Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

695 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

From the same article I think this is excellent news:

Hélène Laverdière has repeatedly criticized the Trudeau government’s silence on Donald Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. In response she tweeted, “a devastating day for those who believe in peace, justice and security in the Middle East. Where is Canada’s voice in protest of Trump’s decision on #Jerusalem? I urge Canada to condemn this decision in the strongest of terms.”

The party’s foreign critic also asked the federal government to condemn Israel’s detention of 16-year-old Ahed Tamimi and hundreds of other Palestinian children who are usually tortured by Israeli forces. Similarly, Laverdière has pressed Ottawa to properly label products from illegal Israeli settlements and submitted a petition to Parliament calling “upon the Government of Canada to demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”

Two weeks ago I received an email on behalf of party leader Jagmeet Singh titled “all people deserve the same human rights”, which listed the party’s recent support for Palestinian rights. It noted, “the NDP shares your concerns about Palestine. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and his team of New Democrats have a consistent record of defending Palestinian rights as well as raising concerns over Islamophobia.”

I'm very pleased by the above. It has the potential to inform more people about the situation. It's a huge step forward. It's worthy of praise not a demand that she step down because of what she did under Tom Mulcair. 

He's right that his newsletter is radical. The NDP isn't. It is a mainstream party that wants to get elected not just be a megaphone for every cause however just. Once elected they can begin to turn the country around but they won't get a mandate to change Canada radically. Promoting boycotting Israel would put the NDP into single digits. 

josh

It's encouraging, but we'll see the follow through, if any.

I don't know what you mean by "mainstream" and "radical."  Medicare was considered out of the mainstream and radical at one point.  Boycotting products produced illegally in the west bank is neither.

Pondering

josh wrote:

It's encouraging, but we'll see the follow through, if any.

I don't know what you mean by "mainstream" and "radical."  Medicare was considered out of the mainstream and radical at one point.  Boycotting products produced illegally in the west bank is neither.

Boycotting all products from Israel is extreme. Just from illegal settlements on Palestinian land is fine but even that is something to do once elected. As a platform item it would put the NDP in the single digits. It's all anyone would talk about. 

The NDP Socialist Caucus has called on the party to “actively campaign” in support of the (just nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize) Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions‘ movement’s demands.

BDS is a movement. The NDP is a political party. If they campaign to kick Israel out of the UN the NDP would be a laughing stock. 

SANCTIONS campaigns pressure governments to fulfil their legal obligation to hold Israel to account including by ending military trade, free-trade agreements and expelling Israel from international forums such as the UN and FIFA.

If we are going to that extreme I vote we kick Saudi Arabia and Iran among others out of the UN. China is pretty bad too. 

I personally support the BDS movement but Canada cannot promote the expulsion of Israel from the UN, FIFA, or any other international organization and remain a respected member of the international community. 

Firing Hélène Laverdière because she expressed the NDP's position under Tom Mulcair is also unreasonable given that she has spoken up for Palestinian rights since Singh became leader. She obviously takes direction from the party. That's her job. She isn't in charge of policy. There is no reason for her to lose her position for attending events during the Mulcair years. 

josh

Just from illegal settlements on Palestinian land is fine but even that is something to do once elected. As a platform item it would put the NDP in the single digits. It's all anyone would talk about. 

I think not.  And it's a perfectly reasonable and legally supportable position.    More than anything, it's the right thing to do.  Unless you want a second Liberal party.  You'll never supplant the Liberals by trying to be like them.  I think that lesson has been made clear.

Unionist

The leadership inner circle and members of caucus appear to have stifled the Palestine motion by making it 37th out of 45 foreign policy motions. Plus ça change... At least the Young New Democrats approved it unanimously.

R.E.Wood

A few quotes from Chantal Hébert's latest column:

Jagmeet Singh has lost momentum and faces a skeptical reception at the NDP’s convention

Jagmeet Singh enters his first national convention as NDP leader this weekend having yet to put a discernible stamp on the party’s parliamentary work or to make a lasting impression on most of the country’s voters.

Four months have elapsed since Singh’s first ballot victory last fall and whatever momentum attended the leadership vote has fast evaporated. Based on the lacklustre NDP showing in the polls on national voting intentions and its mediocre results in a handful of fall by-elections, the party may be looking at a long, dry electoral season.

...  The clock to the 2019 campaign is ticking. This weekend will be the last gathering of the party faithful before Canada next goes to the polls. By now, most of Singh’s MPs have come to the conclusion that they should not hope to ride his coattails to re-election. They are too short for comfort. That is particularly true of the 15 Quebec MPs who will be left after Mulcair bows out later this year.

... No political bloodletting of the sort is expected as a result of Saturday’s confidence vote. But Singh will be facing a more skeptical audience than his decisive leadership victory results would suggest. Back in October he beat runner-up Charlie Angus by a margin of almost three to one. But he achieved that victory by mobilizing tens of thousands of new members. Within the ranks of the party’s base the jury is still out on his leadership.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/02/16/jagmeet-singh...

Pondering

josh wrote:

Just from illegal settlements on Palestinian land is fine but even that is something to do once elected. As a platform item it would put the NDP in the single digits. It's all anyone would talk about. 

I think not.  And it's a perfectly reasonable and legally supportable position.    More than anything, it's the right thing to do.  Unless you want a second Liberal party.  You'll never supplant the Liberals by trying to be like them.  I think that lesson has been made clear.

I agree that the NDP should not try to emulate the Liberals. They should think about Canadians and what can be sold to them during an election campaign. At most you get time to defend one controversial policy. Transform people's lives for the better and they won't care what you do about Israel. 

I think we should get very strict about who we sell arms to and the only aid they get should be to diversify until they are out of the arms industry. It would be a terrible platform item. The arms industry would have an absolute fit and it would be used as an example of the NDP being anti-business and anti-worker. I don't know that ruining the NDP's chances of being elected is "the right thing to do". 

I'm not suggesting the NDP embrace Israel. I'm just saying from that article they are going in the right direction, they are condemning the atrocities and the settlements. They are defending the Palestinians. Maybe we could pause to applaud the progress. Israel's sins pale in comparison to many UN countries. The majority would probably have to be expelled. 

Maybe I have a faulty memory but I don't recall Mulcair being given such a hard time when he had barely taken the reins of the party. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention so correct me if I am wrong. 

josh

On here, or in general?  He took over after the successful 2011 election, and with Layton’s apparent blessing.  So the circumstances were quite different.  But it was clear from what he said, and from his past admiration of people like Thatcher, that he wanted to move the party to the right.  People kept their mouths shut because they though they were on the brink of power.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It would appear there's no need to edit the thread title to say "Jagmeet Singh, FORMER NDP Leader".

mark_alfred

Yes, 90.7% voted against having a leadership convention.  So, Singh has high approval with the delegates. 

The speech was good:  http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/cpac-special/episodes/59438585

Pondering

Thanks Mark, I'm only 16 minutes in and I am delighted. He just mentioned the internet as a public infrastructure. I was a bit ticked off at him over a Quebec thing which I will complain about later but for now I will just keep listening. 

Pondering

I'm so glad I listened to that speech. As a side note the speech itself is only the first half hour. After that there is some discussion. I was very impressed by Rachel Blaney. A rising star for sure. 

I loved that he didn't mention the Liberals or Trudeau once and it seems like something he is going to stick with. A major theme is that the government belongs to the people and that it is failing them. That brought him to PR which he of course strongly supports. Taxes are an investment. His main theme was inequality and he tied that to every issue from housing to pharmacare. 

In the discussion afterwards the Liberal claimed they were acting on all those issues. He used the Liberal talking points:

raised taxes on the 1% so we could lower them for the middle class

Stopped sending cheques to millionaires so we could send more to families, lifted 40 thousand children out of poverty. 

Already funding affordable housing (Rachel Blaney countered that well I think)

Ended 51 boil advisories in indigenous communities. 

Liberals already working on bulk buying and a committee is studying pharmacare. 

So, I think Liberals will not promise basic income in 2019, they will promise pharmacare. Bulk-buying is preparation. They will run on their economic record, they will defend the deficits, and reference the progress they have made on their campaign commitments asking for another term to continue what they have begun. They have started making raids on the information from the Paradise papers. 

I think Trudeau's defense is unfortunately going to work pretty well. He's still very popular and he has made a lot of improvements, rolled back a lot of Harper's changes, etc. but by 2023 we all know inequality will have grown more and we will still have homeless in the streets and we will still lack sufficient housing especially rental. 

I think Singh is going to be a great leader regardless of whether or not he becomes PM in 2019 or 2023.

I'll grumble later. 

Pondering

I had such a hard time finding this article that I had half convinced myself it must have been a really weird nightmare. 

Given the amount of attention the idea has been given I hope it just vanishes.

https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-story/8139985-new-democrats-get-...

"I believe the Constitution should be something that brings the population together," Singh said in French.

"So all nations, territories, provinces of a country must be included. But right now Quebec is excluded, and the First Nations. We must have the courage to change things."

The resolution was eventually adopted by a majority of delegates, along with another that urged the introduction of a single tax return administered by the Quebec government, which would then transfer the federal portion to Ottawa.

NO, what a stupid idea. We don't need more Quebec government bureaucracy. We are Canadians. Stop trying to shove us out. I don't recall anyone pushing for this. Quebecers don't want to reopen the constitution yet either. Most of the people of Quebec are satisfied with the current Federal/Provincial split in powers. The NDP needs to stop trying to come up with policies to get the sovereignist vote. They will respond to the same social justice arguments as everyone else. 

Trudeau did some bonehead stuff too so I still strongly support Singh despite the above because for me it is all relative and he is still by far the best of 3. It's just really disappointing. 

R.E.Wood

He's advocating re-opening the Constitution, while also admitting he doesn't know what that involves. Doesn't sound like well-thought-out policy to me.

First, by calling for more government services such as universal pharmacare, and then by indicating his support for any effort to re-open the Constitution to include Quebec and First Nations.

In a French interview with The Canadian Press, Singh said he didn't know what the exact process is to re-open the Constitution.

"But the idea is clear that all nations, all provinces must be signatories of the Constitution. I recognize that this is a problem and it needs to be fixed," he said.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/challenges-ahead-for-ndp-s-jagmeet-singh...

ETA: sorry for re-linking to this same article in more than one thread, but aspects of it are relevant to different discussions.

NDPP

"Just like the leader's speech, the Ottawa 2018 social feed filters out any reference to pipelines or Palestine lol"

https://twitter.com/mbueckert/status/965222666402779137

Occupiers' Justice, Canada's Broken Constitution and Ongoing Genocide

https://dissidentvoice.org/2015/11/occupiers-justice-canadas-broken-cons...

"Canada and Israel equally practice occupiers' justice. Both occupy land in contravention of their constitutions....The constitution is broken and cannot be repaired without being amended."

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

He's advocating re-opening the Constitution, while also admitting he doesn't know what that involves. Doesn't sound like well-thought-out policy to me.

I agree that it's concerning. It's also puzzling. He has shown some naivete a couple of times for lack of a better word. It's interesting because he's guided by basic justice. For example, when he suggested indigenous people should be able to be judged if they speak 2 languages, an indigenous language and either French or English. This is the same kind of mistake. Justice does demand that Quebec sign the constitution, just the timing is hopeless. 

NorthReport

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh marries clothing designer Gurkiran Kaur

The couple will spend a few days in Mexico for their honeymoon

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-married-1.4538483

NorthReport

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh marries clothing designer Gurkiran Kaur

The couple will spend a few days in Mexico for their honeymoon

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh married Gurkiran Kaur Thursday. They will honeymoon in Mexico, said a party spokesperson.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-married-1.4538483

NDPP

The NDP's Only Hope

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-ndps-onlyhope/article38086675/

"We thought this party would be a conduit for change immediately, and we were wrong. What we're learning is that a party cannot change anything."

mark_alfred

Jagmeet, this coming Sunday, Mar. 4 at 8 p.m.EST, will be on the popular Radio Canada TV show 'Tout le monde en parle' (TLMEP). Other invitee: Martine Ouellet, leader of the Bloc Québecois (or what is left).

TLMEP site:  http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/tout-le-monde-en-parle/site

NDPP

It's the Atwal Effect - And Nobody's Immune  -  by Terry Milewski

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/atwal-sikh-trudeau-conservatives-1.4559830

"The tsunami is spreading far from the epicentre of the Jaspal Atwal earthquake. And it doesn't discriminate between political parties..."

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh marries clothing designer Gurkiran Kaur

The couple will spend a few days in Mexico for their honeymoon

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh married Gurkiran Kaur Thursday. They will honeymoon in Mexico, said a party spokesperson.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-married-1.4538483

Lovely photo of the two of them.  

mark_alfred

So, I watched Tout Le Monde En Parle.  I don't speak French, but the response seemed positive.  And twitter users overall described him as "charming", along with being surprised at how well he spoke French.  At one point he got up and danced with Kim Gingras.  Also, there was an exchange between him and Ouellet, where I'm told she stated she objects to religious symbols (IE, his turban), and he responded that for him it's not an issue of religion; it's a matter of (religious) freedom (civil liberties).  Here's the segment with him in it:  http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/tout-le-monde-en-parle/site/segments/ent...

Pondering

I thought he did great. His French was halting but pretty good. He was able to understand and answer the questions correctly. He was charming but more than that he came across as sincere and authentic which I think are extremely important qualities right now. 

The turban is not just a drawback it is also a benefit. It's interesting and makes him memorable. He spoke about why he dresses so well (the racism he experienced). I didn't think to remember everything he talked about. He was amusing when he talked about his turban. They wanted to know the significance of the colour. He explained it had no religeous significance but that he liked "cool" colours. 

The news gives the impression that Quebecers feel militantly about religeous symbols and I am sure some do just like some are dedicated to sovereignty but most don't feel so strongly about it that they would vote based on it and the problem is focused more on face coverings than all religious symbols. The turban is not an insurmountable issue. 

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

It's the Atwal Effect - And Nobody's Immune  -  by Terry Milewski

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/atwal-sikh-trudeau-conservatives-1.4559830

"The tsunami is spreading far from the epicentre of the Jaspal Atwal earthquake. And it doesn't discriminate between political parties..."

A "tsunami"? More than a little grandiose I'd say. Ripple is more like it. Remember Mulcair nailing Harper to the wall over Duffy? Remember C-51? 85% of Canadians against? Liberals voted in favor? The idea that the India kerfuffle will have a significant impact is far-fetched to say the least. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

NDPP wrote:

It's the Atwal Effect - And Nobody's Immune  -  by Terry Milewski

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/atwal-sikh-trudeau-conservatives-1.4559830

"The tsunami is spreading far from the epicentre of the Jaspal Atwal earthquake. And it doesn't discriminate between political parties..."

A "tsunami"? More than a little grandiose I'd say. Ripple is more like it. Remember Mulcair nailing Harper to the wall over Duffy? Remember C-51? 85% of Canadians against? Liberals voted in favor? The idea that the India kerfuffle will have a significant impact is far-fetched to say the least. 

Milewski has always been a pretentious hack, best ignored.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I wish people would talk less about what Jagmeet Singh looks like and more about what he says.

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

I wish people would talk less about what Jagmeet Singh looks like and more about what he says.

It's mostly about image right now. People need to get to know him. Once they like him then he can talk politics. He did speak in general about shared values, praised Quebec's daycare and something else I can't remember. 

Any policy that slips through his lips right now will be dissected by the Liberals and Conservatives and will be old news to the public by the time the election comes around. He has to keep his powder dry. Powerful voices are arrayed against the NDP and progressive ideas in general. Even the word progressive has been co-opted. 

If people want to know about his turban and his clothes it's a good thing as it allows him to talk about racism and about values transcending religion. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

I wish people would talk less about what Jagmeet Singh looks like and more about what he says.

It's mostly about image right now. People need to get to know him. Once they like him then he can talk politics. He did speak in general about shared values, praised Quebec's daycare and something else I can't remember. 

Any policy that slips through his lips right now will be dissected by the Liberals and Conservatives and will be old news to the public by the time the election comes around. He has to keep his powder dry. Powerful voices are arrayed against the NDP and progressive ideas in general. Even the word progressive has been co-opted. 

If people want to know about his turban and his clothes it's a good thing as it allows him to talk about racism and about values transcending religion. 

And as to his appearance:

Ujjal Dosanjh is a Sikh.  He is clean-shaven and wears no turban.  His suits are not particularly flashy.  None of those choices ended up doing the guy any good at the provincial ballot box, and had a neutral effect at best in his years in federal politics.

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

I wish people would talk less about what Jagmeet Singh looks like and more about what he says.

It's mostly about image right now. People need to get to know him. Once they like him then he can talk politics. He did speak in general about shared values, praised Quebec's daycare and something else I can't remember. 

Any policy that slips through his lips right now will be dissected by the Liberals and Conservatives and will be old news to the public by the time the election comes around. He has to keep his powder dry. Powerful voices are arrayed against the NDP and progressive ideas in general. Even the word progressive has been co-opted. 

If people want to know about his turban and his clothes it's a good thing as it allows him to talk about racism and about values transcending religion. 

And as to his appearance:

Ujjal Dosanjh is a Sikh.  He is clean-shaven and wears no turban.  His suits are not particularly flashy.  None of those choices ended up doing the guy any good at the provincial ballot box, and had a neutral effect at best in his years in federal politics.

I am not sure that the success or failure his politics had much to do with looks. I also think we are in different times. I think these are interesting features but not the ones that will define success.

mark_alfred

Chantal Hébert gave Singh a high review for his appearance on Tout Le Monde En Parle. 

Chantal Hébert wrote:

Inasmuch as one does not get a second opportunity to make a good first impression, the rookie NDP leader made the most of his time on the set.

In the column he devotes to every TLMEP installment, Le Soleil’s TV critic Richard Therrien awarded Singh this week’s star for most interesting interview.

[..]

Liberal strategists are banking on gains in Quebec — largely at the expense of the NDP — to hold on to power and a majority government in next year’s general election. They may want to remind themselves that the province’s most reliable federal trend over the past few elections has been its capacity to spring surprises on the rest of the country.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/05/jagmeet-singhs-debut-on-a...

mark_alfred

NDP leader engages with students during visit to Port Alberni.  Jagmeet Singh talks inequality and the environment during high school visit.

Quote:

The students were “star struck,” in the words of student Reghan Geddes.

“He’s such a big inspiration to a lot of us,” she said.

“He’s able to connect with us really easily,” added student Saraf Nawar. “It’s like we’re friends with him, instead of strangers.”

They appreciated the message Singh delivered, as well as the way he took the time to answer each of their questions.

“I feel like he didn’t beat around the bush,” said Geddes. “His message is something a lot of students could respond to.”

Singh was equally impressed by the students.

“They talked about caring about the environment and Indigenous issues,” he said. “And the reasons why were so heartwarming. We have a responsibility to take care of [the planet] because we’re not alone here. That’s a beautiful sentiment.”

R.E.Wood

Jagmeet Singh attended Sikh separatist rally in 2015

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

voice of the damned

I doubt Jagmeet Singh is at this point planning to push an independent Khalistan in the event of the NDP attaining power. And even if that was his previous intention, the one-two punch of Trudeau's India trip and now these San Francisco revelations will likely have dissuaded him from that goal.

Pondering

Singh likens Khalistan's desire for independence to Quebec's (and Catalan) and supports a democratic vote of 50+1 to declare independence. That's good enough for most Canadians. Most of us couldn't care less what's going on in India. We barely know anything going on in Ottawa. Even people of Indian descent that care about India still care more about what is happening in Canada because they live here now. To have anyone of Indian descent become PM of Canada (assuming their policy was supportable) would delight most POCs including those of Indian descent. 

Imagine living in India, and someone who supports Quebec sovereignty becomes the leader of a major political party there. I think the fact that a Canadian attained such a high level would influence voting more than the fact that in Quebec he supported sovereignty. To have any Canadian in power in India would be fantastic. If I supported their policy I would support them regardless of their position on Quebec sovereignty because they wouldn't be in a position to do anything about that any way. 

Media personalities have tried to sway the public on this point and the result has been a big yawn. 

 

Mighty Middle

In his column for the Toronto Sun today, Tarek Fatah (who calls himself a "leftie" and supported Jack Layton leadership in 2003) claims he is poaches current "lefties" to support Doug Ford for Ontario Premier. And using Jagmeet Singh to do it.

How can the feminist Women’s March be considered on the Left when its leader is the hijabi Linda Sarsour, the right-wing supporter of the ultra-right Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Yeah, and how about the leftist activist who cheers the Jew-hating Louis Farrakhan?” asked Schezad, the one-time Commie now a manager in a pharmaceutical enterprise, referring to Tamika Mallory of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Zaidi reminded me that I had campaigned against Rob Ford when he ran for the mayor of Toronto. “But the same Mayor Ford and Doug Ford came to see me in the hospital as I battled cancer despite my ridiculing the mayor on my Newstalk 1010 radio show,” I protested.

“That’s rather selfish of you,” retorted Zaidi.

The banter continued until the discussion turned to the NDP and its new leader, Jagmeet Singh.

“Right, now that is a true socialist, isn’t he,” asked Schezad with barely concealed sarcasm.

“Between Jagmeet’s $5,000 designer suits and Doug Ford’s jackets from Walmart, the choice is clear: I’d be more comfortable with the Etobicoke city councillor who has Ontario and Canada in mind than a guy molded in medieval religious symbols who was once ‘Jimmy Dhaliwal’ the lawyer, but then dropped both the last and first names he was known by,” Schezad added.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-four-lefties-for-doug-ford

Fatah says he has converted three former "lefties" and plans convert more!

R.E.Wood

Jagmeet Singh keeps getting asked about Sikh extremism because he won't give an answer

... "Yet in response to the Globe report, Singh again avoided making any meaningful clarifications: he issued a statement saying he condemns "all acts of terrorism in every part of the world" and went on to describe the trauma of the 1984 Indian army assault on Sikh militants and subsequent anti-Sikh riots that left thousands dead, but he used none of his approximately 500 words to say "I condemn the violent actions of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale." That is generally something one should do if, even by coincidence, one happens to find himself sharing a stage or rally space with a poster of Bhindranwale. 

He also chose not to clarify his position on an independent Sikh homeland. That matters for the same reason French President Charles de Gaulle's "Vive le Quebec libre" speech mattered, only amplified umpteen times in the context of a struggle far more fraught, bloody and devastating than anything we could even conceive here in Canada. 

This is not about Singh's personal religious beliefs; it is about his politics and the causes to which he has repeatedly offered his voice in the past. If a Catholic political leader happened to be at rally with posters glorifying Irish Republican Army terrorists, he would almost certainly get these questions, too. 

Singh keeps getting asked about Sikh extremism and questions of independence because he won't give an answer. That's passable for a provincial MPP, but not for a would-be prime minister."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-1.4576838

Edited to clarify that the text in this post is a quote from the linked article, not something I wrote myself.

voice of the damned

R.E.Wood wrote:

 If a Catholic political leader happened to be at rally with posters glorifying Irish Republican Army terrorists, he would almost certainly get these questions, too. 

 

Welll...

https://tinyurl.com/y9e7kcxp

Granted, that photo was almost certainly taken after the bearded guy had become an accepted(possibly even respected) participant in mainstream electoral politics.

 

R.E.Wood

There's more to the story, as reported in the G&M and National Post:

Jagmeet Singh attended 2016 seminar with Sikh youth leader who advocated political violence

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

As Jagmeet Singh condemns terrorism, second video shows him speaking alongside Sikh separatist

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/as-jagmeet-singh-condemns-terroris...

 

R.E.Wood

And still more bad press for Singh, here from Macleans and iPolitics:

Where Jagmeet Singh is really coming from. Canadians are getting used to hearing half answers from the NDP leader—on questions he himself is raising—about Sikh extremism

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/where-jagmeet-singh-is-really-com...

Jagmeet Singh can’t endorse separatist politics in Punjab while denouncing them in Quebec. "Politically speaking, Singh’s attendance of that rally in 2015 complicates his party’s fortunes in Quebec in 2018."

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/14/jagmeet-singh-cant-endorse-separatist-po...

Pondering

And yet still only the pundits are having fits. Similar to Quebec, not all separatists are terrorist. We don't demand every sovereignist in Quebec condemn the FLQ terrorism. 

Condemning all violence and terrorism is very clear to me. If Jarnail did it then Singh is condemning him. 

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was never convicted. It is not up to Singh to declare him guilty. 

Most Canadians will be satisfied with "I condemn all violence and terrorism".  

He doesn't have to condemn separatism or declare anything about the borders of India. It isn't Canada's business. People from India might care but nobody else does. 

This is a make-work project for neoliberal pundits. 

voice of the damned

From ipolitics...

Keenly aware of this fact, the NDP have been more than willing to indulge in the idea, bordering on fantasy, that one’s religious identity is necessarily anodyne—analogous to, say, Andrew Scheer’s hayseed Catholicism, or the Haida tattoo inked into Trudeau’s left bicep.

I have to say, JT's Haida tattoo isn't something that gets a lot of discussion in the media, or at least, I don't think I'd ever heard about it. I guess "cultural appropriation" really is a non-issue for the vast majority of Canadians, at least when it's done by a politician with a successfully crafted liberal image.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

And yet still only the pundits are having fits. Similar to Quebec, not all separatists are terrorist. We don't demand every sovereignist in Quebec condemn the FLQ terrorism. 

Condemning all violence and terrorism is very clear to me. If Jarnail did it then Singh is condemning him. 

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was never convicted. It is not up to Singh to declare him guilty. 

Most Canadians will be satisfied with "I condemn all violence and terrorism".  

He doesn't have to condemn separatism or declare anything about the borders of India. It isn't Canada's business. People from India might care but nobody else does. 

This is a make-work project for neoliberal pundits. 

Absolutely not.

But sure let's agree that Singh's political problems are not being discussed by people not talkign about politics at all and not by his closest supporters. Well, duh.

This is something that is gaining in traction and will until he is clear about whether he advocates the breakup of India. India contains almost 1/4 of the world population and is an important strategic, trading country and usually considered a friend and ally.

You cannot get past the issue of advocating seperatism in another country as a federal leader unleas you deal with it. Generic anti violence messages are not sufficient given the places Singh has appeared.

I want him to succeed. I am not some Liberal trying to undermine him. But sure if he is sleepwalking into a disaaster this far out of an election I will point it out  -- before the ads from the other parties are created and the difficult questions come during an election.

So let's be clear -- he has spoken well and completely about terroism and violence. What he has to do is speak about the issue of advocating, or being seen to support those who are advocating, for the breakup of a country Canada wants to maintain relations with and trade with.

Trudeau should also be clear about this. Fence sitting is hurting Canada-India relations. It will also hurt the prospects of botht he Liberals and NDP in the next election if these two federal leaders do not put to bed the idea that they somehow support division of India.

Canada is one of those nations in the world that does not like other country's nationals debating Canada's territorial integrity. Trudeau may remember booting a foreign leader out of the country for exactly this.

Thinking this will go away on promises of peace is naivete. All that said Singh could deal with this easily -- the fact that he is not doing so is instructive. We are seeing a clear conflict of interest between some of his Sihk support and that of the rest of Canada and he cannot fence sit any further.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was never convicted. It is not up to Singh to declare him guilty. 

But the reason he was never convicted is that he was killed before he could be brought to trial. In such circumstances, the general practice is that you need not observe the Innocent Until Proven Guilty rule when discssing the case in question.

Also, when you've done something that leads some people to think that you might support a particular type of violence, it's usually pretty unconvincing to respond with a blanket condemnation of violence in general.  

 

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was never convicted. It is not up to Singh to declare him guilty. 

But the reason he was never convicted is that he was killed before he could be brought to trial. In such circumstances, the general practice is that you need not observe the Innocent Until Proven Guilty rule when discssing the case in question.

Also, when you've done something that leads some people to think that you might support a particular type of violence, it's usually pretty unconvincing to respond with a blanket condemnation of violence in general.  

 

I think we are being dsitracted by the issue of violence which Singh has said he opposes. He is silent about the support for the breakup of one of the countries Canada needs good relations with. Canadians accept immigrants fairly well but are quite hostile to foreign disputes coming here -- for a party leader to be unclear on this is going to be politically damaging.

brookmere

voice of the damned wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:
If a Catholic political leader happened to be at rally with posters glorifying Irish Republican Army terrorists, he would almost certainly get these questions, too. 

Welll...

https://tinyurl.com/y9e7kcxp

This forum is called "Canadian Politics". The US indifference to terrorism, until it started hitting them, is not relevant to the discussion. And Ted Kennedy did get plenty of heat in the UK over that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

And yet still only the pundits are having fits. Similar to Quebec, not all separatists are terrorist. We don't demand every sovereignist in Quebec condemn the FLQ terrorism. 

Condemning all violence and terrorism is very clear to me. If Jarnail did it then Singh is condemning him. 

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was never convicted. It is not up to Singh to declare him guilty. 

Most Canadians will be satisfied with "I condemn all violence and terrorism".  

He doesn't have to condemn separatism or declare anything about the borders of India. It isn't Canada's business. People from India might care but nobody else does. 

This is a make-work project for neoliberal pundits. 

Absolutely not.

But sure let's agree that Singh's political problems are not being discussed by people not talkign about politics at all and not by his closest supporters. Well, duh.

This is something that is gaining in traction and will until he is clear about whether he advocates the breakup of India. India contains almost 1/4 of the world population and is an important strategic, trading country and usually considered a friend and ally.

You cannot get past the issue of advocating seperatism in another country as a federal leader unleas you deal with it. Generic anti violence messages are not sufficient given the places Singh has appeared.

I want him to succeed. I am not some Liberal trying to undermine him. But sure if he is sleepwalking into a disaaster this far out of an election I will point it out  -- before the ads from the other parties are created and the difficult questions come during an election.

So let's be clear -- he has spoken well and completely about terroism and violence. What he has to do is speak about the issue of advocating, or being seen to support those who are advocating, for the breakup of a country Canada wants to maintain relations with and trade with.

Trudeau should also be clear about this. Fence sitting is hurting Canada-India relations. It will also hurt the prospects of botht he Liberals and NDP in the next election if these two federal leaders do not put to bed the idea that they somehow support division of India.

Canada is one of those nations in the world that does not like other country's nationals debating Canada's territorial integrity. Trudeau may remember booting a foreign leader out of the country for exactly this.

Thinking this will go away on promises of peace is naivete. All that said Singh could deal with this easily -- the fact that he is not doing so is instructive. We are seeing a clear conflict of interest between some of his Sihk support and that of the rest of Canada and he cannot fence sit any further.

The problem is that there's no way to be both in solidarity with his fellow Sikhs AND to be categorically anti-separatist.  Or to be anti-separatist and anti-Modi at the same time.  Modi is essentially going to be prime minister for life, and endorsing the preservation of India at this stage is indistinguishable from endorsing Hindu supremacism and everythign else Modi stands for. 

Jagmeet is being asked to abandon his community and will gain no votes from anyone else in doing so.

Rev Pesky

Vive le Khalistan libre!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

There's a major difference between the situation with Sikhs in India and that of Quebec francophones-Canada isn't led by a government fixated on wiping out at worst or forcing into subservience at best any and all languages cultures other than that of Protestant anglophones from the British Isles and northern Europe.  

To my knowledge, there is also no major political figure in India making any argument anywhere close to that of PET-the argument that, while national unity should be preserved, those communities challenging unity as currently constituted have at least some legitimate grievances and there needs to be some steps made withing the unity framework to address that.  Virtually every major figure in "pro-unity" Indian politics, to my knowledge, is refusing to stand in allyship/accompaniment with Sikhs and other minority communities, and has drunk the Hindu-supremacist koolaid.  Resistance to that outside of the minority communities themselves is non-existent.  Basically, it's over and Modi will be ruler of India for life.

The only thing you could compare the Sikh situation to in India would be-to a partial degree-the treatment of FN an other Indigenous communities.  

voice of the damned

brookmere wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:
If a Catholic political leader happened to be at rally with posters glorifying Irish Republican Army terrorists, he would almost certainly get these questions, too. 

Welll...

https://tinyurl.com/y9e7kcxp

This forum is called "Canadian Politics". The US indifference to terrorism, until it started hitting them, is not relevant to the discussion. And Ted Kennedy did get plenty of heat in the UK over that.

Well, Robyn Urback made a statement about how a Catholic politician would be regarded if they appeared to endorse the IRA. Since I can't think of any Canadian Catholic politicians who have had anything to do with the IRA in living memory, the only real way I can think of to test the statement is to analogize from another country. If you can think of any Canadian politicians who would prove or disprove the point, I'd be happy to hear about them.  

As for Kennedy getting a lot of heat in the UK(his honorary knighthood aside), well, yes, but in this comparison, the UK would be analagous to India(ie the country facing an insurgency), not Canada. I assume that Urback meant to suggest that Singh should be criticized in Canada, not India.

Pages