Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

890 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

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.

Teddy would have taken heat from the UK just for being an Irish Catholic who happened to be politically powerful.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
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.  

Are you forgetting "Pastagate"? 

My prebuttal:  just being facetious; carry on.  :)

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Understood.  Will carry on.

voice of the damned

Oh, and apology for the misattribution of Urback's statement to Wood.

voice of the damned

Ken Burch wrote:

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.  

But armed Sikh militancy in India predates the ascension of Modi or even the BJP. If I've got the timeline correct, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, the guy whose picture appeared at the rally in San Francisco, was active against the government of Indira Gandhi in the 1980s. Indira's Congress Party being the main proponents of a secular India with a large degree of religious toleration.  

brookmere

voice of the damned wrote:
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.

I would say the proof is the dog that didn't bark. Since Canada has had loads of Irish-Canadian politicians, and none have associated themselves with the IRA in recent times, that's the best proof we have that if anyone did the consequences would be pretty negative.

WWWTT

Here's the garbage article by a garbage cbc writer trying to create garbage to deflect attention away from their garbage corporate media circus freek side show darling Justin.

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

This is getting real old from the cbc. The cbc is now as credible as Fox news or the Rebel. Enjoy the company!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Since Canada has had loads of Irish-Canadian politicians, and none have associated themselves with the IRA in recent times, that's the best proof we have that if anyone did the consequences would be pretty negative.

Or else it's proof that:

a) they didn't publicly take a side

b) they didn't privately take a side

c) they took a side, but nobody reported it

Don't mind me, Brookmere.  Just trying to explore all logical explanations.

R.E.Wood

voice of the damned wrote:

Oh, and apology for the misattribution of Urback's statement to Wood.

No problem, VotD - I realized I hadn't been clear enough in how I formatted my post and went back to correct it. But thanks for the apology anyway :-)

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

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.  

Be it Quebec, Catalonia, or India, Singh supports 50%+1 as a declaration of independence.

He has now addressed the Air India issue in full and in detail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jagmeet-singh-i-will-nev...

The public inquiry into the bombing was itself a painful process, not only for the families having to relive their losses, but also for Sikhs across Canada who felt they were being collectively blamed for the attack. While the Air India Inquiry did not result in convictions, its findings identified a man named Talwinder Singh Parmar as the mastermind of the attack. I accept those findings and condemn all responsible for the horror they inflicted.

Some in the Sikh community have not accepted the official record of events. While I can understand that pain, my approach has been different: I have always tried to give space to all voices so that we can move together toward peace and reconciliation.

Rev Pesky

Too little, too late. 

One wonders if Singh would have won the party leadership if this issue had come up during the campaign.

NDPP

Douglas Todd: NDP Could Suffer From Jagmeet Singh's Links To 'Blood Hatreds' Say Observers

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-ndp-could-suffer...

"To what extent (do Canadian voters) want this issue colouring the position of the NDP when it comes to relations with India? asked Resnick. 'And just as importantly, to what degree do we want to see the internally divided politics of the Sikh community spilling over and influencing the politics of our federal parties."

We have already seen this phenomenon in the case of lobbies that have effectively captured Canadian foreign policy on Israel and Ukraine.

R.E.Wood

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh linked to Sikh rapper who promotes independent homeland

"NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has personal ties with a Canadian Sikh rapper who glorifies violence and promotes Khalistani independence, the Toronto Sun has learned. 

Chani Natt is a Canadian rapper with a large follower on social media. His YouTube videos, often depicting violence and terrorism, have been viewed millions of times. 

Natt’s friendship with Singh is concerning given the violent content in his music videos."

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-ndp-leader-jagmeet-sing...

R.E.Wood

The strange loyalties of Jagmeet Singh

"All of this should be deeply troubling, not just to the party Mr. Singh now leads but also to the rest of us. A man who wants to be prime minister is up to his neck in the ethno-nationalist politics of another country and another time and place. He is deeply sympathetic to the more militant wing of his own ethnic community. He is heavily indebted – some say overly indebted – to the Sikh ethnic vote for his job. One reason he won the leadership was that he managed to sign up more than 10,000 B.C. Sikhs as new party members. ”My concern is too many Sikhs have signed up as NDP members because of Singh’s Punjabi identity and because he’s a baptized Sikh,” radio host Harjit Singh Gill told the Vancouver Sun’s Douglas Todd.

You’ve got to wonder how thoroughly Mr. Singh was vetted for his job. Did his beard and bespoke suits bedazzle people into skipping the tough questions? Did anybody worry how the divided politics of the Sikh community would spill over into federal politics? Did anybody worry about the consequences of such a major shift to voting-bloc politics? Or were those questions considered too rude to ask?"

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-strange-loyalties-of...

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Since Canada has had loads of Irish-Canadian politicians, and none have associated themselves with the IRA in recent times, that's the best proof we have that if anyone did the consequences would be pretty negative.

Or else it's proof that:

a) they didn't publicly take a side

b) they didn't privately take a side

c) they took a side, but nobody reported it

Don't mind me, Brookmere.  Just trying to explore all logical explanations.

The friends of Sinn Fein Canada website makes for an interesting read. That group apparently sponsored a forum in 2009, fronted by Gerry Adams himself. Also in attendance...

Quote:
Alongside Adams, prominent speakers at the forum included former Solicitor General for Canada Warren Allmand , former Attorney General and minister of justice of Saskatchewan Chris Axworthy , Member of Parliament Charlie Angus and Manon Perron , secretary/treasurer of the Montreal executive of the Confederation of National Trade Unions.

Some quotes from the conference...

Quote:
" CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan was part of an international monitoring delegation in the early 2000s to oversee the disarmament of the IRA and monitor the Orange marching season to record incidents of violence on both sides.

"Sinn Fein has had a dream of a united Ireland since 1922. At this point the Irish are talking about what a united Ireland would look like," Ryan said.

"The British government is firm that there will be no change in Northern Ireland unless there is a democratic vote. When you look down the road the majority of people in the north will be Catholics. There will be a referendum and the majority will win." Former Toronto police chief Bill McCormack, the first Catholic to lead the force, says a unified Ireland is possible and will work.

"Everyone is fed up with the religious bias in Northern Ireland . Many people will be on his (Adam's) side or at least sympathetic to his cause," McCormack said.

"It is unfortunate what the Brits have done and everyone including the Kennedys have tried to step in. Once this generation dies off things will improve."

Now, granted, this was all post-Good Friday 1998, at which point Sinn Fein arguably ceased its armed struggle against the British. But still, contra Urback, a prominent public figure in Canada can apparently speak at a pro-Sinn Fein meeting with Gerry Adams and praise the organization's history all the way back to 1922, without it causing much of a ripple in the media.  

https://tinyurl.com/y9lonpd4

https://tinyurl.com/y7d2g6lm

 

 

 

 

 

 

R.E.Wood

And for those who may say this is a minor issue being blown out of proportion by Liberal-loving CBC (or whatever), Singh is receiving negative coverage about his response to this controversy even here on Rabble, from Karl Nerenberg:

Jagmeet Singh breaks his silence, but did he provide good answers?

"Refuses to categorically condemn violence

The real sticking point in most of Singh’s interviews, and most notably the one he did with Carol Off on CBC radio’s As It Happens, was on the question of violence.

CBC’s Off repeatedly asked Singh if he would say yes or no as to whether or not he approved of violence in the furtherance of Sikh goals. Singh simply refused to answer. He kept returning to the phrase: “It’s complex.” 

Non-violence is not the only way to further the liberation of peoples denied their rights and self-determination, of course. While Mahatma Gandhi practiced non-violence, not all of his admirers and supporters did; and others whom we now see as heroes of peaceful transition, such as Nelson Mandela, never foreswore recourse to armed struggle.

Still, one has to wonder what possible good could come out of violence in support of an independent Sikh country, Kalistan, or of the more modest goal of greater autonomy for India’s predominantly Sikh region.

Many Canadians listening to Jagmeet Singh on Thursday would have liked to hear the leader of a party that has throughout its history favoured peaceful and non-violent solutions make a stronger statement against any use of violence in furtherance of Sikh goals.

Nobody wins when blood, often the blood of innocents, is shed. Jagmeet Singh could have said at least that much without arousing the ire of key elements in the large Canadian Sikh community.  

And even if he did anger some, the current NDP leader probably should have found a way to say what every one of his predecessors would have said without a moment’s hesitation. "

http://rabble.ca/news/2018/03/jagmeet-singh-breaks-his-silence-did-he-pr...

Caissa

Time for Singh to go.

Pondering

Time for people like Karl Nerenberg to stop nitpicking. Singh has denounced all violence and terrorism and the specific person everyone was after him to condemn. In my view this is getting racist. 

Unfortunately, some who have experienced trauma in the past have chosen to respond with acts of rage, violence and terrorism. While I can understand the pain, I have never condoned those acts of violence.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jagmeet-singh-i-will-nev...

And he has previously condemned all violence.........and terrorism. Not just violent terrorism, violence itself. He has done so multiple times.

Continuing to belabor this point is racism. I hope inflating the issue now will kill it during the election period. Examining his personal history, he is a man of peace. He has never promoted terrorism or violence. When faced with racism he didn't respond with violence even though he was well trained so could have. 

Karl needs to join all the other old horses like Angus and hit the pasture if they can't accept the generational change. 

Pondering

And another comment from Karl...

Many Canadians listening to Jagmeet Singh on Thursday would have liked to hear the leader of a party that has throughout its history favoured peaceful and non-violent solutions make a stronger statement against any use of violence in furtherance of Sikh goals.

Was anybody listening? "Many Canadians" would that be 4 out of 10 people that were listening, plus the crew recording it of course.

I don't sense any outrage at all from Canadians. Not from Hindus even. All I hear are pundits belabouring the point. They want to get away from the inequality debate and they decided this is the best way to do it. Rabble shouldn't be helping them. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

 In my view this is getting racist.

I am asking for an apology from you nicely. I am sure others will follow.

This is not racist and to call it as such is both an issue of minimizing racism and insulting people in the worst possible way.

There are two issue and there is the highest of standards here.

1) condemning vilence. Singh was a bit slow to do this and really was not as clear earlier on as he should have been. What he has said on this point satisfies me now but I am not happy that it was so hard to get him to do this clearly.

2) A political public figure, who is leader of a party, has to harmonize positions when it comes to the division of a foreign country Canada has good relations with and officially respects the territory of . He can be sympathetic privately but needs to say that as leader of the NDP he will not support division of India or seperatist movements there. India is also a special case when it comes to bloodshed and divison. This last year was an aniversary reminder of that.

If he cannot do the second, I am sorry but he is unqualified. I am sorry but if you persist in calling people like me a racist for sayign this, then things are going to get very, very nasty as they would need to be.

It is not racist to expect Canadian political leaders to not bring  to Canadian politics a personal belif that contradicts long standing foreign policy of Canada with resepct to the territorial integrity of another country.

Singh has four choices:

1) Make clear he supports the territorial of India absolutely.

2) Put his belief to the NDP as a party and accept the result of members.

3) Resign

4) Drag his party down until the party gets rid of him

There is not another choice here. Singh has a platform as leader of the NDP. He can use it to advance ideas and policies compatible with the NDP but to use it as a stage to advance a divisive movement that is not expressly support by the membership is a conflict of interest. To be asked these questions, fail to answer directly, and to have attended these events as MPP of the provincial wing, without having been clear on the positions is terrible.

His comments are helpful about violence but they are not complete on the politics and this is far too long for them not to be.

You can disagree, and we can argue, but to call me racist for this opinion is absolutely over the line. and that is what you are now doing by calling objections to the mess that Singh is putting the party to as racist.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

And another comment from Karl...

Many Canadians listening to Jagmeet Singh on Thursday would have liked to hear the leader of a party that has throughout its history favoured peaceful and non-violent solutions make a stronger statement against any use of violence in furtherance of Sikh goals.

Was anybody listening? "Many Canadians" would that be 4 out of 10 people that were listening, plus the crew recording it of course.

I don't sense any outrage at all from Canadians. Not from Hindus even. All I hear are pundits belabouring the point. They want to get away from the inequality debate and they decided this is the best way to do it. Rabble shouldn't be helping them. 

That is a pathetic statement. First many people, particularly outside of an election, are not aware of the statement and lack of awareness should never, ever, ever in a democratic space be presumed acceptance.

Many people may be aware but do not have a platform to speak. Not having a platform does not mean they do not exist.

People who have supported the NDP longer than the last few months can have a legitimate opinion about what this person is doing to the party by not addressing this well. Concerns about how the campaign will go on this point are relevant and you, late to the party, do not get to attack NDP supporters, members and past supporters and members for voicing their stake in this issue which is, in many cases greater than yours. Have some respect.

Oh yes, I am aware of both Hindo and Christian Indians who are not happy. No, they are not racist.

Get off your high horse and debate the issues instead of using tactics to:

1) minimize the problem by quesitoning public engagement on it.

2) Calling people who disagree with you racist.

You need to reconsider the path you are on. You have been engaging well with people and this is a very bad turn where there is no good end.

I am sure people here would be willing to discuss the issue with you but that is not what you are doing -- you are attacking people who disagree and minimizing their concerns.

Caissa

I think race is very much involved in some of the critique of Singh. If he did not have Indian ancestry this whole topic would be a non-issue.

That said, I did not support him in the leadership race and I believe if he is leading us into the next election, we will have significant challenges.

brookmere

voice of the damned wrote:
But still, contra Urback, a prominent public figure in Canada can apparently speak at a pro-Sinn Fein meeting with Gerry Adams and praise the organization's history all the way back to 1922, without it causing much of a ripple in the media.

Urback said "politician". How many elections has Sid Ryan won? And I doubt many Canadians outside the organized left, the unions and the media would recognize his name, nor would the latter consider much that he says newsworthy.

voice of the damned

brookmere wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
But still, contra Urback, a prominent public figure in Canada can apparently speak at a pro-Sinn Fein meeting with Gerry Adams and praise the organization's history all the way back to 1922, without it causing much of a ripple in the media.

Urback said "politician". How many elections has Sid Ryan won? And I doubt many Canadians outside the organized left, the unions and the media would recognize his name, nor would the latter consider much that he says newsworthy.

Well, if we're getting technical, she didn't specify that the politician in question had to make any particular statements, she just said "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."

So, Charlie Angus, who I gather from wiki is Catholic, and is definitely an elected politician, was at that meeting that seemed to be very much about glorifying Sinn Fein and its leader Gerry Adams. If there was widespread crticism of him at the time, I have yet to hear about it.

Admittedly, I don't know if they had actual posters of Adams there. The presence of the man himself would seem to render that an irrelevant point, however.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Trudeau and his wife are photographed with an alleged Sikh Separatist terrorist and everybody here (and to be fair right wing media outlets too) were and still are convinced that that would destroy the Liberal party and now that Singh has been caught (even more blatantly) with the same group,everyone here has an excuse for him.

As Orange Hitler would tweet....SAD!

WWWTT

Rev Pesky wrote:

Too little, too late. 

One wonders if Singh would have won the party leadership if this issue had come up during the campaign.

Does it really matter? Wouldn't make any difference who won, guaranteed something like this would have come up for the other candidates had they won. That's how the liberal corporate media works. Dig up dirt and turn nothing into a huge thing!

WWWTT

I find this issue real bizzare?!?!? Anyone who is familiar with colonialism is fully aware that colonialism goes hand in hand with violence. The entire Indian subcontinent was completely under colonial rule of Britain and after Hitler bankrupted Britain, France and Netherlands many colonial countries around the world went onto the bloody path of independence.

I don't understand this Punjab state issue, and never will fully understand it. But I don't think that it's going to hurt Jag in the same way as Justin for the simple fact that he can divert away from it at still an early stage. In fact, I believe he can use his Indian heritage as a bridge building/strengthening ties to other former colonial nations if he plays his cards right!

Mighty Middle

Meanwhile today Jagmeet Singh joined striking workers on the picket line at York University. To tell them he is on their side. So he has moved on and has put the Sikh separatism issue behind him.

Rev Pesky

from WWWTT:

I don't understand this Punjab state issue, and never will fully understand it. But I don't think that it's going to hurt Jag in the same way as Justin for the simple fact that he can divert away from it at still an early stage.

You must not be familiar with too many Sikhs. This is not a minor issue in the Sikh community. This issue has resulted in the worst terrorist attack in Canada's history, endless, often violent, feuds over who has control of Sikh temples, beatings of Sikh newspaper editors, even attacks on a Sikh member of the  BC Legislature, Ujjal Dosanjh (courtesy Wikipedia):

A prominent moderate Sikh in Vancouver, Dosanjh spoke out against violence by Sikh extremists who advocated Khalistani independence from India. As a result of these views, in February 1985 he was attacked in the parking lot of his law office by an assailant wielding an iron bar. Dosanjh, 37 at the time, suffered a broken hand and received 80 stitches in his head.

He was targeted again, on 26 December 1999, while he was a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, when his constituency office was broken into and a Molotov cocktail left burning on a table.

And as mentioned above, Tara Singh Hayer:

The sheer cowardice of the act was chilling. Someone, it appears, waited in the dusk that comes early this time of year for Tara Singh Hayer, the editor of North America's largest Punjabi-language newspaper, to return to his home in Surrey, B.C., at the end of the workday on Nov. 18. As Hayer, who had been paralyzed in a shooting attack in 1988, struggled to move himself from the driver's seat of his car to his wheelchair, the assailant fired at the crippled man's head, killing him instantly.

This isn't a joke, this is an extemely serious business, and Jagmeet Singh, for all his advocacy against violence, has associated with some very violent people.

Rev Pesky

From Mighty Middle:

Meanwhile today Jagmeet Singh joined striking workers on the picket line at York University. To tell them he is on their side. So he has moved on and has put the Sikh separatism issue behind him.

He may have put it 'behind him', but I doubt it's going to disappear that easily. I think if it was something he did as a teenager, he might be able to slough it off. But he was at that San Fransico conference in 2015. He would have been 35-36 years old then. Hardly a youthful indiscretion.

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

He may have put it 'behind him', but I doubt it's going to disappear that easily. I think if it was something he did as a teenager, he might be able to slough it off. But he was at that San Fransico conference in 2015. He would have been 35-36 years old then. Hardly a youthful indiscretion.

Some reporters did ask him questions, but he brushed them off saying he answered those questions and told one reporter to make an appointment if she wants further comment.

Meanwhile NDP Pundit Tom Parkin is dismissing all of this as a witch hunt orchestrated by the Liberal Party, tweeting

"I presume these attacks on Singh were researched by the Liberal Party and I’m just wondering how Canadians—and particularly minority religion Canadian—feel about that."

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_/status/974752220846723072

So this is 100% the fault of the Liberal Party and Jagmeet has nothing to do with this.

quizzical

though not a Jagmeet supporter for leader.

i find this association to violence by proxy hilarious when the religious right in Canada is producing this...

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/edmonton/orion-rutley-guilty-threats-...

follow the links embedded for some eye openers of how the right in Canada thinks and is starting to act on verbally.

he may have to step down or he can call the hypocrites on their bs and stay.

the good ol christians can rub shoulders with Israeli oppressors of people in their homeland and it's all good.

the good old christians can continue to try and steal unceded territory and try to destroy heritage or at the very least ignore it's going on right here at home.

they're all taking pictures with each other in event after event with rappers and abusers, but god lord another religion person who knows a violent lyric rapper is dangerous.

hypocrisy abounds.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

 

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_/status/974752220846723072

So this is 100% the fault of the Liberal Party and Jagmeet has nothing to do with this.

Yes,of course this is the Liberals fault. They needed to attack a party that can hardly break 20% and not anywhere close to being a threat to them.

If you look further into this,it's a conspiracy of the Liberal Party,Hilary Clinton and of course..Obama.

This is solely the fault of Singh,this was his doing,no one else's. And if the Liberal Party can be destrroyed for playing footsies with Sikh seperatist terrorrists,what do you think is going to happen to a party that can hardly get 20% support as is?

Just sayin'

R.E.Wood

I think this is a huge issue for the NDP, and Singh's response so far has been incomplete and unconvincing. Here are quotes from another piece on iPolitics:

Jagmeet Singh must disavow political violence if he plans to lead Canada

"Jagmeet Singh is a Sikh separatist, something in which he once took considerable pride but has kept under wraps since becoming NDP leader last fall. There is nothing wrong with being a Sikh separatist and a Canadian politician, despite the protestations of India’s ruling BJP party, that thuggishly populist receptacle of choice for the country’s Hindu majority.

His belief in self-determination has led Jagmeet Singh, an avowed proud Canadian, to nonetheless endorse Quebecers’ right to determine their own future. Again, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, given the extent to which federalist Canadian leaders have demonized Quebec’s independence movement, Singh’s take on Quebec take is refreshing. 

The problem for Jagmeet Singh — and the likely reason why he has kept his Sikh advocacy secret, until the Globe and Mail and the National Post dragged it from the depths of YouTube this week — is violence. Specifically, the advocacy for and veneration of violence seemingly intrinsic in the Sikh secessionist diaspora.

... Jagmeet Singh’s ideology has also clouded an otherwise acute political mind. Much has been made of how, during an interview with the CBC’s Terry Milewski last fall, Singh refused to condemn Sikh separatist leader Talwinder Singh Parmar, the chief architect of the 1985 Air India bombing. 

This is bad enough, but in a later exchange with Milewski, Singh said “we need to find out who is truly responsible, and makes sure an investigation results in a conviction” — a suggestion, broadcast on live national television, that Singh didn’t believe Parmar was responsible for the death of 329 people. This tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, which has Indian agents bombing the plane to justify the majority Hindus oppression of the Sikh minority, flies in the face of all established evidence laid bare in at least two government reports. And Jagmeet Singh routinely lent it legitimacy up until this week. Only political expediency has brought him to the point of accepting the truth of Parmar’s complicity in the bombing nearly 33 years ago. 

This political expediency further pushed the NDP leader to acknowledge another truism: that Milewski’s line of questioning during their interview wasn’t racist, as Singh himself and many others intimated afterwards. In fact, given Jagmeet Singh’s own history, it was wholly legitimate.

... Jagmeet Singh is the product of a different form of nationalism—one practiced far more amongst the Sikh diaspora than those actually living in the would-be territory of Khalistan. This nationalism on full display at the various event attended by the NDP leader, legitimizes fresh violence in the name of old grievances. It makes martyrs out of mass murderers and allows conspiracy to subvert published fact.

For a self-described man of peace, it isn’t particularly reassuring that Jagmeet Singh espoused this caustic brand of nationalism, or that it took the threat of consequence for him to (partially) renounce it. Yet we can be thankful for this much: The political reality of the country he wishes to lead, one with its own long history of separatist struggles, forced him to do so."

Damning stuff. There's more at the link: 

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/16/jagmeet-singh-must-disavow-political-vio...

R.E.Wood

Singh isn't helping his cause, or the NDP's, as he defends his attendance at Sikh separatist rallies and states he'd continue to attend future ones. The nuances he tries to justify and juggle will be lost on any but the most astute and/or faithful of audiences. These links are from yesterday (the 15th) if you care to read more:

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

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-leader-singh-says-he-d-attend-future...

Mighty Middle

Former BC NDP candidate Morgane Oger just weighed in tweeting

Leaders who happen to be members of marginalized communities are routinely accused of things they are have nothing to do with, and their actual statements are often ignored. I stand with @theJagmeetSingh on current attempts to paint him as someone he clearly is not. #ndp #bcndp

https://twitter.com/MorganeOgerBC/status/974803669949403136

josh

R.E.Wood wrote:

The strange loyalties of Jagmeet Singh

"All of this should be deeply troubling, not just to the party Mr. Singh now leads but also to the rest of us. A man who wants to be prime minister is up to his neck in the ethno-nationalist politics of another country and another time and place. He is deeply sympathetic to the more militant wing of his own ethnic community. He is heavily indebted – some say overly indebted – to the Sikh ethnic vote for his job. One reason he won the leadership was that he managed to sign up more than 10,000 B.C. Sikhs as new party members. ”My concern is too many Sikhs have signed up as NDP members because of Singh’s Punjabi identity and because he’s a baptized Sikh,” radio host Harjit Singh Gill told the Vancouver Sun’s Douglas Todd.

You’ve got to wonder how thoroughly Mr. Singh was vetted for his job. Did his beard and bespoke suits bedazzle people into skipping the tough questions? Did anybody worry how the divided politics of the Sikh community would spill over into federal politics? Did anybody worry about the consequences of such a major shift to voting-bloc politics? Or were those questions considered too rude to ask?"

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-strange-loyalties-of...

Another one.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/16/jagmeet-singh-must-disavow-political-violence-if-he-plans-to-lead-canada/

WWWTT

@Rev Pesky

I don’t like the word “terrorist” because its a word that’s used hypocritically. If you’re going to use the word terrorist then Canada USA Britain Israel etc etc are also terrorists. Using violence or the threat of is nothing new and many times has actually brought in peace (see North Korea missle nuclear achievement). 

I think Jag is going to come out of this further ahead. First off, free advertising. Secondly he’s a Sikh, his opinion fucking counts! Justin is a rich privileged white person working as corporate media circus freek side show. When white people start claiming they now how to solve problems and chaos they created in the first place, I’m sure People of European decent will give you a chance, but don’t take visible minority’s for granted. 

WWWTT

Canada thinks and is starting to act on verbally.

he may have to step down or he can call the hypocrites on their bs and stay.

the good ol christians can rub shoulders with Israeli oppressors of people in their homeland and it's all good.

the good old christians can continue to try and steal unceded territory and try to destroy heritage or at the very least ignore it's going on right here at home.

Yes this is because when European colonialism kills and commit violence it’s to protect against those evil “terrorists”

Europeans know everything and know how to solve every problem. Therefore it is their inherited right to tell other non white people what is right and what is wrong, what kind of government their peoples should have and anything beyond what they eat for dinner. 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 In my view this is getting racist.

I am asking for an apology from you nicely. I am sure others will follow.

That wasn't aimed at you. I feel that the pundits attitudes are racist. 

Debater

NDP brain trust was unprepared to manage Sikh independence controversy

A minimum amount of due diligence in the aftermath of the CBC interview with Singh would likely have unearthed the time bombs that exploded in the party’s face this week

Chantal Hébert

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/03/16/ndp-brain-trust-was-unprepared-to-manage-sikh-independence-controversy.html

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 In my view this is getting racist.

I am asking for an apology from you nicely. I am sure others will follow.

That wasn't aimed at you. I feel that the pundits attitudes are racist. 

The problem is that you characterized the objection as being racist. It isn't at all. It is now and will be used by racists but the ammunition unfortunately is not.

It is important to acknowledge directly that in my opinion the right plays more games with stuff like this and harl truths than thte left. Life is not fair. The Left has to not feed the right with the argument they will use. By being unclear Singh has been incompetent in this giving his ennemis fuel to attack him. We will not see this now but will during the election if he is not careful.

 

This is tragic becuase Sing is highly articulate, very likeable and has so much potential. If this story is the thing that blows up, it would be the greatest of missed opportunities.

As for Trudeau -- I think that the smae things are in play. Trudeau is significantly responsible but it also is feeding into the worst of the worst.

Canadian politicans have to be quicker to disavow violence and contacts with people who advocate it. They also have to avoid public stands on separatist movements. Just as I cannot go off on my oen working for an employer in their name a political leader has some limits. When it comes to Sihk independence this is a matter for a party to decide on and not the whim of a leader and no leader should suggest otherwise. Singh can make a case to the NDP for them to back his position -- he has a right to do that -- but he should not use his leadership to take the NDP on a position that the party is nowhere near when it can affect relations with another country. As well the damage he will do to his party is unnecessary.

 

I am not against him. I want him to succeed.

Sean in Ottawa

dp

Pondering

josh wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

The strange loyalties of Jagmeet Singh

"All of this should be deeply troubling, not just to the party Mr. Singh now leads but also to the rest of us. A man who wants to be prime minister is up to his neck in the ethno-nationalist politics of another country and another time and place. He is deeply sympathetic to the more militant wing of his own ethnic community. He is heavily indebted – some say overly indebted – to the Sikh ethnic vote for his job. One reason he won the leadership was that he managed to sign up more than 10,000 B.C. Sikhs as new party members. ”My concern is too many Sikhs have signed up as NDP members because of Singh’s Punjabi identity and because he’s a baptized Sikh,” radio host Harjit Singh Gill told the Vancouver Sun’s Douglas Todd.

You’ve got to wonder how thoroughly Mr. Singh was vetted for his job. Did his beard and bespoke suits bedazzle people into skipping the tough questions? Did anybody worry how the divided politics of the Sikh community would spill over into federal politics? Did anybody worry about the consequences of such a major shift to voting-bloc politics? Or were those questions considered too rude to ask?"

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-strange-loyalties-of...

Another one.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/16/jagmeet-singh-must-disavow-political-violence-if-he-plans-to-lead-canada/

Jagmeet specifically denounced all violence and terrorism and fully accepts the guilt of whatshisface. I quoted his latest denunciation of violence but it was not the first. Why are people still belabouring the point?

His support for separatism is a different issue. In my view it is hypocritical to support the notion that Quebec can separate on 50% +1 but India's borders are set for eternity. I don't recall Charles de Gaulle having to resign even if Canada didn't like his declaration for Quebec independence. 

As I understand it he was already barred from India. I don't much care. One less free trade deal is not the end of the world. Maybe we can keep more call centre jobs...but I doubt it because trade is king. The rest is BS to distract while we are robbed blind. 

It seems to me the issue of inequality in Canada is far more important yet the pundits are obsesssed with India. Singh's article contained shocking numbers on inequality which have been all but ignored. No shocked gasps. No, something must be done about this. 

Nope, the most important topic is a group of separatists in India that Singh supports while opposing all violence. 

Anyone in Quebec who understands will sympathize with him and defend his right to support peaceful separation on a majority vote.

It is perfectly understandable to me why most swing voters only tune in election week. They can skip all this overblown angst. 

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

NDP brain trust was unprepared to manage Sikh independence controversy

A minimum amount of due diligence in the aftermath of the CBC interview with Singh would likely have unearthed the time bombs that exploded in the party’s face this week

Chantal Hébert

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/03/16/ndp-brain-trust-was-unprepared-to-manage-sikh-independence-controversy.html

Singh is not a bad person -- these issues were both predictable and unnecessary and a result of poor communications management. Hebert is correct to blame the party communications for this rather than just him personally

Pondering

This is the position Jagmeet had long before he was elected leader of the party and he made no effort to conceal it. As leader of the NDP Jagmeet has not altered NDP policy on India. He was questioned on his views and he answered honestly.

This issue is going to go away because it is not driven by Canadians it is driven by pundits. They can be as outraged as they like they can't just keep repeating themselves over and over again. All Singh has to do is keep repeating "I denouce all violence and terrorism". The rest is just nit-picking to most Canadians. After all Canada has survived Quebec separatism. 

I'll get worried if someone manages to gather 100 people for a demonstration. 

It will be interesting to watch the polls. Trudeau is hurting a bit, but only a bit and he can recover easily. Lets see if the NDP suffers a noticable drop. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

This is the position Jagmeet had long before he was elected leader of the party and he made no effort to conceal it. As leader of the NDP Jagmeet has not altered NDP policy on India. He was questioned on his views and he answered honestly.

This issue is going to go away because it is not driven by Canadians it is driven by pundits. They can be as outraged as they like they can't just keep repeating themselves over and over again. All Singh has to do is keep repeating "I denouce all violence and terrorism". The rest is just nit-picking to most Canadians. After all Canada has survived Quebec separatism. 

I'll get worried if someone manages to gather 100 people for a demonstration. 

It will be interesting to watch the polls. Trudeau is hurting a bit, but only a bit and he can recover easily. Lets see if the NDP suffers a noticable drop. 

The trouble is if this is going to hurt it won't until the election itself.

I disagree with the pundit comment. I think this is a vulnerability where Singh will get hit with this in social media and yes, it can hurt.

The issue here is that this is avoidable.

NDPP

Chrystia Freeland is also 'up to [her] neck in the ethno-nationalist politics of another country.' If Singh has to renounce Kalistan, Freeland should renounce Bandera fascism in Ukraine.

Rev Pesky

From WWWTT:

@Rev Pesky

I don’t like the word “terrorist” because its a word that’s used hypocritically.

Fine. Tell me what word you would use to describe the bombing of Air India which killed 329 people. What word would you use to describe the severe beating (to the point of leaving him in a wheelchair), and later murder of Tara Hayer.

And let's not forget Ujjal Dosanjh, severely  beaten and threatened for holding views some Sikhs didn't like.

I'm willing to accept pretty much any word you want, except 'it's not really a big deal'.

Rev Pesky

From Mighty Middle:

Leaders who happen to be members of marginalized communities...

One thing the Sikhs of BC are not, is marginalized.

 

 

 

Pages