Damian Goddard, Former Sportsnet Host, To File Human Rights Complaint After Dismissal Over Same-Sex Tweet

Goddard Sportsnet

First Posted: 06/23/11 08:29 PM ET Updated: 08/23/11 06:12 AM ET

THE CANADIAN PRESS -- TORONTO - A TV sportscaster fired after tweeting his opposition to same-sex marriage plans to file a human rights complaint.

Rogers Sportsnet fired Damian Goddard as an on-air host last month following his tweets on a debate sparked by New York Rangers forward Sean Avery's support of same-sex marriage.

Goddard tweeted in support of hockey agent Todd Reynolds, who used Twitter to voice his opposition to Avery's position.

Dave Rashford, Sportsnet's director of communications, said Goddard was fired because "it had become clear that he is not the right fit for our organization."

Labour lawyer William Gale calls Goddard's firing a "clear violation" of his freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Gale says it gives the impression that Goddard's Catholic beliefs are grounds for dismissal and sets a dangerous precedent for all Canadians.

"I completely and whole-heartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and true meaning of marriage," Goddard, a lifelong Roman Catholic, tweeted from his personal Twitter account on May 10.

Critics on Twitter were calling for his head because he expressed a commonly held opinion that they didn't like, Gale said Thursday in a release.

"Rogers answered that call swiftly and publicly," Gale said.

Goddard said he was terminated 24 hours after expressing a widely held opinion from his personal Twitter account.

"My message to the millions of Canadians participating in social media is that 'this can happen to you'," Goddard said.

Rashford said Goddard is aware of the "well documented" reasons why he was terminated by Sportsnet.

"Out of respect for our employees we do not discuss personnel issues in the press," Rashford said Thursday in an email. "We will, however, bring forward the facts during any proceeding initiated by Mr. Goddard."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:46 PM on 06/23/2011
Ah yes, the Kari Simpson gambit: make a fuss with a case you know will be tossed out, and then make tons o' dough on the fundamentalist Christian speaking circuit. Guess he's going to get a job on CTS or the Miracle Channel real soon now.
08:09 PM on 06/23/2011
As a steadfast supporter of LGBT rights and equal rights for everyone, I honestly hope Mr. Goddard's firing wasn't for that particular comment. Unless he posted derisive comments that incite hate, he is well within his right to express his opinion just as I am free to do so.

For the record, I'm all for equal rights for everyone, which includes listening and/or reading opinions from those I don't agree with. Isn't that the beauty of living in countries such as Canada and the U.S.?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eyecon
Retired CEO & Quality-Mgmt Consultant
08:25 PM on 06/23/2011
I love counterpoint. I have learned much from people with whom I disagree. That begs the question if Goddard's comment rises to the level of opinion. Some things are not expressions of opinion even when stated as such. Examples:

I don't agree with blue eyes.
I don't think that [fill in the blank] people should have the same rights as [fill in the blank] people.

The first is ridiculous. The second is outright big.otry if the blanks are filled in "black" and "white" respectively.

In this case, Goddard expressed a belief that the only "true" marriage is one between a man and a woman. Would my observation be clearer if he said "the only true marriage is between people of the same race?"

Most people who are not supportive of marriage equality are wed to the belief that sexual orientation is a choice which is preposterous (I don't agree with blue eyes). The idea that one couple's same-sex marriage has any effect on anyone's "traditional" marriage cannot be substantiated by any cogent argument. Therefore, it is prejudicial and, thus, discriminatory per se.