Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

890 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people? Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum? 

It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland. 

As an aside, it is far too early to assume that a Sikh homeland would expel all non-Silkhs. 

What statement would be acceptable to his critics?

Where was the uproar over this:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/as-trudeau-supports-united-spain-q...

That decision doesn’t sit well with New Democrats, who are trying to retain or grow support in Quebec under new leader Jagmeet Singh. Foreign critic Hélène Laverdière, a Montreal MP, said in a statement “the NDP has always believed in the right to self-determination.”

“We find it extremely disappointing that the Liberal government has simply called the situation an ‘internal problem’ for Spain,” she said. “The imposition of direct rule on Catalonia, and the removal of the region’s president, is not a constructive course of action and may further inflame tensions. We would much rather see both parties engage in respectful dialogue to find a solution to the crisis.”

 

How dare the NDP meddle in Spain's internal affairs! They should have agreed with the Liberals, right?

Singh said:

“So whether it is in Punjab, for the people of Punjab, or whether it is in Catalonia, for the people of that region, whether it is in Basque, wherever that is, whether it is in Quebec, it’s a basic right. Everyone should be able to do that.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/jagmeet-singh-leader-of-canada...

But in equating self-determination and the issue of recent separatist movements to the demand for a separate Sikh homeland, Singh is echoing the strategy adopted by hardline groups such as Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which is spearheading the so-called “Khalistan 2020 Referendum” effort.

This may be a coincidence, and SFJ’s legal advisor Gurpatwant Pannun said that while he had communicated with Singh in 2010-11, there had been “no contact” since then.

So no evidence that he is an active separatist. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-1.4590537

Jagmeet Singh's outreach has been about thwarting violence, not stoking it

These spaces are exactly where Singh's message needs to be heard

Jagmeet Singh taught me how to channel that pain and turn it into something positive. Instead of avoiding it, he talked to me — and so many others — openly and honestly about the 1984 Sikh genocide. About how it was okay to feel enraged, and helpless. And about how the first step toward healing was to turn that rage into something positive for our community, lest we perpetuate the cycle of violence. For me, that path led to law school and graduate studies in conflict, law and transitional justice. It could have gone another way.

Here's another thing that seems to be missing in discussion of this issue: "self-determination" doesn't mean violent separation. It doesn't even necessarily mean the creation of a new state. It means the right of the Sikh community in India to determine their own future. It's a right shared by all peoples, from Quebec to Catalonia. It's a right so important that it is enshrined in the very first article of the United Nations Charter.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-...

“Let’s make it really clear. I think it’s an important question. I condemn political violence absolutely, no question about that. It’s something that’s unacceptable. It divides people. It hurts people. It does not advance justice. It does not build a better society,” Singh said.

“I have never attended an event where the goal was to advance political violence, nor would I ever. That’s not my response; that’s not my values. It’s not what I believe in.”

NDPers who opposed having Singh as leader have been very quick to condemn him and very slow to do any research. People who regularly condemn mainstream media as biased against the NDP embrace any negative word they print about Singh even though there is zero evidence against him. None that he has ever worked for organizations, or even belonged to organizations, that promote Sikh independence. 

Even if he personally supports independence, since becoming leader, he has only supported self-determination for all people. Apparently that is not NDP policy. 

Is this what you want him to say?

"My position and Canada's position has not changed. We support one united India," Trudeau said.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people? Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum? 

It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland. 

As an aside, it is far too early to assume that a Sikh homeland would expel all non-Silkhs. 

What statement would be acceptable to his critics?

Where was the uproar over this:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/as-trudeau-supports-united-spain-q...

That decision doesn’t sit well with New Democrats, who are trying to retain or grow support in Quebec under new leader Jagmeet Singh. Foreign critic Hélène Laverdière, a Montreal MP, said in a statement “the NDP has always believed in the right to self-determination.”

“We find it extremely disappointing that the Liberal government has simply called the situation an ‘internal problem’ for Spain,” she said. “The imposition of direct rule on Catalonia, and the removal of the region’s president, is not a constructive course of action and may further inflame tensions. We would much rather see both parties engage in respectful dialogue to find a solution to the crisis.”

 

How dare the NDP meddle in Spain's internal affairs! They should have agreed with the Liberals, right?

Singh said:

“So whether it is in Punjab, for the people of Punjab, or whether it is in Catalonia, for the people of that region, whether it is in Basque, wherever that is, whether it is in Quebec, it’s a basic right. Everyone should be able to do that.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/jagmeet-singh-leader-of-canada...

But in equating self-determination and the issue of recent separatist movements to the demand for a separate Sikh homeland, Singh is echoing the strategy adopted by hardline groups such as Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which is spearheading the so-called “Khalistan 2020 Referendum” effort.

This may be a coincidence, and SFJ’s legal advisor Gurpatwant Pannun said that while he had communicated with Singh in 2010-11, there had been “no contact” since then.

So no evidence that he is an active separatist. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-1.4590537

Jagmeet Singh's outreach has been about thwarting violence, not stoking it

These spaces are exactly where Singh's message needs to be heard

Jagmeet Singh taught me how to channel that pain and turn it into something positive. Instead of avoiding it, he talked to me — and so many others — openly and honestly about the 1984 Sikh genocide. About how it was okay to feel enraged, and helpless. And about how the first step toward healing was to turn that rage into something positive for our community, lest we perpetuate the cycle of violence. For me, that path led to law school and graduate studies in conflict, law and transitional justice. It could have gone another way.

Here's another thing that seems to be missing in discussion of this issue: "self-determination" doesn't mean violent separation. It doesn't even necessarily mean the creation of a new state. It means the right of the Sikh community in India to determine their own future. It's a right shared by all peoples, from Quebec to Catalonia. It's a right so important that it is enshrined in the very first article of the United Nations Charter.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-...

“Let’s make it really clear. I think it’s an important question. I condemn political violence absolutely, no question about that. It’s something that’s unacceptable. It divides people. It hurts people. It does not advance justice. It does not build a better society,” Singh said.

“I have never attended an event where the goal was to advance political violence, nor would I ever. That’s not my response; that’s not my values. It’s not what I believe in.”

NDPers who opposed having Singh as leader have been very quick to condemn him and very slow to do any research. People who regularly condemn mainstream media as biased against the NDP embrace any negative word they print about Singh even though there is zero evidence against him. None that he has ever worked for organizations, or even belonged to organizations, that promote Sikh independence. 

Even if he personally supports independence, since becoming leader, he has only supported self-determination for all people. Apparently that is not NDP policy. 

Is this what you want him to say?

"My position and Canada's position has not changed. We support one united India," Trudeau said.

You are talking beside the point. Self determination does not involve the advocacy of a leader of a political party half way around the world. This is not a situation where there has been a vote -- or even where there are agreed-upon territorial borders to have such a vote as boundaries would be in dispute.

It is fair to support the broad principle of self determination. It is not for a leader of a Canadian political party to be involved in advocacy regarding what the result of that determination may be or to be using his office, without the support of members be taken into account, to decide when to apply this to territories that have not identified themselves expressing a clear desire to do so.

I know you like Singh. I sincerely hope that he is successful but he is following this particular path in a way that is more likely to interfere with his potential success than support it.

I am also in support of self determination.

I am even open to a resolution and investigation -- done carefully with support of the members -- to argue if this is a case of denied self-determination or a minority of a territory that do not actually have such support.

Comparing Catalonia is a false comparison first becuase, while you can contest the result, they did have a vote and Spain and the then Catalonian administration has engaged with the international community. In this case there is no comparisons to make.

Further, as much as you can say from Canada that you disavow violence, you cannot press for this in the case of India without promoting a result that could only be expected to be violent.

Comparing Catalonia to Khalistan is extremely ignorant when you consider the facts. Notably:

1) Sihks are a religious group not a territory like Catalonia and those who want independence are not even in the majority in the Punjab. This means that participants in the Khalistan state would require territory be given them that is not defined, where they are not a majority and where the existing people would be displaced and they would gather from other places to populate.

2) The areas claimed for Khalistan involve two different countries, India and Pakistan (both Nuclear powers with a history of massacre due to a religious definition of a geographical place.

3) There is no proof that there is significant majority support for this in any part of India, even among Sihks, nevermind a territory that includes all residents in the determination and so there is no place where the issue of self-determination would be relevant. These are minorities who wish to re-locate, to and evict the local majorities to create a new state. That is not what self determination means in the context of geographical areas that supply a vote to all people living in the area -- be it Quebec or Catalonia. All residents would participate in the later areas.

4) Some 50 years ago there were people who wanted to create a Sihk majority state within India. This never happened and there is no boundary other than a desire on behalf of a minority of people in the region. The Punjabi Suba movement tried to create a province within India but did not succeed. It is worth noting that they never did call for independence but mainly diaspora people have used the arguments.

5) Poponents of this movement have frequently called for violence. Some of that violence is well known in Canada and merely saying you do not agree with the violence is not sufficient given that there is no way other than violence to effect the kinds of changes required to make this project viable. To get the majority in the territory that Khalistan proponents claim would require ethnic cleansing.

6) Apart from territory there are other divisive issues including river damning and directions affecting many poeple. To think this is about a local territory that has expressed a desire for a common independent future and being held back by a central authority is to misunderstand many of the complicated issues involved.

Supporting this naitonal project on either the principle of self determination or some desire to help the oppressed is fraught with danger. It is not an area that a leader of a Canadian political party, without the support of his party, should be doing.

brookmere

Pogo wrote:

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

Who Is "Christina Freeland"?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people? Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum? 

It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland. 

As an aside, it is far too early to assume that a Sikh homeland would expel all non-Silkhs. 

What statement would be acceptable to his critics?

Where was the uproar over this:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/as-trudeau-supports-united-spain-q...

That decision doesn’t sit well with New Democrats, who are trying to retain or grow support in Quebec under new leader Jagmeet Singh. Foreign critic Hélène Laverdière, a Montreal MP, said in a statement “the NDP has always believed in the right to self-determination.”

“We find it extremely disappointing that the Liberal government has simply called the situation an ‘internal problem’ for Spain,” she said. “The imposition of direct rule on Catalonia, and the removal of the region’s president, is not a constructive course of action and may further inflame tensions. We would much rather see both parties engage in respectful dialogue to find a solution to the crisis.”

 

How dare the NDP meddle in Spain's internal affairs! They should have agreed with the Liberals, right?

Singh said:

“So whether it is in Punjab, for the people of Punjab, or whether it is in Catalonia, for the people of that region, whether it is in Basque, wherever that is, whether it is in Quebec, it’s a basic right. Everyone should be able to do that.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/jagmeet-singh-leader-of-canada...

But in equating self-determination and the issue of recent separatist movements to the demand for a separate Sikh homeland, Singh is echoing the strategy adopted by hardline groups such as Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which is spearheading the so-called “Khalistan 2020 Referendum” effort.

This may be a coincidence, and SFJ’s legal advisor Gurpatwant Pannun said that while he had communicated with Singh in 2010-11, there had been “no contact” since then.

So no evidence that he is an active separatist. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-1.4590537

Jagmeet Singh's outreach has been about thwarting violence, not stoking it

These spaces are exactly where Singh's message needs to be heard

Jagmeet Singh taught me how to channel that pain and turn it into something positive. Instead of avoiding it, he talked to me — and so many others — openly and honestly about the 1984 Sikh genocide. About how it was okay to feel enraged, and helpless. And about how the first step toward healing was to turn that rage into something positive for our community, lest we perpetuate the cycle of violence. For me, that path led to law school and graduate studies in conflict, law and transitional justice. It could have gone another way.

Here's another thing that seems to be missing in discussion of this issue: "self-determination" doesn't mean violent separation. It doesn't even necessarily mean the creation of a new state. It means the right of the Sikh community in India to determine their own future. It's a right shared by all peoples, from Quebec to Catalonia. It's a right so important that it is enshrined in the very first article of the United Nations Charter.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-...

“Let’s make it really clear. I think it’s an important question. I condemn political violence absolutely, no question about that. It’s something that’s unacceptable. It divides people. It hurts people. It does not advance justice. It does not build a better society,” Singh said.

“I have never attended an event where the goal was to advance political violence, nor would I ever. That’s not my response; that’s not my values. It’s not what I believe in.”

NDPers who opposed having Singh as leader have been very quick to condemn him and very slow to do any research. People who regularly condemn mainstream media as biased against the NDP embrace any negative word they print about Singh even though there is zero evidence against him. None that he has ever worked for organizations, or even belonged to organizations, that promote Sikh independence. 

Even if he personally supports independence, since becoming leader, he has only supported self-determination for all people. Apparently that is not NDP policy. 

Is this what you want him to say?

"My position and Canada's position has not changed. We support one united India," Trudeau said.

Sorry Pondering but you are smearing the people that disagree with you. That is unseemly. This post is extremely arrogant in assuming only you have done adequate research. This is not the way to change anyone's mind. It is guaranteed to start a fight here instead of provoke a respectful discussion.

And you are back to old tactics of avoiding the central statements being made and really being dishonest in your characterizations of what other people are saying. That is not constructive and eventually only gets you in a flame war.

Stop pretending that the people concerned about this are asking Singh to declare opposition to any homeland. That is not true.

Stop thinking you know more than other people. That clearly is not true. The territory being claimed by Sikh nationalists would only be viable with mass outflow of people in order for them to gain a majority in favour of the national project. I encourage you to spend a little time reviewing Indian 20th century history so that you might even have a chance of coming to the conclusion that there are good reasons why many Sikhs in India would not want to see this -- nevermind the non-Sikh population.

You are the one making this complicated by, as you have in a couple threads, questioning the motivations of people concerned about this. Many of these people are NDP supporters not wanting the party to go into this without a lot more thought, dragged in by a leader not clarifying his position regarding his role as leader and these opinions.

You pretend to say what people would accept: They might accept him saying he will not use his role as leader to get involved in this issue. He can also state that the territorial integrity of India remains an NDP position so long as the party itself does not change that -- regardless of his personal thoughts. This does not contradict self determination as there has been no such thing being held back here. There has been a violent dispute that is not even significant in India now other than a wound from history. There is no vote the Indian government is refusing to hold or denying the result of. There is no demand for this at a level where invoking self determination would be appropriate. At this stage invoking the principle of self determination would be provocation and interference and not comparable to any concept of self-determination that has been respected and advocated by the leaders of any Canadian party.

brookmere

Pondering wrote:

 Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum?

Singh should have kept quiet about Catalonia. However not much was made about it because he was just making a rhetorical point and it was not a cause he was associated with.

Quote:
It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland.

All he has to say is that whether Punjab remains in India or leaves is none of his business.

 

Pondering

Sean said You are talking beside the point. Self determination does not involve the advocacy of a leader of a political party half way around the world. This is not a situation where there has been a vote -- or even where there are agreed-upon territorial borders to have such a vote as boundaries would be in dispute.

Please show me any evidence that Singh has been an advocate for Sikh separatism. He has not supported the 2020 movement. They spoke to him once in 2010 and once in 2011 (probably to try to gain his support).

Please show me any evidence that as leader of the NDP Singh has expressed support for Sikh separtism. One statement. If you can't find one since he became leader find one from before he became leader. 

Pondering

brookmere wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum?

Singh should have kept quiet about Catalonia. However not much was made about it because he was just making a rhetorical point and it was not a cause he was associated with.

Quote:
It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland.

All he has to say is that whether Punjab remains in India or leaves is none of his business.

He tried that when he was pushed to condemn the Air India guy. People insisted that denouncing the bombing itself was not enough, he had to specifically condemn the individual accused of being mastermind even though it happened when he was five years old. He can't just say "it's none of his business" as being PM includes foreign affairs. Saying "it's none of his business" would be interpreted as not wanting to condemn it but not having the guts to express his position. 

 This is bullshit. This "controversy" was manufactured by mainstream media. Please quote the statement Singh has made that you disagree with or is inappropriate Concerning Sikhs or India.