Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

890 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
both having paid their dues

There are dues?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
both having paid their dues

There are dues?

pay your dues. ​ to earn the right to have something because you worked hard: I'vepaid my dues for the last 25 years, and now I'm ready for a comfortable retirement. (Definition of “pay your dues” from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary© Cambridge University Press)

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

oops, you are right of course, it's just that he didn't spend any time there so I forgot lol. 

Do you live in that riding?

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

oops, you are right of course, it's just that he didn't spend any time there so I forgot lol. 

Do you live in that riding?

I meant once he became leader he started traveling the country. He didn't spend much time in parliament. He wasn't particularly noticable when he was there. 

R.E.Wood

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Angus is a disgruntled loser.

This is so out of character for Angus.   It can't just be that he thought it should have been him.

He probably would have been fine with Ashton or Cullen winning, both having paid their dues and both being on the leftist side of the party. He isn't just unhappy that he personally didn't win. He's unhappy that Singh won. People new to the federal NDP have more power than party stalwarts. The goal was to overthrow the centrists. Infuriated might be a better word. 

I think a lot of people around here would have a problem with describing Cullen as "being on the leftist side of the party"... I think these days he pretty much epitomizes the middle-of-the-road establishment. 

Debater

The point is that Trudeau had a seat when he became Liberal leader.  He was in his second term as an MP.

Trudeau may not have spent a lot of time in Parliament, but he still spent some time there.

Having a seat gives you the opportunity to become part of a caucus and to get some exposure to the goings on in Parliament.

Most people have seats when they become leader.  There are some that don't, but they are the exception to the rule.

And those that don't have a seat usually run for one.  (Joe Clark when he came back to the PC's, Jean Chretien in 1990 when he came back to the Liberals, etc.)

And although Jack Layton didn't have a seat when he became elected NDP Leader in 2003, the election came soon after, in 2004, so it wasn't a long wait.

josh

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Angus is a disgruntled loser.

This is so out of character for Angus.   It can't just be that he thought it should have been him.

He probably would have been fine with Ashton or Cullen winning, both having paid their dues and both being on the leftist side of the party. He isn't just unhappy that he personally didn't win. He's unhappy that Singh won. People new to the federal NDP have more power than party stalwarts. The goal was to overthrow the centrists. Infuriated might be a better word. 

Cullen is on the “leftist” side of the party?

Pondering

josh wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Angus is a disgruntled loser.

This is so out of character for Angus.   It can't just be that he thought it should have been him.

He probably would have been fine with Ashton or Cullen winning, both having paid their dues and both being on the leftist side of the party. He isn't just unhappy that he personally didn't win. He's unhappy that Singh won. People new to the federal NDP have more power than party stalwarts. The goal was to overthrow the centrists. Infuriated might be a better word. 

Cullen is on the “leftist” side of the party?

Perhaps not. Maybe it is all about power alone. It may not be clear to anyone else but it is clear to me that there is a faction of the NDP caucus that resents Singh being elected as leader and are not loyal to him the way they were loyal to Mulcair and they are damaging the party with infighting the same way the Liberals damaged their party with infighting starting with the Chretien/Martin battle and continuing until Trudeau became party leader.  Just like the Liberals the infighting will damage the party if it doesn't stop. I hope that Singh will be able to deal with the disgruntled. If the party keeps fighting itself support will drop farther and the party will be able to successfully get rid of Singh but there won't be much left once they are done. 

It's one thing to lose because in an election someone has to, it's another thing to lose because your party is divided and unwilling to support its leader publicly. 

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

Really, would that be anything like Canadians getting to know Mulcair when he was giving Harper the third degree over the payment to Duffy? That was huge. It was in the papers every day. It didn't help him a bit. 

Actually it did help a lot. The NDP went into the 2015 election riding pretty high. What killed their chances was a campaign that tried to out-Harper Harper, running to the right of the Liberals.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

Really, would that be anything like Canadians getting to know Mulcair when he was giving Harper the third degree over the payment to Duffy? That was huge. It was in the papers every day. It didn't help him a bit. 

Actually it did help a lot. The NDP went into the 2015 election riding pretty high. What killed their chances was a campaign that tried to out-Harper Harper, running to the right of the Liberals.

Not because of that. The polls didn't budge at the time it was happening. The NDP rose long after that based on percieved Trudeau weakness and Harper hate. 

Mighty Middle

Debater wrote:

The point is that Trudeau had a seat when he became Liberal leader.  He was in his second term as an MP.

Trudeau may not have spent a lot of time in Parliament, but he still spent some time there.

Having a seat gives you the opportunity to become part of a caucus and to get some exposure to the goings on in Parliament.

Debater wrote:

And although Jack Layton didn't have a seat when he became elected NDP Leader in 2003, the election came soon after, in 2004, so it wasn't a long wait.

And I would argue that Jack Layton has much more political experience and savvy than Jagmeet Singh. True Jagmeet was an MPP, but being in a party system (though he was Deputy Leader) at the end of the day he toes the party line.

Where Jack experience comes in is at the Municipal level, where there is no party system. To get things done you need to negotiate, work across idealogical lines, bring people together and be strategic.

That experience served Jack well when he moved to Federal Politics.

josh
Rev Pesky

Well, it's a statement. Pretty namby-pamby. Nothing about genocide, despite the fact that Singh wants the Indian governments actions against Sikhs to be called a genocide..

However, it is a step in the right direction.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Well, it's a statement. Pretty namby-pamby. Nothing about genocide, despite the fact that Singh wants the Indian governments actions against Sikhs to be called a genocide..

However, it is a step in the right direction.

It's more than any other leader has done and I notice there are no members of caucus stepping out of line for Palestinians. 

Pondering

The most recent challenge to Singh's leadership came this week after several caucus members publicly chastised him for punishing veteran MP David Christopherson, who broke ranks with his party to support a Conservative motion."Many members of caucus voted for him in the leadership race, so he's got a strong base and we're a pretty solid caucus," Angus said. "With Dave Christopherson back on track, we can do the business that we need to do with Jagmeet as leader."

Christopherson similarly emphasized in a statement that Singh has "shown himself to be a strong leader," and that he has "complete trust in his leadership."

Notice that Angus did not express his support for Singh, only tolerance. He said Singh has a strong base because many members of caucus voted for him, not that caucus is united behind him. Sounds more like he is saying the caucus can do its job despite having Singh as leader. 

I'll be happy to be proven wrong but I do not believe that Angus accepts Singh as leader. 

In a statement on Tuesday night, Mr. Angus said he was pleased Mr. Singh worked the issues out with Mr. Christopherson.

“This is a very positive move and is very much in keeping with the caucus solidarity we have always prided ourselves on,” Mr. Angus said.

Charlie conspiculously did not express any support for Singh. 

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet Singh backstage at the Juno Awards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-sbh-MkUr8

NorthReport
Coldwell Coldwell's picture

Given his abiding interest in the cause of an independent Khalistan, his consorting with extremist elements of the Sikh diaspora in Canada, and the centrality of religious trappings to his political identity, Jagmeet Singh is a poor fit for national leader of the NDP.  His preoccupations serve as a monumental distraction from the important issues that a social democratic party like the NDP needs to be addressing.  I fear that Singh's leadership will drive untold numbers of NDP supporters into the arms of the two old-line parties in next year's federal election.  The best we can hope for is that the remnants of the NDP will at least hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.  But I wouldn't bank on it. 

Pondering

Coldwell wrote:

Given his abiding interest in the cause of an independent Khalistan, his consorting with extremist elements of the Sikh diaspora in Canada, and the centrality of religious trappings to his political identity, Jagmeet Singh is a poor fit for national leader of the NDP.  His preoccupations serve as a monumental distraction from the important issues that a social democratic party like the NDP needs to be addressing.  I fear that Singh's leadership will drive untold numbers of NDP supporters into the arms of the two old-line parties in next year's federal election.  The best we can hope for is that the remnants of the NDP will at least hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.  But I wouldn't bank on it. 

Racist nonsense. Attending memorials isn't "consorting" nor are religious trappings central to his political identity. 

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

Pondering wrote:

Racist nonsense. Attending memorials isn't "consorting" nor are religious trappings central to his political identity. 

Tell that to Ujjal Dosanjh or, more importantly, to the average citizen of Canada--those ordinary Canadians to whom the NDP needs to appeal. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jagmeet-singh-defends-s...

Pondering

Coldwell wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Racist nonsense. Attending memorials isn't "consorting" nor are religious trappings central to his political identity. 

Tell that to Ujjal Dosanjh or, more importantly, to the average citizen of Canada--those ordinary Canadians to whom the NDP needs to appeal. 

">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jagmeet-singh-defends-s...

Ujjal Dosanjh has a right to his opinions. I don't have to agree with him. Swing voters will decide during the election campaign. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Racist nonsense. Attending memorials isn't "consorting" nor are religious trappings central to his political identity. 

How can Singh stop his political opponents from using this controversy against him and the NDP?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Racist nonsense. Attending memorials isn't "consorting" nor are religious trappings central to his political identity. 

How can Singh stop his political opponents from using this controversy against him and the NDP?

He can't, just like Trudeau couldn't stop his political opponents painting him as "not ready". The NDP knew when they elected a man with a turban it would cause some controversy and they were well aware of his history. He did great on Tout le Monde. No reason to think he will be any less effective in future videos. 

Is anyone suggesting a new leadership contest? Is there any indication that someone else would win?  Didn't he just get massive support at the convention? 

Certainly if NDP "supporters" concentrate on the negatives Singh will have a great deal of trouble achieving even limited success. Imagine if the Liberals had jumped on the "not ready" band wagon.

cco

Pondering wrote:

Is anyone suggesting a new leadership contest? Is there any indication that someone else would win?  Didn't he just get massive support at the convention? 

Convention "support", measured that way, is misleading. 90% of convention delegates didn't want a new leadership race. I think electing Singh was a mistake and will devastate our seat count at the next election, but I still voted "no" to the leadership race question. There isn't time, there isn't money, his instant members are still signed up through the fall, and we already took too long with the last leadership race, leaving Mulcair to, essentially, retire in place.

Singh won. We have to deal with that, at least until 2020, and do our best to save the furniture.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Is anyone suggesting a new leadership contest? Is there any indication that someone else would win?  Didn't he just get massive support at the convention? 

Convention "support", measured that way, is misleading. 90% of convention delegates didn't want a new leadership race. I think electing Singh was a mistake and will devastate our seat count at the next election, but I still voted "no" to the leadership race question. There isn't time, there isn't money, his instant members are still signed up through the fall, and we already took too long with the last leadership race, leaving Mulcair to, essentially, retire in place.

Singh won. We have to deal with that, at least until 2020, and do our best to save the furniture.

The party rallied around Mulcair. Singh is more progressive than Mulcair. The party does not appear to be rallying around Singh. If the furniture is burned Angus will have done it. 

PS, among the contenders, who do you think had more potential than Singh to be electorally successful?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
PS, among the contenders, who do you think had more potential than Singh to be electorally successful?

Not to answer for CCO, but I think whatever contender could be most radical, because as with all elections in our lifetime, the voters demand radical.

cco

Boy, I remember when Harper was too radical to be elected.

As I've said before, this idea of the Canadian electorate as occupying the middle of a bell curve that parties seek to locate seems, at best, overly simplistic. It's surely a remarkable coincidence that Harper moved left at exactly the moment Canadians moved right to meet him in the middle, isn't it? Or else we'd have to admit that campaigns matter, good leaders can sell policies that might be out of the mainstream, and sometimes people just vote for "change", no matter whether they've deeply considered the policy implications.

It does, however, provide an excellent template for pundits: Whenever a party loses, they lost because they weren't the Liberals. When the Liberal party loses, they lost because another party managed to be more like the Liberals.

Pondering

Transfered from Trudeau thread

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

He has already stated that he does not have a political position concerning Sikh independence. His only position is to defend the rights of Quebecers, Catalonians, and Sikhs to democratically secede if they choose to. 

India does not recognize the right of Sikh's to separate from India. I think India will strongly object if Singh takes the position that Sikhs have the right to secede from India.

So we bow to India now, reject our values and principles in favor of theirs?  Independence is fine for Ireland, Palestine, Quebec, Catalonia, but not Sikhs? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-india-trip-1.4551530

Sikh activism in Canada is not the Khalistani extremism of decades past

 

But the allegation that Canada is a refuge for Sikh extremists is belied by the facts on the ground. Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation — the two primary organs for violent Sikh organizing in the past — have been defunct in Canada for decades. And the last major instance of Khalistani violence in Canada is the still-unsolved murder of journalist Tara Singh Hayer, which took place 20 years ago.

So why are Indian authorities so focused on the issue of Sikh extremism in Canada now?

Referendum 2020

To understand that, you have to go back to 2014, when many Sikhs in the diaspora began coalescing around a new political movement, called Referendum 2020. The idea is fairly simple: hold a plebiscite of Sikhs throughout the world in 2020 asking if they wish to see an independent Sikh homeland in Northern India. If it passes, Sikh activists plan to take it to the United Nations and press for independence under the self-determination clause of the UN charter.

The NDP should stand against this? Why are members of the NDP playing into the narrative of violent Sikhs organizing in Canada? 

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/21/singh-says-he-will-attend-future-sikh-na...

“I’m a federal leader, my priority is going to be to reach out to as many Canadians as possible, to attend events where I can connect with Canadians in Canada.”

Singh said that does, however, include connecting with Canadians at Sikh nationalist rallies as long as the events don’t have the goal of promoting violence.

Boulerice proposed a stricter stance Monday, saying “Probably the right thing to do is to avoid any circumstance where you can in some way be related to those people who are saying violence is a good idea.”

However, Boulerice insisted that Singh has the full support of the party, adding that he is “quite confident that Mr. Singh will do the right thing for the future.”

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/21/singh-says-he-will-attend-future-sikh-na...

Singh hasn't done anything wrong. Caucus is either stupid or deliberately undermining Singh. 

 

Pondering

cco wrote:
 Or else we'd have to admit that campaigns matter, good leaders can sell policies that might be out of the mainstream, and sometimes people just vote for "change", no matter whether they've deeply considered the policy implications.

Of course campaigns matter. During the last election all three parties were in first place at different points. Yes good leaders can sell policies but they have to focus on one major at a time. Singh is focused on inequality. The Liberals say get used to precarious employment. Singh says precarious employment is unacceptable. Singh says go after the tax dodgers in the Paradise Papers. He wants all drug users decriminalized. 

There was much more support here for Mulcair writing to the Soccer Federation instead of denouncing the Hijab ban. 

cco wrote:
 It does, however, provide an excellent template for pundits: Whenever a party loses, they lost because they weren't the Liberals. When the Liberal party loses, they lost because another party managed to be more like the Liberals.

Pundits don't say other parties lose because they are not the Liberals.  With the exception of The Star the major newspapers all supported Harper for a decade. 

The Conservatives and the NDP both decided themselves to move to the centre. The pundits didn't make em do it. The NDP's excuse for not winning is the perpetual claim that every election the Liberals trick Canadians into voting for them. It's a cop out. Canadians have had Liberal governments for the majority of time since forever. If they are that bad it should be easy for the NDP to beat them. 

There is only one reason the NDP has not governed federally. They failed to sell themselves to Canadians.

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
So we bow to India now, reject our values and principles in favor of theirs?  Independence is fine for Ireland, Palestine, Quebec, Catalonia, but not Sikhs?

Sihks are a religion. Ireland, etc. are not. The independence movements of Ireland, Palestine (which let us note, was never part of Israel in the first place but is an occupied territory), Quebec, and Catalonia were not founded on religious identity. They did not place any religious group ahead of another.

Religious nationalism is inherently reactionary. It necessitates the deportation or perpetual second class status of those not belonging to the state religion. Which requires the ongoing use of force. That's not theory, that's practice and you know where. Which means it's wrong.

R.E.Wood

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Is anyone suggesting a new leadership contest? Is there any indication that someone else would win?  Didn't he just get massive support at the convention? 

Convention "support", measured that way, is misleading. 90% of convention delegates didn't want a new leadership race. I think electing Singh was a mistake and will devastate our seat count at the next election, but I still voted "no" to the leadership race question. There isn't time, there isn't money, his instant members are still signed up through the fall, and we already took too long with the last leadership race, leaving Mulcair to, essentially, retire in place.

Singh won. We have to deal with that, at least until 2020, and do our best to save the furniture.

Exactly, cco. I agree with everything you wrote here.

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Is anyone suggesting a new leadership contest? Is there any indication that someone else would win?  Didn't he just get massive support at the convention? 

Convention "support", measured that way, is misleading. 90% of convention delegates didn't want a new leadership race. I think electing Singh was a mistake and will devastate our seat count at the next election, but I still voted "no" to the leadership race question. There isn't time, there isn't money, his instant members are still signed up through the fall, and we already took too long with the last leadership race, leaving Mulcair to, essentially, retire in place.

Singh won. We have to deal with that, at least until 2020, and do our best to save the furniture.

Exactly, cco. I agree with everything you wrote here.

Well it seems like you are doing your best to burn the furniture not save it. 

Pondering

brookmere wrote:

Pondering wrote:
So we bow to India now, reject our values and principles in favor of theirs?  Independence is fine for Ireland, Palestine, Quebec, Catalonia, but not Sikhs?

Sihks are a religion. Ireland, etc. are not. The independence movements of Ireland, Palestine (which let us note, was never part of Israel in the first place but is an occupied territory), Quebec, and Catalonia were not founded on religious identity. They did not place any religious group ahead of another.

Religious nationalism is inherently reactionary. It necessitates the deportation or perpetual second class status of those not belonging to the state religion. Which requires the ongoing use of force. That's not theory, that's practice and you know where. Which means it's wrong.

A key issue was the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Unionists/loyalists, who were mostly Protestants, wanted Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom. Irish nationalists/republicans, who were mostly Catholics, wanted Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Ireland.

Israel was founded for jewish people because they were discriminated against based on their religion. Many people who identify as jewish are non-religious. 

Sikhs have also been attacked based on their identity as Sikhs. They have a right to act collectively and to desire a homeland. I think most countries in the world have a majority religion that dominates politically. The US is Christian. Even Canada has God in our anthem.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/o-canada-god-lyrics-1.3626325

"The next step for revisionists will be to remove 'God,' 'wield the sword,' 'carry the cross' and 'valour steeped in faith' from the anthems," McVety predicts. "Canada's national anthems are precious to the foundation of the country and should not be changed."

I hope we get a new national anthem that has nothing to do with God or religion but at this point in time Canada is a "Christian" nation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights...

The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the introductory sentence to the Constitution of Canada's Charter of Rights and Constitution Act, 1982. In full, it reads,

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

Sikhism is a religion but it is also a group identity under which they have been discriminated against in a region of the world that still treats people differently based on their religion. If they wanted a separate homeland in Canada, I would have a problem with that because Canada doesn't treat people differently based on religion. India does therefore it is reasonable to me that the group discriminated against, Sikhs, want a separate homeland in which they won't be persecuted based on being Sikhs. 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Transfered from Trudeau thread

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

He has already stated that he does not have a political position concerning Sikh independence. His only position is to defend the rights of Quebecers, Catalonians, and Sikhs to democratically secede if they choose to. 

India does not recognize the right of Sikh's to separate from India. I think India will strongly object if Singh takes the position that Sikhs have the right to secede from India.

So we bow to India now, reject our values and principles in favor of theirs?  Independence is fine for Ireland, Palestine, Quebec, Catalonia, but not Sikhs? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-india-trip-1.4551530

Sikh activism in Canada is not the Khalistani extremism of decades past

 

But the allegation that Canada is a refuge for Sikh extremists is belied by the facts on the ground. Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation — the two primary organs for violent Sikh organizing in the past — have been defunct in Canada for decades. And the last major instance of Khalistani violence in Canada is the still-unsolved murder of journalist Tara Singh Hayer, which took place 20 years ago.

So why are Indian authorities so focused on the issue of Sikh extremism in Canada now?

Referendum 2020

To understand that, you have to go back to 2014, when many Sikhs in the diaspora began coalescing around a new political movement, called Referendum 2020. The idea is fairly simple: hold a plebiscite of Sikhs throughout the world in 2020 asking if they wish to see an independent Sikh homeland in Northern India. If it passes, Sikh activists plan to take it to the United Nations and press for independence under the self-determination clause of the UN charter.

The NDP should stand against this? Why are members of the NDP playing into the narrative of violent Sikhs organizing in Canada? 

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/21/singh-says-he-will-attend-future-sikh-na...

“I’m a federal leader, my priority is going to be to reach out to as many Canadians as possible, to attend events where I can connect with Canadians in Canada.”

Singh said that does, however, include connecting with Canadians at Sikh nationalist rallies as long as the events don’t have the goal of promoting violence.

Boulerice proposed a stricter stance Monday, saying “Probably the right thing to do is to avoid any circumstance where you can in some way be related to those people who are saying violence is a good idea.”

However, Boulerice insisted that Singh has the full support of the party, adding that he is “quite confident that Mr. Singh will do the right thing for the future.”

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/21/singh-says-he-will-attend-future-sikh-na...

Singh hasn't done anything wrong. Caucus is either stupid or deliberately undermining Singh. 

 

First this is a rush to extremes here. Those who are taking issue with this are not asking for Singh to be deposed. But dismissing concerns as unreasonable is the other extreme.

It is valid for Canadians to exoect national leaders to swear off foreign conflicts such as this since they represent potential conflicts of interest with the interests of Canada.

There is nothing wrong for private citizens and non political people to take positions with resepct to other countries. For the leaders of Canadian political parties to do so represents an interference from our political process. It is not unreasonable for Canadians to expect personal views such as this to either be laid aside - publicly - for the duration of a leadership position or to be brought to the political party the leader represents for support. Ther eis nothing wrong with the NDP to take a position as a party on this -- although that would become a potential issue if voters did not approve. It is rasonable to expect an explanation formt he leader as to whether he will say he will not promote this view as leader or if he will bring it to his party for support. To dismiss this as something only Sing's political opponents would bring up suggests that you cannot both support the party and leader and still expect this explanation. This is not a small issue and would have political reprecussions -- it is an opinion we expect in democratic parties that they would either not be taken or taken by the party. It is not too much to ask for Singh to say this is, or is not, a position he will take during his time as leader. It is acceptable for him to say that it is a personal opinion he will keep to himself as leader

To suggest that this is not the business of the party and supporters is naive. Consider how dual nationality has played in recent history. Communications on this should be clear. It is legitimate for a leader to have opinions such as this but it is also reasonable to expect taht he would be careful and open about how he will use his leadership  with respect to these opinions.

This is not about opposing him as leader for everyone that might want to ask questions so there is no reason to make it about that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There is nothing wrong for private citizens and non political people to take positions with resepct to other countries. For the leaders of Canadian political parties to do so represents an interference from our political process.

Near as I can tell, it seems that whatever aid and succour Singh might have given those brown terr'rists happened before he was leader of anything.  Has any of this tempest happened since Oct. 1, 2017?  Or else how should he have behaved in a manner befitting "the leader" before he was the leader of anything?

I'm not saying it's offside for his opponents to jump on this like they'd jump on a "What up my ni**gaz?" tweet from 2015, but it's not so clear what the Leader of the NDP did wrong in the time that's he's been the Leader of the NDP.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Sikhism is a religion but it is also a group identity under which they have been discriminated against in a region of the world that still treats people differently based on their religion. If they wanted a separate homeland in Canada, I would have a problem with that because Canada doesn't treat people differently based on religion. India does therefore it is reasonable to me that the group discriminated against, Sikhs, want a separate homeland in which they won't be persecuted based on being Sikhs. 

 

It seems to me that Sikhs in India want to remain within India because they are integrated socially, politically, and economically within India. Separating from India would be very disruptive to the Sikhs living in India as India has stated that it will always be completely opposed to Sikh independence. I don't think Sikh independence is an issue for Sikhs living in India but it is an issue for some Sikhs who live in the Sikh diaspora. It makes sense that many of the Sikhs supporting separatism from India would be ones who have decided for themselves to leave India. It's interesting that Sikhs supporting "Sikh Referendum 2020" want Sikhs from throughout the world to participate in a vote on the separation from India instead of just Sikhs who are citizens of India. With the very deep ethnic schisms in India, I think India will take a very hard line stance againce any Independence movement. I think Jagmeet Singh would be wise to simply say that the NDP regards the issue of Sikh independence as a domestic issue of India to be decided by Indians themselves without interference from abroad.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It's interesting that Sikhs supporting "Sikh Referendum 2020" want Sikhs from throughout the world to participate in a vote on the separation from India instead of just Sikhs who are citizens of India.

I would completely, 100% agree that Sikhs outside of India should not vote on Sikh self-governance in the context of India.  But then I also don't think that the whole world should get a vote on the U.S. President, though I've seen that trial balloon floated here too.

But if Sikhs want their independence, and have sufficiently concentrated numbers in one area to make that reasonable in that one area, how is that different from Quebec wanting the same? 

 

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It's interesting that Sikhs supporting "Sikh Referendum 2020" want Sikhs from throughout the world to participate in a vote on the separation from India instead of just Sikhs who are citizens of India.

I would completely, 100% agree that Sikhs outside of India should not vote on Sikh self-governance in the context of India.  But then I also don't think that the whole world should get a vote on the U.S. President, though I've seen that trial balloon floated here too.

Well, from the research I've just been doing, this Referendum 2020 thingamajig is being planned by a private Sikh nationalist organization. As such, I do think that non-Indian Sikhs have a right to participate, if that's what the organizers want.

By the same token, if that's how the rererendum is organized, the Indian government presumably reserves the right to tell the organizers that the results will not be recognized. Or, in the legal terminology, go fuck yourself with a blowtorch.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well, from the research I've just been doing, this Referendum 2020 thingamajig is being planned by a private Sikh nationalist organization.

OK.  But if they're not the government then it's really just a survey.

Didn't we actually see this in Catalonia?

Quote:
By the same token, if that's how the rererendum is organized, the Indian government presumably reserves the right to tell the organizers that the results will not be recognized.

Sadly, that will mean some people saying "that was fun, but it's not really a referendum" and others saying "look!  Look how they deny the will of the people in this totally unoffical survey!"

Nothing wrong with a survey, but it's not a referendum any more than the latest IPSOS poll is the election.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But if Sikhs want their independence, and have sufficiently concentrated numbers in one area to make that reasonable in that one area, how is that different from Quebec wanting the same? 

 

I think the difference is that in Canada the Canadian Supreme Court decided that it is legal for the government of Quebec to have a referendum to further the cause of Quebec independence while in India the legality of an independence referendum has not been established.

brookmere

Mr. Magoo wrote:
But if Sikhs want their independence, and have sufficiently concentrated numbers in one area to make that reasonable in that one area, how is that different from Quebec wanting the same?

Quebec nationalism is secular. Sikh nationalism is theocratic. An independent Sikh state would either have to expel non-Sikhs or enforce inferior status on non-Sikhs. Religious nationalism inherently involves violation of human rights. This is something entirely different from establishing a common language putting everyone on the same footing, which is the goal in Quebec of both sovereigntists and federalists.

What's also different is that Quebec sovereignty is Canada's business and it's entirely appropriate for federal parties to take a stand on what its terms should be. Canadian politicians have no more business taking a position on making Punjab a sovereign Sikh state than they do on making Utah a sovereign Mormon state.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I wonder if Christina Freeland is held up to that standard.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Sikhism is a religion but it is also a group identity under which they have been discriminated against in a region of the world that still treats people differently based on their religion. If they wanted a separate homeland in Canada, I would have a problem with that because Canada doesn't treat people differently based on religion. India does therefore it is reasonable to me that the group discriminated against, Sikhs, want a separate homeland in which they won't be persecuted based on being Sikhs. 

 

It seems to me that Sikhs in India want to remain within India because they are integrated socially, politically, and economically within India. Separating from India would be very disruptive to the Sikhs living in India as India has stated that it will always be completely opposed to Sikh independence. I don't think Sikh independence is an issue for Sikhs living in India but it is an issue for some Sikhs who live in the Sikh diaspora. It makes sense that many of the Sikhs supporting separatism from India would be ones who have decided for themselves to leave India. It's interesting that Sikhs supporting "Sikh Referendum 2020" want Sikhs from throughout the world to participate in a vote on the separation from India instead of just Sikhs who are citizens of India. With the very deep ethnic schisms in India, I think India will take a very hard line stance againce any Independence movement. I think Jagmeet Singh would be wise to simply say that the NDP regards the issue of Sikh independence as a domestic issue of India to be decided by Indians themselves without interference from abroad.

The point I am making is that this may be a legitimate policy for a party in Canada. However, what determines if it is would be the membership. This is a fair political issue with a leader with personal interests being asked to clarify positions and not doing so. The public will want to know by election day and the members will want to know now if this is something the leader's and party's goodwill will be expended on.

I have no trouble with anyone, including the leader, raising this with the NDP membership. I do have trouble with the leader, who has attended a number of events related to nationalism, refusing to clarify when interested people ask. I do not agree with the leader, even peacefully, advocating independence for a part of a country Canada has relations with, without asking for the support of his party. Given the ways he has not answered questions on this, apart from the issue of violence, he is looking evasive. That is not a good look.

The clarity on violence is welcome, even if it took a while before it was absolute, but there is needed clarity on whether or not the leader will use his position as leader to draw attention to this nationalism or whether he will put it to bed during his time as leader and establish neutrality at this time. The personal brand and the leadership and party brand are not that far apart for a leader to be unclear on this.

No leader in any party would not be expected to answer such a question following attendance at events like this.

There is a reasonable concern for conflict here: this conflict is not necessarily personal but between some of his backers and the party membership. Backers can provide support and funding but a leader speaks for the entire party and neeeds to put critical policy questions to the party so that the party hears the position of the leader and the leader hears the position of the party. The potential breakup of a country Canada has relations with is such a policy question.

I am happy to discuss this as a quesiton of NDP policy once the leader admits that this is where the question should be raised -- and I am happy to leave it to his personal beliefs provided the leader declares that he will not advocate for it using his position while leader.

Fact is ANY advocacy by a leader is using the position as leader. Not sure why so many here are missing the apparent conflict of interest.

I would not have a different opinion on any other type of divisive issue. Leaders must respect the party democracy. The NDP was not created by Singh and is not about to be a personality cult. This has happend in the past with eladers of a number of parties. It was not acceptable and the NDP in particular has democratic right in the name. Managemetn has a lot to do with the leader and so does emphasis but high level policies such as this should not be within the role of leader alone. The denial that any advocacy by the leader means use of the party is very bad judgment.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

brookmere wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
But if Sikhs want their independence, and have sufficiently concentrated numbers in one area to make that reasonable in that one area, how is that different from Quebec wanting the same?

Quebec nationalism is secular. Sikh nationalism is theocratic. An independent Sikh state would either have to expel non-Sikhs or enforce inferior status on non-Sikhs. Religious nationalism inherently involves violation of human rights. This is something entirely different from establishing a common language putting everyone on the same footing, which is the goal in Quebec of both sovereigntists and federalists.

What's also different is that Quebec sovereignty is Canada's business and it's entirely appropriate for federal parties to take a stand on what its terms should be. Canadian politicians have no more business taking a position on making Punjab a sovereign Sikh state than they do on making Utah a sovereign Mormon state.

The "non-interference in the internal affairs of another country" is what I was taught was the polite and diplomatic thing to do back in the day. This way we could worry about our own country and ignore the situation in places like Israel, Syria, and for that matter Punjab. Back then it was the US and Vietnam etc. "non-interference in the affairs of another country" meant we shouldn't demonstrate against LBJ and Nixon and Pinochet in Canada or the UK etc. "non-interference in the affairs of another country" is a horse which has bolted a long time ago. Now that we have complete freedom of international capital flows since the Reagan-Thatcher Big Bang of 1986, and the Internet, the horse has run back into non-existence.

How a group of people wishes to self-identify themselves, whether "religious", "secular", "philosophical", etc., should be irrelevant if they have decided to form a collective identity. If they have the organization including leaders and spokespeople and masses of people, their concerns should be no different from any others, especially if atrocities have been committed against those people because of that identity. A religion can be an oppressor, or it can be oppressed. All three of the Abrahamic religions currently oppress in some places and are oppressed in others, for example. Hindus have slaughtered, and they have been slaughtered. In the West, people used to slaughter each other based on what name they used for Jupiter.

You can't just say religion is bad therefore ignore the religiously oppressed. Religious wars are still wars. Massacres are still massacres. They are a big part of the unfortunate history of the world. If 500,000 of us feel outrage, we have a right to expect some of our politicians to express it too. 
 

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

brookmere wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
But if Sikhs want their independence, and have sufficiently concentrated numbers in one area to make that reasonable in that one area, how is that different from Quebec wanting the same?

Quebec nationalism is secular. Sikh nationalism is theocratic. An independent Sikh state would either have to expel non-Sikhs or enforce inferior status on non-Sikhs. Religious nationalism inherently involves violation of human rights. This is something entirely different from establishing a common language putting everyone on the same footing, which is the goal in Quebec of both sovereigntists and federalists.

What's also different is that Quebec sovereignty is Canada's business and it's entirely appropriate for federal parties to take a stand on what its terms should be. Canadian politicians have no more business taking a position on making Punjab a sovereign Sikh state than they do on making Utah a sovereign Mormon state.

The "non-interference in the internal affairs of another country" is what I was taught was the polite and diplomatic thing to do back in the day. This way we could worry about our own country and ignore the situation in places like Israel, Syria, and for that matter Punjab. Back then it was the US and Vietnam etc. "non-interference in the affairs of another country" meant we shouldn't demonstrate against LBJ and Nixon and Pinochet in Canada or the UK etc. "non-interference in the affairs of another country" is a horse which has bolted a long time ago. Now that we have complete freedom of international capital flows since the Reagan-Thatcher Big Bang of 1986, and the Internet, the horse has run back into non-existence.

How a group of people wishes to self-identify themselves, whether "religious", "secular", "philosophical", etc., should be irrelevant if they have decided to form a collective identity. If they have the organization including leaders and spokespeople and masses of people, their concerns should be no different from any others, especially if atrocities have been committed against those people because of that identity. A religion can be an oppressor, or it can be oppressed. All three of the Abrahamic religions currently oppress in some places and are oppressed in others, for example. Hindus have slaughtered, and they have been slaughtered. In the West, people used to slaughter each other based on what name they used for Jupiter.

You can't just say religion is bad therefore ignore the religiously oppressed. Religious wars are still wars. Massacres are still massacres. They are a big part of the unfortunate history of the world. If 500,000 of us feel outrage, we have a right to expect some of our politicians to express it too. 
 

You make good points which is why this should be brought to the party membership.

voice of the damned

Back then it was the US and Vietnam etc. "non-interference in the affairs of another country" meant we shouldn't demonstrate against LBJ and Nixon and Pinochet in Canada or the UK etc. "non-interference in the affairs of another country" is a horse which has bolted a long time ago.

Criticism of Pinochet's human-rights record is a little different from openly supporting a region of Chile declaring independence. Because the former, at worst, might provoke him to say bad things about Canada's human-rights record(as apartheid South Africa did with First Nations issues in the 80s). Whereas the latter would have been pretty much an open invitation for Pinochet(and any other countries he could rope along) to  start high-fiving independence movements in Canada. That last scenario gets a lot messier for Canada.

And it would be no good arguing "Well, those Alberta separatists that Pinochet is championing don't have a right to self-determination, since they're just a bunch of intolerant reactionaries anyway". The blunt reality of international politics makes no such fine distinctions.

voice of the damned

Back to apartheid for a sec...

In the 1980s, Canada championed majority-rule in South Africa, a standard we were happy to apply to ourselves. We didn't go around demanding that blacks in South Africa declare a geographically separate nation.  

Pages