The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Grant Napear’s Life Matters
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Should a peaceful, law-abiding man of faith be punished in perpetuity for publicly proclaiming his heartfelt belief that “ALL LIVES MATTER…EVERY SINGLE ONE”?

The question is not merely rhetorical. It is now a legal matter for a California court and jury to decide. Grant Napear, radio talk show host and former announcer for the Sacramento Kings basketball team, filed a lawsuit last week against his former employer, Bonneville International Corporation, after the Utah-based media conglomerate threw him under the bus last spring to mollify the un-mollify-able Black Lives Matter mob.

In case you had forgotten, hordes of lunatics across America lost their minds over the Minneapolis police-involved death of career criminal and drug addict George Floyd. Coast-to-coast riots caused nearly \$2 billion in damages and cost scores of lives—all under the guise of “social justice” and “peaceful protest,” of course. Those who dared stray from BLM orthodoxy – no joking allowed, no defense of law enforcement allowed, nothing less than full and immediate genuflection to the vengeful gods of “diversity” allowed – faced moral condemnation, social media persecution, and even employment termination.

Napear suffered all three punishments. His crime? In response to NBA player Demarcus Cousin’s tweet to him asking “what’s your take on BLM?”, the veteran sports journalist answered with those fateful six words: “ALL LIVES MATTER…EVERY SINGLE ONE.”

A tsunami of hate and smears ensued on social media. Another NBA player, Matt Barnes, gleefully tarred Napear as a “closet racist” and stoked a backlash. Barnes had pre-existing grudges against Napear, who had called him out over a night club brawl that led to criminal charges against Barnes for assaulting a woman in 2016, among other unruly incidents.

“Plain and simple,” Napear told me in an interview on Monday, “Matt called me a closet racist on Twitter to get back at me. The sad thing is his tweet was taken as judge and jury. If I’m a closet racist, why did you come on my show every week and ask to play in my golf tournament? This is just part of the sad cancel culture that exists in our country now.”

Within 48 hours, corporate cowards at Napear’s Sacramento radio station, KHTK, fired the 62-year-old veteran sports journalist despite more than two decades of superlative work on the airwaves. Parent company Bonneville condemned Napear’s innocent message as “particularly insensitive,” kowtowing to BLM by expressing its “respect” for “the black community” and “marginalized” people. (Never mind all the black small business owners and police officers targeted by Floyd-worshiping looters and shooters, or the white citizens marginalized for demanding law and order.)

ORDER IT NOW

In his lawsuit filed last week with the Eastern District of California court, Napear cited his religious beliefs in “[t]he inherent worth and dignity of every person” and “the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.” Off with his head! Napear recounted how KHTK barred him “from the Company premises as if I were a criminal” despite a spotless and exemplary employment record. His complaint laid out how Bonneville fired him “for cause” without any justification or explanation of how his tweet in defense of the sanctity of all life constituted “misconduct.”

Napear unflinchingly called out the corporate media giant for illegally discriminating against him “because he is a Caucasian male who published a phrase on social media” that went against Bonneville’s unstated policy supporting BLM.

Asked for any response to the suit, a Bonneville spokeswoman informed me this week: “We have no comment.”

As for Napear, he told me Monday: “My message is simple. What happened to me was a travesty. I’m trying to right a wrong. My hope is a victory will send a message to those who think canceling people for their beliefs won’t be tolerated.” He is standing in the breach because “too many people are scared to speak up for what they believe in and what is right. I’ve had numerous private conversations with some of the biggest names in our industry. They’ve told me they are nervous about saying something on the air that will be misconstrued, or misinterpreted.” Napear has also talked to sports team owners who believe “[i]t is easier to go woke then deal with criticism.”

But instead of going gently into the good night over “six truthful words” that “ended my career,” Napear is holding the feckless smear merchants accountable. “I want to be vindicated. I want Bonneville International to apologize to me. I want them to admit they panicked and made a mistake,” he told me. “I am energized and ready to fight this battle not just for me, but for all of those who have been victims of this sick cancel culture.”

In what remains of the land of the free and the home of the brave, Grant Napear’s life and livelihood matter. All the witch-hunters who tried to destroy him must be held to account. Every single one.

 
• Category: Culture/Society 
Hide 20 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Successful lawsuits are the only thing that may bring sanity back.

    A judge in Canada recently ordered a BLM agitator to pay damages of \$100,000 to two women who lost their jobs and reputations after a prolonged smear campaign against them.

    The SPLC and ADL take it for granted they can smear conservatives and get away with it. If they were ordered to pay millions to the people they’ve hurt, it would put them out of business. Employers who wrongfully dismiss people should pay crushingly punitive fines.

  2. This man was asked a question and responded to it. No way should his passive answer cost him his job.
    Hope he is successful is his lawsuit.

  3. Blacks do not fail to remind us every day that there is no people who have less regard for their own, even the lives of their own children. What they value most is drama. Let them have it, under the old rules.

    • Agree: gutta percha
  4. The land of the free and the home of the brace is now the land of the slaves to wokeness and home of the cowards.

    The US are all bullies and have been ever since the Puritans landed in Massachusetts. They bullied the indigenous peoples in the new world and everyone else ever since then.

    Bullies are cowards at heart and now the pigeons are coming home to roost for the entire world to see. The bullies even bully each other because the spineless, yellow US people will bow and scrape to any jumper up criminal just to get by.

    So good luck to this bloke. He seems to be the only one in the USA with a spine. Hope he kicks some arse because the cowards that populate the US today, unlike the brave men that fought on Bunker Hill, deserve to be eviserated, hung, drawn and quartered for being a bunch of useless moronic weaklings.

  5. Successful lawsuits are the only thing that may bring sanity back.

    Oh, yeah. Lawsuits. Successful ones. That’s what will bring sanity back.

    • LOL: HbutnotG
  6. Anybody who continues to work in the BLM-controlled spectator-sports industry is complicit in their lies and violence. If Napears wasn’t fired, he should have had the decency to quit. Any remaining spectator-sports fans must really enjoy being lectured by thugs about how racist they are. Kill sports, and you kill BLM. F*** sportsball!

  7. They drew first blood. Godspeed, Mr. Napear.

  8. Too many lawyers. AFAIAC, there’s still too many sports writers, also.

    I don’t follow sports. Several years ago I channel-surfed into a baseball finals game. The vanilla, male announcer was spouting off some nonsense about breast cancer awareness. If some sports announcer gets canned for saying something benign, that’s fine with me.

    Lawyer-Cosell used to say “Tell it like it is!” Sometimes, he did. I thought it was hilarious how Roone said nothing to protect Howie from cancellation. It was great how that network sports guy, who had his lawyer-brother negotiating for the most spectacular contract ever offered on television, was dismissed.

    Not long ago, they all used to cover for those womanizing, bum athletes. All of a sudden, after the political winds have shifted, they dress themselves up as enlightened males (but they’re still basically “Don’t Ask/Tell, See/Hear No Evil”, moral cowards).

    The worst is when you hear them today lionizing guys like Robinson and Clemente. Back when, the sportsguys colluded with players in a joint effort to keep “the darkies” out of baseball. Let me know when those mealy-mouthed, \$5M per year, network sports guys start calling out their predecessors for overt discrimination.

    [MORE]

    Oh, and while I’m ranting, it’s hard to miss that ballparks prominently display signs — especially visible to the home audience — advertising beer, gambling casinos, etc; what, no more tobacco? When are those sportsguys going to remind fans (kids!) about the Black Sox scandal, alcohol-related domestic violence, etc.?

    • Replies: @Resartus
    @Abolish_public_education


    Too many lawyers. AFAIAC, there’s still too many sports writers, also.
     
    In the mid/late '70s, the NFL Broadcasters went to a play-by-play announcer, color (as they call it),
    was ditched, that didn't seem to have lasted long......

    Replies: @bike-anarkist

  9. Ms. Malkin, as is typical, did her usual hatchet job and failed to provide readers with enough information to intelligently evaluate her claims. For those who want to follow the case, you can get on the Federal Government PACER system for the Federal Court in the Eastern District of California. The case number is 2:21-cv-01956-KJM-DB. If you look up that case number you can get the docket and copies of any documents that might be filed in the case. There will be a cost to obtain documents.

    The first important “tell” about this case is that Napear filed his case in Federal Court not in California State Court even though ALL of his claims are violations of California State Law or public policy. The reason this is a “tell” is the difference between California and Federal requirements to file a case. Federal court is “notice” pleading. California is what is called a fact pleading state. That means you cannot simply accuse someone of doing something bad. You need to state facts in your complaint. Mr. Napear never states any facts in his Federal Complaint, for example, the he was fired for being white or a Unitarian. Not a single fact. He states only conclusions–and in Federal pleading you can get away with “notice” you don’t need facts. My guess is he does not have many facts.

    The second important fact is that Napear did not sue for breach of contract. He had a written contract. He could be fired for doing anything that could bring discredit to his employer. His statement plainly discredited his employer. The California statutes he is suing under do not let you break your contract for your religion? No. Napear is likely to lose because what he said discredited his employer.

    • Disagree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    @Harry Huntington

    You are a douche and you discredit yourself by your idiotic comment.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    , @Robert Dolan
    @Harry Huntington

    His comment was innocent and truthful, harmed not a single soul.

    He has every right to sue and I hope he wins big.

  10. Stories like this could make a reasonable person think that Negros suck.

  11. @Abolish_public_education
    Too many lawyers. AFAIAC, there's still too many sports writers, also.

    I don't follow sports. Several years ago I channel-surfed into a baseball finals game. The vanilla, male announcer was spouting off some nonsense about breast cancer awareness. If some sports announcer gets canned for saying something benign, that's fine with me.

    Lawyer-Cosell used to say "Tell it like it is!" Sometimes, he did. I thought it was hilarious how Roone said nothing to protect Howie from cancellation. It was great how that network sports guy, who had his lawyer-brother negotiating for the most spectacular contract ever offered on television, was dismissed.

    Not long ago, they all used to cover for those womanizing, bum athletes. All of a sudden, after the political winds have shifted, they dress themselves up as enlightened males (but they're still basically "Don't Ask/Tell, See/Hear No Evil", moral cowards).

    The worst is when you hear them today lionizing guys like Robinson and Clemente. Back when, the sportsguys colluded with players in a joint effort to keep "the darkies" out of baseball. Let me know when those mealy-mouthed, $5M per year, network sports guys start calling out their predecessors for overt discrimination.

    Oh, and while I'm ranting, it's hard to miss that ballparks prominently display signs -- especially visible to the home audience -- advertising beer, gambling casinos, etc; what, no more tobacco? When are those sportsguys going to remind fans (kids!) about the Black Sox scandal, alcohol-related domestic violence, etc.?

    Replies: @Resartus

    Too many lawyers. AFAIAC, there’s still too many sports writers, also.

    In the mid/late ’70s, the NFL Broadcasters went to a play-by-play announcer, color (as they call it),
    was ditched, that didn’t seem to have lasted long……

    • Replies: @bike-anarkist
    @Resartus

    "In the mid/late ’70s, the NFL Broadcasters went to a play-by-play announcer, color ..."

    Colour commentators, add background to the realtime events; add COLOUR (ie. 3D) to the 2D play-by-play, "a passes to be; be runs 5 yards, tackled by C"...

    "A had records yards pissing and touchdowns at U of LGBTQ+; C had record tackles for U of AIPAC back in 2011..."

    No mention of "people colour".

    The abuse of innocent language.

  12. @Harry Huntington
    Ms. Malkin, as is typical, did her usual hatchet job and failed to provide readers with enough information to intelligently evaluate her claims. For those who want to follow the case, you can get on the Federal Government PACER system for the Federal Court in the Eastern District of California. The case number is 2:21-cv-01956-KJM-DB. If you look up that case number you can get the docket and copies of any documents that might be filed in the case. There will be a cost to obtain documents.

    The first important "tell" about this case is that Napear filed his case in Federal Court not in California State Court even though ALL of his claims are violations of California State Law or public policy. The reason this is a "tell" is the difference between California and Federal requirements to file a case. Federal court is "notice" pleading. California is what is called a fact pleading state. That means you cannot simply accuse someone of doing something bad. You need to state facts in your complaint. Mr. Napear never states any facts in his Federal Complaint, for example, the he was fired for being white or a Unitarian. Not a single fact. He states only conclusions--and in Federal pleading you can get away with "notice" you don't need facts. My guess is he does not have many facts.

    The second important fact is that Napear did not sue for breach of contract. He had a written contract. He could be fired for doing anything that could bring discredit to his employer. His statement plainly discredited his employer. The California statutes he is suing under do not let you break your contract for your religion? No. Napear is likely to lose because what he said discredited his employer.

    Replies: @Robert Dolan, @Robert Dolan

    You are a douche and you discredit yourself by your idiotic comment.

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Robert Dolan

    Your comment is excellent because it illustrates the point exactly. If Napear made your comment in reaction to the question "what do you think of Black Lives Matter," he likely would have been terminated by his radio station. In the context of the question about BLM, the only comments that Napear could make without bringing discredit to his employer was something of the form: "I think it sends a strong message and is well-intentioned." or "I support it." or "we need more of it." or "it is putting us on a path to good long-needed dialogue about race."

    The key here is context. The idea of "Black Lives Matter" is not a negation of other life. But when "all lives matter" is offered as a response to "Black Lives Matter" it is a direct attack on the BLM message because it is minimizing those issues that BLM seeks to address. That is what racists do. They minimize, shift ground, change the context, and seek to channel discussion away from the real issues.

    Ms Malkin conveniently omits what church Napear pretends to belong to. His federal complaint identifies his faith as Unitarian. Unitarians are not Christian and most do not really believe in God, although they find there is a bit of goodness in some ideas about God. It is wrong to say Unitarians reject Black Lives Matter. Although Unitarians believe in a general goodness and respect, they are quite open to recognizing that where there are problems--such as with structural racism in America--we can and should strive to fix those problems. Thus it would appear that Mr Napear's claim of religious discrimination is more of an after thought, an excuse not a reason for what he said. Indeed, may unitarian churches (if you call call them that) have had speakers educate their congregations about critical race theory and structural racism. Mr Napear's complaint does not identify what church (if any) he attends--which is intentional because we likely would learn that if he attended a church it likely had undergone CRT training.

    Thanks for your comment and illustrating just why Mr Napear's comment would be a firing offense.

  13. @Harry Huntington
    Ms. Malkin, as is typical, did her usual hatchet job and failed to provide readers with enough information to intelligently evaluate her claims. For those who want to follow the case, you can get on the Federal Government PACER system for the Federal Court in the Eastern District of California. The case number is 2:21-cv-01956-KJM-DB. If you look up that case number you can get the docket and copies of any documents that might be filed in the case. There will be a cost to obtain documents.

    The first important "tell" about this case is that Napear filed his case in Federal Court not in California State Court even though ALL of his claims are violations of California State Law or public policy. The reason this is a "tell" is the difference between California and Federal requirements to file a case. Federal court is "notice" pleading. California is what is called a fact pleading state. That means you cannot simply accuse someone of doing something bad. You need to state facts in your complaint. Mr. Napear never states any facts in his Federal Complaint, for example, the he was fired for being white or a Unitarian. Not a single fact. He states only conclusions--and in Federal pleading you can get away with "notice" you don't need facts. My guess is he does not have many facts.

    The second important fact is that Napear did not sue for breach of contract. He had a written contract. He could be fired for doing anything that could bring discredit to his employer. His statement plainly discredited his employer. The California statutes he is suing under do not let you break your contract for your religion? No. Napear is likely to lose because what he said discredited his employer.

    Replies: @Robert Dolan, @Robert Dolan

    His comment was innocent and truthful, harmed not a single soul.

    He has every right to sue and I hope he wins big.

  14. Well written article with a clear description of the situation.

  15. @Resartus
    @Abolish_public_education


    Too many lawyers. AFAIAC, there’s still too many sports writers, also.
     
    In the mid/late '70s, the NFL Broadcasters went to a play-by-play announcer, color (as they call it),
    was ditched, that didn't seem to have lasted long......

    Replies: @bike-anarkist

    “In the mid/late ’70s, the NFL Broadcasters went to a play-by-play announcer, color …”

    Colour commentators, add background to the realtime events; add COLOUR (ie. 3D) to the 2D play-by-play, “a passes to be; be runs 5 yards, tackled by C”…

    “A had records yards pissing and touchdowns at U of LGBTQ+; C had record tackles for U of AIPAC back in 2011…”

    No mention of “people colour”.

    The abuse of innocent language.

  16. @Robert Dolan
    @Harry Huntington

    You are a douche and you discredit yourself by your idiotic comment.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    Your comment is excellent because it illustrates the point exactly. If Napear made your comment in reaction to the question “what do you think of Black Lives Matter,” he likely would have been terminated by his radio station. In the context of the question about BLM, the only comments that Napear could make without bringing discredit to his employer was something of the form: “I think it sends a strong message and is well-intentioned.” or “I support it.” or “we need more of it.” or “it is putting us on a path to good long-needed dialogue about race.”

    The key here is context. The idea of “Black Lives Matter” is not a negation of other life. But when “all lives matter” is offered as a response to “Black Lives Matter” it is a direct attack on the BLM message because it is minimizing those issues that BLM seeks to address. That is what racists do. They minimize, shift ground, change the context, and seek to channel discussion away from the real issues.

    Ms Malkin conveniently omits what church Napear pretends to belong to. His federal complaint identifies his faith as Unitarian. Unitarians are not Christian and most do not really believe in God, although they find there is a bit of goodness in some ideas about God. It is wrong to say Unitarians reject Black Lives Matter. Although Unitarians believe in a general goodness and respect, they are quite open to recognizing that where there are problems–such as with structural racism in America–we can and should strive to fix those problems. Thus it would appear that Mr Napear’s claim of religious discrimination is more of an after thought, an excuse not a reason for what he said. Indeed, may unitarian churches (if you call call them that) have had speakers educate their congregations about critical race theory and structural racism. Mr Napear’s complaint does not identify what church (if any) he attends–which is intentional because we likely would learn that if he attended a church it likely had undergone CRT training.

    Thanks for your comment and illustrating just why Mr Napear’s comment would be a firing offense.

  17. I did something —– I used to subscribe to a service on Cox that would let you pay 30 bucks a month to watch many out of town (no local) basketball broadcasts. When this happened, I stopped subscribing to that service.

    I have my faults, but I am not someone who goes along with viciousness.

  18. There was a black lady beauty salon owner whose shop was destroyed by the very WHITE antifa, and somehow all that SHE worked so hard for didn’t “matter.” Ironic.

  19. Also, they could make themselves more useful to society, other than going out and destroying everything in sight to express their social justice causes. Princess Diana and Mother Teresa cared about the whole African race, and look at what useful members of society they were? No violence involved, imagine that.

  20. This is the common occurrence now with the Marxist take over on our country. Everyone must be labeled and divided to destroy our democracy.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Michelle Malkin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World