The term "political correctness" long ago lost any true meaning.
In the late 80's / early 90's, political correctness was primarily about using more inclusive and less offensive language. A good example would be job titles such as fireman or mailman. The "politically correct" terms for those jobs became fire fighter and mail carrier. While this may have seemed silly to some (especially when taking to extremes like changing "manhole covers" to "sanitation covers"), it had a legitimate (and mostly noble) point - terms that were gender specific were dated, silly, and perhaps exclusionary. On the offensive side, it dealt primarily with labels for "groups" - i.e. not calling Natives "Indians", or women "girls", or Southeast Asians "Pakis". Once again there were excesses and silliness (June Rowlands banning the Barenaked Ladies from Nathan Phillips Square comes to mind), but the intent was fairly good.
Over time, the term has been perverted by both ends of the political spectrum. On one side, people have used "political correctness" as almost a jihad against anything that could possible be perceived as "white" and "male". That's a discussion for another day. What bothers me, however, is that people now hurl out the term "being politically correct" to try to blunt (or even legitimize) racist, sexist, or stupid comments that they make. The implication being that, people are only upset at something because its "not politically correct", as opposed to it being legitimately offensive, hurtful, or just plain wrong.
Don Cherry's comments deserve condemnation because they are factually wrong and xenophobic (they aren't "racist" because everyone he was talking about is white).
Those who defend Cherry say that he was "only stating the truth" - the truth allegedly being that "Europeans & French Guys" primarily wear visors, while other players do not. Taken completely out of context, he's generally right. Europeans and, to a lesser degree, French Canadians in the NHL are more likely to wear visors than American and English Canadian players. But the key term is "more likely".
More importantly, Cherry wasn't just stating a fact. He was using that fact to support a broader argument - that players who wear visors are cowardly and more likely to commit high sticking infractions, with the ultimate insinuation being that "Europeans and French Guys" were cowardly and liked waving their sticks in the air - an argument that is not only offensive, but is factually incorrect. The Star recently reviewed every high sticking penalty that had been levied in the NHL this season, and then noted whether the penalized player wore a visor or not. The results? The percentages (both in the top ten offenders and total penalties assessed) pretty much mirrored the ratio of visor and non-visor wearing players.
One correct fact in a spew of bullshit does not equal "the truth".
