Paul Stewart: On Shaw, Sensitivity and the Slippery Slope of Political Correctness

Its a tough line to draw

1 hand, its hockey, temperatures rise, and officials need thick skin, we sign up for it

on the other hand.... the games evolved, watched by kids, and the standard has changed

I agree with a suspension just because the obvious lack of disrespect shaw had for the officials. he was basically shouting it from the roof tops saying " look at me , im above you" .... learn some respect


When im reffing and and someone says something to me that only i can hear, or i can even get away with saying i didnt hear, it means nothing

You want to go make a spectacle about it so everyone can see and hear, see ya

The very day after the Shaw incident and the levying of the fine, a kid called another kid in my class the very same term. As a teacher, I had a teachable example of how that term is no longer acceptable in polite society from the day before, a rough and tumble hockey player being suspended for a game because of his insensitivity.

The very day after the Shaw incident and the levying of the fine, a kid called another kid in my class the very same term. As a teacher, I had a teachable example of how that term is no longer acceptable in polite society from the day before, a rough and tumble hockey player being suspended for a game because of his insensitivity.
- hardnosed

Did you contemplate booting the kid from school for a day? That's a teachable moment for the other 29 students in the class.

The very day after the Shaw incident and the levying of the fine, a kid called another kid in my class the very same term. As a teacher, I had a teachable example of how that term is no longer acceptable in polite society from the day before, a rough and tumble hockey player being suspended for a game because of his insensitivity.
- hardnosed

Did you suspend him for a day and fine him his weekly allowance?

I don't know how this kind of stuff should be handled. But I do find it odd that a slur can get you a suspension and fine but you can drop your gloves and beat the crap out of someone. break his nose etc and go sit down for 5 minutes for a punishment

I don't know how this kind of stuff should be handled. But I do find it odd that a slur can get you a suspension and fine but you can drop your gloves and beat the crap out of someone. break his nose etc and go sit down for 5 minutes for a punishment
- sparky

Good question...

I don't know how this kind of stuff should be handled. But I do find it odd that a slur can get you a suspension and fine but you can drop your gloves and beat the crap out of someone. break his nose etc and go sit down for 5 minutes for a punishment
- sparky

if they both drop their gloves willingly then its a conscious decision that lead you to that .

its not like that ref skated up to him, hey call me a fag when you get angry later, ok? ok! good luck out there tonight!

if they both drop their gloves willingly then its a conscious decision that lead you to that .

its not like that ref skated up to him, hey call me a fag when you get angry later, ok? ok! good luck out there tonight!
- nightmare3020

Maybe not the best example. But you can slash a guy in the leg/slew foot a guy, give him a gloved punch to the face, high stick him in the face and, as long as none are deemed to cause a severe injury, you sit down for 2 minutes. Saying a word that does no physical damage, although can be offensive, makes you miss a game.

Personally, I'd rather have a player call me a name than punch me in the face with his glove.

Paul, as usually a great and well thought out article. Some thought, however:

1. To compare the use of epithets to psychical violence is a false comparison with no relevancy. With my background in Literature and post-colonial studies, I can tell you that language is used more effectively to win wars than violence is (e.g when England would take over India, Canada, the Caribbean, Ireland etc. they would outlaw the native language and teach new generations only English) and that words - especially certain ones that have been deemed verboten - have a terrible power to those affected by them than a person of the dominant class (white, straight, male) generally understands.

2. No one would be writing a 'slippery slope' article or complaining about the suspension if Shaw said a certain N word. But, to the LGBTQ community, the word Shaw said is just as bad.


3. While trash talking exists, and while most guys would indeed be more offended by personal barbs, it doesn't really matter. It's not about being offended. It's about not de-humanizing people who already have it hard enough by turning a word that describes them into a catch-all word synonymous with being less than adequate, normal etc.

So it isn't about a linear comparison of what is and what is not more offensive, it's simply about there being two or there MAJOR words than it is just not OK to say. Years ago, racist talk was tolerated and probably occurred in every game and people wonder why it's OK to be racist vs Frecnch or Russians, but the fact is, French and Russians haven't been historically discriminated against like Blacks or Gays, so it's completely different context.

Calling someone a F_ _ is as bad as calling someone an N but no where close to the same thing as calling them a Frog or a Commie.

In my opinion, this isn't about PR or a slippery slope. It's simple human decency. Society has evolved to the point where that word isn't OK to say anymore and the NHL has to get with the times, plain and simple. Fact is, sure, Shaw and most guys over say 25 grew up in a time when it was more acceptable to say that word (it was probably the most commonly used insult) so there is some understandable adjustment, which is why I think he got only 1 game.

But, in the future, the next guy will get more than 1. And he should. There's like two words you can't say, 100 000 that you can. It's not a big sacrifice to be decent humans and teach others to be inclusive and to better themselves.

Being in the NHL makes you a role model, and the league thus has a responsibility to be sensitive. That is why I applaud their stance and think it does make sense to suspend Shaw the same as Keith (I would have given them both way longer).