Jagmeet Singh has proven to be a wicked-good campaigner

436 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mobo2000 wrote:

Well that's a little pessimistic, Pietro.  

This little number from the National Post warmed my heart:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/john-ivison-if-you-...

"Singh’s message is that New Democrats will offer a “New Deal for People,” reversing the trend where governments in Ottawa help the rich to get richer, while everyone else falls back. Liberals and Conservatives have “given the people at the top whatever they want and we’re paying the price,” he says, gouged by cell phone companies, while big polluters have been let off the hook.

It’s tired old class warfare rhetoric familiar to anyone who has followed Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. But there are signs that Singh’s ability to divide the population along income lines, while at the same time calling for people to “move past prejudice” is starting to resonate."

"Divide the population along income lines".   Haha.   Looks like that old class warfare rhetoric isn't so tired after all.   Go Jagmeet!

Thanks for posting that, Mobo, it gave me a good laugh. I stopped reading Ivison and other pundits some years ago, so I hadn't seen this gem. It reminds me of Robert Novak on The McLauglin Group back in the 90s. He would attack anything Clinton (a moderate Republican in policy) did that might in any way inconvenience the wealthy as class warfare, which is Un-American. LOL.

Debater

Singh has 'totally abandoned' NDP legacy with Quebec secularism bill stance: Mulcair

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said his successor Jagmeet Singh has "completely abandoned" Mulcair's legacy of defending religious rights in his handling of the debate over Quebec's secularism bill.

In 2015, Mulcair paid a political price in Quebec after he supported women's right to wear a niqab. Then-prime minister Stephen Harper was trying to ban the religious garment at citizenship ceremonies – an effort that was later ruled unlawful in a Federal Court decision.

In an interview with CTV's Power Play airing Thursday, host Don Martin asked Mulcair if he felt Singh has defended that legacy in his approach to Quebec's secularism bill, Bill 21.

"No no, he's completely abandoned it," said Mulcair.

"He says very clearly that Francois Legault is allowed to adopt Bill 21. He says that he personally has difficulty with something that he calls 'divisive,' but Francois Legault has restricted people's religious rights in the province of Quebec."

https://election.ctvnews.ca/singh-has-totally-abandoned-ndp-legacy-with-quebec-secularism-bill-stance-mulcair-1.4623002

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Harper was a federal PM trying to do something in the federal realm. Singh's response has been the right one since it relies on the human rights groups in Quebec to fight an odious PROVINCIAL bill that he has rightly called discriminatory. Mulcair is sounding like a sore loser given I presume he should understand the minefield that Singh as a federal leader would walk into if he said he would interfere in a law enacted by the National Assembly. Since the Bloc is trying to eat the NDP's lunch, from the other side of the continent, it seems that the last thing the NDP needs to do is claim it will interfere in Quebec politics..

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
Singh has 'totally abandoned' NDP legacy with Quebec secularism bill stance: Mulcair

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said his successor Jagmeet Singh has "completely abandoned" Mulcair's legacy of defending religious rights in his handling of the debate over Quebec's secularism bill.

In 2015, Mulcair paid a political price in Quebec after he supported women's right to wear a niqab. Then-prime minister Stephen Harper was trying to ban the religious garment at citizenship ceremonies – an effort that was later ruled unlawful in a Federal Court decision.

In an interview with CTV's Power Play airing Thursday, host Don Martin asked Mulcair if he felt Singh has defended that legacy in his approach to Quebec's secularism bill, Bill 21.

"No no, he's completely abandoned it," said Mulcair.

"He says very clearly that Francois Legault is allowed to adopt Bill 21. He says that he personally has difficulty with something that he calls 'divisive,' but Francois Legault has restricted people's religious rights in the province of Quebec."

https://election.ctvnews.ca/singh-has-totally-abandoned-ndp-legacy-with-quebec-secularism-bill-stance-mulcair-1.4623002

Right. This myth is busted by the simple fact that the NDP generally lost ground to a party that took an identical position on that question.

You know something else that doesn't play well in Quebec? Tom Mulcair.

lagatta4

No, and I don't support Law 21 either, (There is no "Bill 21", the law was adopted), but I also support our right to self-determination despite my opposition to what I see as a discriminatory law. We have to work that out here in our nation, and many of us are doing so".

The "Bill 21" stuff reminds me of angryphones - note, not anglophones - who still call the Charter of the French language "Bill 101". The equal and opposite number in terms of bigotry as La Meute

KarlL

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Harper was a federal PM trying to do something in the federal realm. Singh's response has been the right one since it relies on the human rights groups in Quebec to fight an odious PROVINCIAL bill that he has rightly called discriminatory. Mulcair is sounding like a sore loser given I presume he should understand the minefield that Singh as a federal leader would walk into if he said he would interfere in a law enacted by the National Assembly. Since the Bloc is trying to eat the NDP's lunch, from the other side of the continent, it seems that the last thing the NDP needs to do is claim it will interfere in Quebec politics..

I am trying to imagine the howls of outrage on here if Singh had said that he would intercede against the law enacted through Bill 21 and Trudeau had taken a non-interference policy - or even if Singh had hinted of a future court challenge (as Trudeau did last night) and Trudeau had said we won't interfere.  

You'd be all over it (lagatta4 excepted, who has made a case, even if I don't agree with it).  Proof positive that tribalism trumps principle across for many on this board.  You can print the t-shirts "my party right or wrong".  

I am no fan of Tom Mulcair but he stood on principle on this in 2015, as Trudeau did in the same election but Mulcair paid the far bigger price.  Singh folded like a cheap suit.

NorthReport

- more Liberal bullshit talking points which had been ongoing 24/7 since he won the leadership 

Singh is representing working class voters whereas the Liberals represent the one percenters 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KarlL wrote:

I am no fan of Tom Mulcair but he stood on principle on this in 2015, as Trudeau did in the same election but Mulcair paid the far bigger price.  Singh folded like a cheap suit.

Again one issue was a federal matter and the other is a provincial matter. You seem to be far to politically sophisticated to be playing this naive on the basic difference and pretending that they are the same thing. Besides one is the right approach if one truly believes in the NDP platform that Singh is running on. The right of provinces to consent to projects is the flip side of the right of provinces to enact any legislature they want to. The people of Quebec gave Mulcair the boot and no one else in Canada was listening to him either. Singh is doing far better than that cynical loser.

KarlL

NorthReport wrote:

- more Liberal bullshit talking points which had been ongoing 24/7 since he won the leadership 

Singh is representing working class voters whereas the Liberals represent the one percenters 

 

So on point with Singh's cheap-ass position on this.  Trudeau isn't exactly covered with glory on it but he has stood up on it before in 2015 and has hinted at federal intervention last night.  Why don't you address the issue?

bekayne

KarlL wrote:

I am no fan of Tom Mulcair but he stood on principle on this in 2015, as Trudeau did in the same election but Mulcair paid the far bigger price.  

The reason he paid the bigger price was that he sat on the fence until the election was well under way.

KarlL

kropotkin1951 wrote:

KarlL wrote:

I am no fan of Tom Mulcair but he stood on principle on this in 2015, as Trudeau did in the same election but Mulcair paid the far bigger price.  Singh folded like a cheap suit.

Again one issue was a federal matter and the other is a provincial matter. You seem to be far to politically sophisticated to be playing this naive on the basic difference and pretending that they are the same thing. Besides one is the right approach if one truly believes in the NDP platform that Singh is running on. The right of provinces to consent to projects is the flip side of the right of provinces to enact any legislature they want to. The people of Quebec gave Mulcair the boot and no one else in Canada was listening to him either. Singh is doing far better than that cynical loser.

I would like to better understand the point you are making, Kropotkin. 

It seems to me that this is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms issue at its core and hence neither federal not provincial, strictly-speaking. Of course a province can deploy a provincial override to the Charter by using the notwithstanding clause, as the CAQ did but that doesn't mean that the federal government cannot use its own legal interventions wherever possible to try to narrow the scope and application of the law.  Anyway, I am no constitutional lawyer, so perhaps I don't understand the federal versus provincial distinction that you have made.

NorthReport

The reason we have such a huge problem in Canadian politics is that there is unequal representation in the House of Commons so it has now basically become a rubber stamp for the multinationals and the one percenters. No one occupation should have more than 10% representation in Parliament Yes good laws are important but good will is far more important than anything else There is one and only one over-riding problem in Canada and that is the greed factor which is alive and well and we need address the fundamental inequalities in the country. If we ever did Everything else would basically fall into place 

NorthReport
KarlL

DP - meant only to correcta typo but it came through as a new post.

NorthReport

Just saw Singh's presser in Saskatoon

Canada's Happy Warrior is on fire - wow!

It is no exaggeration to say that Jagmeet must be creating a buzz because he is campaigning very well. 

Let's see a lot more of him in the rest of the camapign.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KarlL wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems to me that this is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms issue at its core and hence neither federal not provincial, strictly-speaking. Of course a province can deploy a provincial override to the Charter by using the notwithstanding clause, as the CAQ did but that doesn't mean that the federal government cannot use its own legal interventions wherever possible to try to narrow the scope and application of the law.  Anyway, I am no constitutional lawyer, so perhaps I don't understand the federal versus provincial distinction that you have made.

The Constitution of Canada can either be used as a centralizing tool or a tool for cooperative federalism. The NDP is firmly stating that it wants provinces including Quebec to have a greater say in the decisions that affect them. If a provincial government passes a law then it is for the citizens of that province who are affected by the law to challenge it in the courts. A party can't say they want to respect the will of the people of individual provinces and then not trust that will of the people. I believe that this new law will be overturned in the not to distant future either in the courts or by an election. I like Singh trust the Quebec human rights activists and politicians to get it done.

KarlL

kropotkin1951 wrote:

KarlL wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems to me that this is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms issue at its core and hence neither federal not provincial, strictly-speaking. Of course a province can deploy a provincial override to the Charter by using the notwithstanding clause, as the CAQ did but that doesn't mean that the federal government cannot use its own legal interventions wherever possible to try to narrow the scope and application of the law.  Anyway, I am no constitutional lawyer, so perhaps I don't understand the federal versus provincial distinction that you have made.

The Constitution of Canada can either be used as a centralizing tool or a tool for cooperative federalism. The NDP is firmly stating that it wants provinces including Quebec to have a greater say in the decisions that affect them. If a provincial government passes a law then it is for the citizens of that province who are affected by the law to challenge it in the courts. A party can't say they want to respect the will of the people of individual provinces and then not trust that will of the people. I believe that this new law will be overturned in the not to distant future either in the courts or by an election. I like Singh trust the Quebec human rights activists and politicians to get it done.

But the whole point of the Charter is to ensure that individual rights are maintained against government actions that infringe upon those rights - whether those be a collective decision of the majority or in the case of an FPTP electoral system, even a mere pluraility of voters. 

If you say rights are important but not if a majority/plurality of society's members (or in this case the elected representatives thereof) decide otherwise, you've basically thrown the whole concept out the window.  This is classic "tyranny of the majority" stuff.

NorthReport
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KarlL wrote:

If you say rights are important but not if a majority/plurality of society's members (or in this case the elected representatives thereof) decide otherwise, you've basically thrown the whole concept out the window.  This is classic "tyranny of the majority" stuff.

Of course it is but it is also our Constitution. Do you want a new Constitution because this one specifically included a not-withstanding clause because the idea of the SCC being able to have the final say in any matter is a denial of the supremacy of parliament and as Allan Blakeney liked to say, they fought a civil war in Great Britain to gain the basic right to the supremacy of parliament and he was not going to see a constitution passed that gave the Queen's courts ultimate power.

NorthReport
KarlL

kropotkin1951 wrote:

KarlL wrote:

If you say rights are important but not if a majority/plurality of society's members (or in this case the elected representatives thereof) decide otherwise, you've basically thrown the whole concept out the window.  This is classic "tyranny of the majority" stuff.

Of course it is but it is also our Constitution. Do you want a new Constitution because this one specifically included a not-withstanding clause because the idea of the SCC being able to have the final say in any matter is a denial of the supremacy of parliament and as Allan Blakeney liked to say, they fought a civil war in Great Britain to gain the basic right to the supremacy of parliament and he was not going to see a constitution passed that gave the Queen's courts ultimate power.

I see your point and I would wish that the powers of reservation or disallowance had never been allowed to have fallen into abeyance, or POGG for that matter, even though they would be rare extraordinary remedies.  That's spilled milk now of course and could not be resurrected, especially against the Quebec government on culture/language as that would probably lead to the dissolution of the federation. 

I suppose that I don't know enough about Constitutional law but as I understand it, the notwithstanding clause does not shield a law from ongoing judicial review and scrutiny (see https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2019/faulty-wisdom-notwithstanding-clause/).  There is a political angle to this as the notwithstanding clause is supposed to be a temporary suspension of Charter rights for no more than five years.   

To my mind, it is open to the federal government to be an intervenor in such cases and to underscore the harm perpetrated by the law.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KarlL wrote:

That's spilled milk now of course and could not be resurrected, especially against the Quebec government on culture/language as that would probably lead to the dissolution of the federation. 

...

To my mind, it is open to the federal government to be an intervenor in such cases and to underscore the harm perpetrated by the law.

Yes it is open to the federal government but you have already highlighted a likely outcome. Individual rights under the Charter should be protected but I believe that the people affected should lead the fight against them. I am not convinced there is any argument that the federal government can make that is different than any of the arguments of the present litigants so it is really just grandstanding but then that is Trudeau's whole game.

The flip side of the NDP policy is also good because I believe firmly in concept that the more local the control the better it is for the environment and quality of live in a region. Being a BC'er the notion of an ill defined national interest overriding my local interest and putting the tourism industry at risk is the real tyranny, basically a tyranny of Central Canada and unlike the nasty law in Quebec it has little democratic or legal recourse when the government has a majority.

 

NorthReport

If perception build that Scheer is a loser it could drive more votes to the NDP and Greens

https://www.straight.com/news/1310026/if-andrew-scheer-perceived-be-loser-it-could-drive-more-votes-new-democrats-and-greens

Sean in Ottawa

I think Mulcair is wrong to criticize Singh on his response to Bill 21.

Singh has said that he opposes the law. He has said he supports the testing of it in court.

He has also said that the NDP believes in Asymetrical Federalism and that as a non Quebec resident he will not interfere as he believes that it would be counter productive and harm the case of those challenging the law in Quebec.

He has not ruled out involvement if it reaches the Supre Court.

pietro_bcc

lagatta4 wrote:

No, and I don't support Law 21 either, (There is no "Bill 21", the law was adopted), but I also support our right to self-determination despite my opposition to what I see as a discriminatory law. We have to work that out here in our nation, and many of us are doing so".

The "Bill 21" stuff reminds me of angryphones - note, not anglophones - who still call the Charter of the French language "Bill 101". The equal and opposite number in terms of bigotry as La Meute

Anglos refer as all laws as "Bill whatever number", its factually inaccurate but its the common parlance for all laws for consistency's sake so we don't have to change how we refer to a law both before and after passing. We don't call it Bill 101 because we dislike it, we call it Bill 101 because that's how we refer to all laws.

Same with stuff like Bill C51 for example, conservatives like that law, they still call it Bill C51

lagatta4

I'm against that law and so is the party I belong to on the Québec level (Québec solidaire). It is simply that we think that the law must be challenged in Québec, and that interference from outside would be very counterproductive in the current context.

And I suspect that work I do requires being factually accurate in language terms.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

How was Trudeau’s openness to perhaps interfere down the road perceived from the debates?

NorthReport
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

I'm against that law and so is the party I belong to on the Québec level (Québec solidaire). It is simply that we think that the law must be challenged in Québec, and that interference from outside would be very counterproductive in the current context.

And I suspect that work I do requires being factually accurate in language terms.

Thanks for that. I value your opinion on Quebec issues and am glad to hear that indeed Jagmeet's message was the right message to send to progressive voters who might consider voting NDP. I am also a strong proponent of asymmetrical federalism and less "national interest" projects.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

lagatta4 wrote:

I'm against that law and so is the party I belong to on the Québec level (Québec solidaire). It is simply that we think that the law must be challenged in Québec, and that interference from outside would be very counterproductive in the current context.

And I suspect that work I do requires being factually accurate in language terms.

Thanks for that. I value your opinion on Quebec issues and am glad to hear that indeed Jagmeet's message was the right message to send to progressive voters who might consider voting NDP. I am also a strong proponent of asymmetrical federalism and less "national interest" projects.

I used to be against asymetrical federalism on the basis that it does not treat everyone the same but I came around to it on the basis that there is no need for that. Provinces can have different arrangements as long as they have the equal ability to strike them. This actually respects the differences and local choices and when you consider the right to self determination then so long as it does not compromise another why should everyone's relationship be the same. It must be equitable but does not have to be equal. I came to this conclusion in the 1990s even though it was not in time for the referendum unfortunately.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

NDP's Singh stands by decision to block Regina MP for running for party

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/ndps-singh-stands-by-decision-to-block-regina-mp-for-running-for-party

You’d figure he’d stay as far away from the province as possible.  But I agree with Atkinson that he has campaigned well so far.  They may be able to win a few seats that it didn’t look they would when the campaign started.

NorthReport

I saw his presser in Saskatoon and he did stay away from the ‘weir’ nonsense, quite effectively, but if he had not gone to SK he would have been criticized for that

Misfit Misfit's picture

The National Post article that NR posted mentioned that Saskatoon West is definitely in play for the NDP. And it is a strong fight between the Liberals and NDP for Deneseth-Missinippi in the North. But if the Liberals are just that aweful on Fiest Nation issues then perhaps the NDP can hold the north in Saskatchewan.

jerrym

Misfit wrote:

The National Post article that NR posted mentioned that Saskatoon West is definitely in play for the NDP. And it is a strong fight between the Liberals and NDP for Deneseth-Missinippi in the North. But if the Liberals are just that aweful on Fiest Nation issues then perhaps the NDP can hold the north in Saskatchewan.

The decision by the Liberals to appeal the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's tenth order in three years to pay compensation to each child apprehended in the underfunded federal child welfare system is sparking a widespread anger in First Nations that is likely to cost them considerable votes in ridings with substantial indigenous populations, such as Deneseth-Missinippi.

First Nations chiefs are expressing outrage and disappointment at the federal government’s decision to appeal a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling ordering Ottawa to pay billions of dollars in compensation to First Nations children and their families separated by a chronically underfunded child-welfare system.

“This is beyond unacceptable. The government of Canada is once again preparing to fight First Nations children in court,” National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Perry Bellegarde said in a statement Friday. “The government could have addressed the broken system and the funding inequalities before, but they didn’t. To appeal this CHRT ruling, which was meant to provide a measure of justice for First Nations children in care, is hurtful and unjust.”

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs issued its own statement. “AMC is outraged by the actions of the Trudeau government today,” said Grand Chief Arlen Dumas. “The decision today speaks to the lack of concern the federal government has for the children and families who have been harmed by a broken child-welfare system that’s been imposed on them.” ...

Off-reserve children, covered by provincial agencies, typically had more resources devoted to them.

The result was a mass removal of Indigenous children from their parents, for years, in a system Indigenous leaders say had more First Nations kids living in foster care than at the height of the residential-schools era. The decision to challenge the ruling comes three days before the Oct. 7 deadline to file an appeal.

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/feds-fight-ruling-on-compensation-f...

nicky

http://warrenkinsella.com/2019/10/did-justin-trudeau-call-jagmeet-singh-marge-simpson/

Kinsella alleges Trudeau made racist slur against Jagmeet

Pages