatedly failed to end the dispute before it escalated into one of the most notorious cases of domestic terrorism on the continent. In a bid to stop a nasty bombing campaign, Morgan helped set up a police sting that involved another bombing of a well facility that terrified the local community even further. He later admitted he was “consciously less than straight up” on the company’s role in the affair.
Next came the Ecuador debacle. Morgan’s investments in heavy oil and a transnational pipeline in that country continue to make headlines. His controversial gamble eventually became the subject of a critically acclaimed documentary: Between Midnight and the Rooster’s Crow by filmmaker Nadja Drost. It depicted startling incidents of environmental contamination and human rights violations–in many cases, the pipeline ripped through farmers’ backyards.
Morgan’s dealings with the residents of northwestern Colorado have also made headlines. Duke Cox, the owner of Escalante Builders in Silt, Colo., and president of Grand Valley Citizens Alliance in Garfield County, alleges that the company’s drilling practices have repeatedly fouled the air, damaged groundwater and sickened local citizens. Morgan’s approach to drilling even earned EnCana the highest fine ever awarded an oil and gas company in that state in 2004 ($371,200) for contaminating an entire creek; that same year, EnCana wracked up more fines, by dollar value, than any other company in Colorado in the previous 15. “EnCana gives a lot of lip service but little action to doing business right,” argues Cox. “They seem to be unwilling to address complaints and problems.” Yet in a 2005 Globe and Mail interview, Morgan characterized his industry’s track record as “very good.” He said studies showed no lasting environmental harm was done to the creek.
Then there is Morgan’s record on climate change. His anti-Kyoto views are well-known. In a 2004 speech to petroleum engineers, Morgan warned of “sound-bite junk science precipitating ill-informed public opinion” and against making “decisions because of political expediency.”
What’s most interesting, though, is that parliamentarians never even asked a key question about Morgan’s nomination: Is it appropriate for the former head of the continent’s largest gas company to oversee appointments to the National Energy Board? “Unsuitable” is still the right adjective.