Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

890 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Why doesn’t Jagmeet hire Bob Dewar and Marie Della Mattia to run his 2019 election campaign? 

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-new-book-shows-horgans-john-whisperers-key-to-ndp-success

NorthReport

dp

NorthReport
Mighty Middle

Alexandre Boulerice just told CTV News that Jagmeet Singh should not be attending Sikh Nationalist events. Saying “I don’t want my leader to be associated with directly or indirectly with people who condemned actions or speeches.”

But Charlie Angus said he has no problem with Jagmeet going to these events saying he is from Brampton, and should meet members of the Sikh community. He says the issue is how to communicate attending these events properly. 

voice of the damned

 “I don’t want my leader to be associated with directly or indirectly with people who condemned actions or speeches.”

It seems like there might be a word or two missing from this quote, since as written, it doesn't really fit the situation. Or maybe Boulerice was just talking fast, and meant to say something like "...people whose actions or speeches have been condemned."

Mighty Middle

voice of the damned wrote:

 “I don’t want my leader to be associated with directly or indirectly with people who condemned actions or speeches.”

It seems like there might be a word or two missing from this quote, since as written, it doesn't really fit the situation. Or maybe Boulerice was just talking fast, and meant to say something like "...people whose actions or speeches have been condemned."

Exactly. I transcribed it exactly as he said it. Since french is his first language, his words were switched up, when he tried explaining in english.

voice of the damned

Mighty Middle wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

 “I don’t want my leader to be associated with directly or indirectly with people who condemned actions or speeches.”

It seems like there might be a word or two missing from this quote, since as written, it doesn't really fit the situation. Or maybe Boulerice was just talking fast, and meant to say something like "...people whose actions or speeches have been condemned."

Exactly. I transcribed it exactly as he said it. Since french is his first language, his words were switched up, when he tried explaining in english.

Thanks for the clarification.

NorthReport

Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh reacts to media reports in email

 

OU have no doubt read reports in the media about events I have attended and spoken at and I wanted to take the time to write to you directly on what’s being reported.

As you’ve heard me say publicly many times, I condemn all acts of terrorism in every part of the world, regardless of who the perpetrators are or who the victims are. Terrorism is perpetrated by individuals and cannot be blamed on any one religion, be it Sikhism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity. Terrorism should never be seen as a way to advance the cause of any one group. It only leads to more suffering, more pain and death.

Like many other activists in our party, I have been an advocate for peace and human rights in Canada and around the globe. These issues are at the core of our belief system as New Democrats.

We are all driven by the fundamental belief that inequality is wrong and that we must work to end injustice in all its forms. That means that we stand up against human rights abuses. But it also means that we fight to end poverty, to fix a tax system that unfairly benefits the wealthy and well-connected, that we demand affordable housing, childcare, pharmacare, and so much more. That is what I have been hearing from you as I travel across the country. And that is what I have been doing from day one as Leader.

As with many of you, my commitment to human rights activism has a personal origin. Part of my work as a human rights activist over the years has been in the Sikh community in Canada, drawing on my own journey to work towards peace and reconciliation. When I first learned about the persecution that my parents and their loved ones suffered simply for being Sikh, I reacted with both sadness and anger. I learned that in the not-so-distant past, my relatives, along with many who share the same spirituality, were systematically persecuted. They were targeted. They were attacked. Thousands were slaughtered simply because they were different.

Every Sikh person I know – in Canada, and those I’ve met in other countries – lost family members or friends during those years. That pain is still very real and has been passed on to children and grandchildren.

Intergenerational trauma is complex. Our answer to it must be thoughtful and compassionate. This is true in the Sikh community, but also in so many other communities that have suffered persecution and violence. In Canada, we have a special responsibility to address this trauma in the Indigenous community, where the legacy of colonialism and residential schools continues to do real harm today.

I have always been, and will continue to be committed to dialogue with those who’ve experienced such trauma, so that we can move forward together, toward peace and reconciliation.

In my own journey I learned to work through the pain, anger, and sadness I felt, and I worked with others to find solutions. I chose to embrace my identity and work harder to stand up for human rights, and to prevent the voices of the marginalized from being silenced. And I saw that building a more inclusive Canada, where no one is faced with unaffordable housing, skyrocketing prescription drug prices, or the precarity of unstable work, is the best way to ensure a better future for all.

I shared the lessons I learned from my journey in a piece published in the Globe and Mail – you can read it here.

Like you, I am focused on building a stronger Canada, a country where we tackle growing inequality, where we unlock the full potential of our citizens, and where no one is left behind. Together, we can make it happen.

With love and courage,

Jagmeet Singh
Leader
Canada’s NDP

 

https://www.voiceonline.com/federal-jagmeet-reports/

Mighty Middle

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will no longer attend events where people advocate violence — as long as he's made aware of their beliefs beforehand.

Singh said Wednesday he categorically rejects all forms of political violence.

"I absolutely draw a distinction between political violence and someone advocating for independence or self-determination," he told reporters after an NDP caucus meeting.

"That's up to people to advocate for. There's clearly a right to to that. (But) if an event promotes violence, I do not accept that. I do not accept violence. Political violence is not something that is acceptable.

"If there is someone on stage advocating political violence, no, absolutely not (I won't go). If I know that ahead of time, I will not be going to any event where anyone is advocating political violence."

Singh has recently had to defend his appearances at various events which promoted the idea of Sikh independence, including one in which he is seen sitting quietly beside a Sikh leader in England who says his vision of Sikhism endorses "violence as a legitimate source of resistance and survival.''

Last week, Singh issued a blanket condemnation of terrorist acts following media reports about his attendance at a California rally three years ago that sang the praises of Sikh separatism and a violent religious leader killed during the 1984 invasion of India's Golden Temple.

A source said around 20 NDP MPs — about one-half of the party's caucus — had asked him to state unequivocally he would no longer take part in events alongside Sikh separatists who promote violence.

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/21/singh-says-he-wont-attend-e...

Sean in Ottawa

I get the violence issue. I do not support using the leader's position in advicacy or support of separatis movements even if peaceful without that being the policy of the NDP. A leader, and representative of an organization like a political party, is not as free to advocate as an individual. There is a process for this and Singh has to ask his party or back away.

Sean in Ottawa

At present Singh is attending events withut clarifying that NDP position is or is not in favour of Sihk independence  -- or if he is. As the leader these are question sthat cannot be dodged for long and it is painful to watch him try to be less than forthright.

NorthReport
Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

One thing...I don't think there's an obligation to be absolutely pro-separatism/sovereigntism or absolutely anti-separatism/sovereigntism.  It's entirely possible to take it case-by-case on that.

You can support the right to separate based on a democratic vote and still be against separation. I am strongly against the separation of Quebec from Canada but I believe we have the right to separate.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Alexandre Boulerice just told CTV News that Jagmeet Singh should not be attending Sikh Nationalist events. Saying “I don’t want my leader to be associated with directly or indirectly with people who condemned actions or speeches.”

But Charlie Angus said he has no problem with Jagmeet going to these events saying he is from Brampton, and should meet members of the Sikh community. He says the issue is how to communicate attending these events properly. 

With friends like these Singh doesn't need enemies. When is the last event that Singh attended that was controversial? The only ones I have heard about were before he became leader.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/03/21/jagmeet-singh/138179

NDP too slow on Singh Sikh controversy, say strategists, but it’s not likely to hurt him in 2019

Although it may be an unusual topic for a federal party to address, former Crestview Strategy lobbyist Supriya Dwivedi said Mr. Singh’s people “should have been on top of it.” She was surprised it was never addressed in his leadership race, as his views are widely available.

Why didn't his opponents in the leadership race raise the issue? Is the NDP too Mickey Mouse to vet leadership candidates?

‘Ottawa shenanigans’ won’t capture attention: NDP MP Stewart

Mr. Stewart said these new kinds of discussions are what comes with having the first racialized and Sikh federal political party leader, as “this is part of the adjustment, we’ll be talking about different issues.”

About 10 per cent of his riding is Indo-Canadian, he said, and most are “incredibly proud” of Mr. Singh. He said he’s gotten one email on the matter, but has received a lot more feedback on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline.

“Really, this isn’t on people’s radar on the ground,” he said. “A bit of Ottawa shenanigans isn’t going to capture their attention.”

This is a preoccupation for the chattering classes. The NDP needs to help Singh keep the conversation on inequality. Singh is the most progressive leader the NDP has had in decades. 

NorthReport

This is just the beginning of the usual Liberal dirty tricks campaign for re-election. 

NorthReport

So Singh has now addressed the issue of violence. He is against it and will not attend any events where violence is advocated obviously if he is made aware of it ahead of time. But you can be blindsided by being at an event and not aware of who else may be there. And forget this nonsense that he should have known as this occurs on a regular basis to politicans of all political stripes Look at what happened to Trudeau and who he mixed with on his recent India trip. It is time to move on from this issue or people might start thinking it is a racist attack on Singh.

Rev Pesky

From North Report:

...you can be blindsided by being at an event and not aware of who else may be there.

Pardon me, but if you are a Sikh, and attend a Free Khalistan rally, you're not blindsided. You would be very well aware of who was 'there'.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

The NDP needs to help Singh keep the conversation on inequality.

Or perhaps 'equality'. There's only one little problem with 'equality'. Everybody wants to be equalled up to a higher level, not down to a lower level.

In any case, talking about inequality is not much of an election strategy. The NDP has been talking about inequality for years. They have just never come up with a plan to make everyone more equal.

We all know there's inequality in this country. I suspect people would like to hear exactly what the plan is to get rid of it. Otherwise, complaining about inequality is like complaining about the weather.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

The NDP needs to help Singh keep the conversation on inequality.

Or perhaps 'equality'. There's only one little problem with 'equality'. Everybody wants to be equalled up to a higher level, not down to a lower level.

In any case, talking about inequality is not much of an election strategy. The NDP has been talking about inequality for years. They have just never come up with a plan to make everyone more equal.

We all know there's inequality in this country. I suspect people would like to hear exactly what the plan is to get rid of it. Otherwise, complaining about inequality is like complaining about the weather.

Apparently 75K a year is the threshold above which money no longer buys happiness. The more unequal a society the more problems it has. 

Singh isn't just talking about inequality and the NDP has not been talking about it for years. They have barely started. Inequality is not the same thing as poverty. 

First the focus must be on the problem, getting people to be unhappy enough about it to demand change. Then the platform is released to address the issues causing the problem. Nobody is releasing their platforms this early. No reason why the NDP should do so. 

NorthReport

Disagree!

The only way to deal with inequality is talk, talk, and talk some more about it, instead of sweeping it under the rug.

When voters finally clue in to the unfairness in Canadian society creating by our, do nothing to help working people governments, and who constantly increase the gap between the rich and poor, and whose only claim to fame is to keep the rich, rich, and the poor, poor, only then, will things begin to change.

Mighty Middle

NorthReport wrote:

When voters finally clue in to the unfairness in Canadian society creating by our, do nothing to help working people governments, and who constantly increase the gap between the rich and poor, and whose only claim to fame is to keep the rich, rich, and the poor, poor, only then, will things begin to change.

And voters in Ontario seem to be waking up to that message, by rallying around Doug Ford.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

First the focus must be on the problem, getting people to be unhappy enough about it to demand change.

From North Report:

When voters finally clue in to the unfairness in Canadian society creating by our, do nothing to help working people governments...

Okay, I think I got it. The voters aren't unhappy enough, and it's up to the NDP to make them unhappy.

The only slight downside to that strategy is the voters may come to associate the NDP with unhappiness. Well, in fact they have in Ontario and BC, where the NDP made the voters so unhappy it took 16 years of the worst government BC has ever been stuck with to get the voters to, almost, give the NDP a majority. I understand they're still waiting for that to happen in Ontario.

On the up side, there's a lot of room for creative campaign slogans...

Happy? That's 'cause ignorance is bliss!

Let us wipe that grin off your face! Vote NDP

​If what's on your face is not a frown

​Come to us to bring you down. Vote NDP

Why be a happy sheep

​When you could be a grumpy goat. Vote NDP

​Turn that smile upside down

​Turn your grin into a frown. Vote NDP

I'm liking this. Maybe I'll volunteer on the next campaign.

 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

First the focus must be on the problem, getting people to be unhappy enough about it to demand change.

From North Report:

When voters finally clue in to the unfairness in Canadian society creating by our, do nothing to help working people governments...

Okay, I think I got it. The voters aren't unhappy enough, and it's up to the NDP to make them unhappy.

The only slight downside to that strategy is the voters may come to associate the NDP with unhappiness.

Cute but it matters what they are unhappy about. They need to be made unhappy over the wealthy ripping off the middle-class. 

I don't really care which political party is forced to begin reversing neoliberalism as long as one is. If the NDP steps up great.

For example, people need to demand minimum corporate taxation be included in or added to trade deals. 

Trade deals could also forbid cities from giving tax breaks or other financial incentives to companies to woo them.

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

I don't really care which political party is forced to begin reversing neoliberalism as long as one is.

Even if it is Doug Ford?

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't really care which political party is forced to begin reversing neoliberalism as long as one is.

Even if it is Doug Ford?

Sure, but I find the notion of his doing so farfetched. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Cute but it matters what they are unhappy about. They need to be made unhappy over the wealthy ripping off the middle-class.

If the wealthy are ripping off the middle class, why is that alone not making them unhappy?

And assuming it's not making them unhappy, how should the government go about manufacturing this unhappiness?

JKR

How dare the middle class be happy! What are they thinking!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's usually explained as "false consciousness".

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

They need to be made unhappy over the wealthy ripping off the middle-class. 

My apologies, but this just makes me laugh. Why in heavens name would someone go out of their way to make voters unhappy? If people are happy, let them be happy.

My strategy would be more like, 'okay, you're happy, I think I can do things that will make you even happier'.

And a last word from Monty Python, "Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life" (Maybe the NDP could use this as their campaign song):

Life's a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you...

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

They need to be made unhappy over the wealthy ripping off the middle-class. 

My apologies, but this just makes me laugh. Why in heavens name would someone go out of their way to make voters unhappy? If people are happy, let them be happy.

Your playing semantics. People who believe they are being treated fairly or that things can't be changed don't rebel and that is what we need. A rebellion (democratic style not pitchforks). For a rebellion to occur people can't be just a little dissatisfied. They have to be a lot dissatisfied and there has to be a target. 

For a few decades the right has been successful in convincing people that it is social programs and big government that is draining wealth from the economy. That it is the poor impoverishing the middle class. 

While doing so they have been slashing corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy insisting that it stimulates the economy. It has all been done incrementally.

The left needs to shine a light on the people draining Canada of its wealth. Yes that will lead people to be unhappy with the current state of affairs and want change. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
People who believe they are being treated fairly or that things can't be changed don't rebel and that is what we need.

So we need to conscript them somehow!

Quote:
The left needs to shine a light on the people draining Canada of its wealth. Yes that will lead people to be unhappy with the current state of affairs and want change.

Of course.  The only mystery is how this has been kept under wraps for so long.  When should be "the big reveal"?

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
People who believe they are being treated fairly or that things can't be changed don't rebel and that is what we need.

So we need to conscript them somehow!

Quote:
The left needs to shine a light on the people draining Canada of its wealth. Yes that will lead people to be unhappy with the current state of affairs and want change.

Of course.  The only mystery is how this has been kept under wraps for so long.  When should be "the big reveal"?

No mystery. Facts have to be put together and presented in such a way that people can connect the dots themselves. It is the only way to defeat the rightwing propaganda of the past half-century. 

That is more a job for activists than for a political party as anything coming from a political party is automatically suspect. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Facts have to be put together and presented in such a way that people can connect the dots themselves. It is the only way to defeat the rightwing propaganda of the past half-century.

OK.  My point was, hasn't the left been talking about this since forever?

Quote:
That is more a job for activists than for a political party as anything coming from a political party is automatically suspect.

Yes.  We need to leverage the trust that people have invested in activists.

WWWTT

My apologies, but this just makes me laugh. Why in heavens name would someone go out of their way to make voters unhappy? If people are happy, let them be happy.

 

In the above comment, switch the word happy for stupid and you'll actually get a little more accuracy.

When my parents came to Canada, this was the land of milk and honey, good jobs were plentiful and opportunity was everywhere if you were willing to just work hard!

Thanks to the liberal/conservative tag team corporate brown nosers, those days are long long gone.

Jagmeet has to drive the inequality fact home! Not all Canadian voters have their eyes open! Far from it actually

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
When my parents came to Canada, this was the land of milk and honey, good jobs were plentiful and opportunity was everywhere if you were willing to just work hard!

If your parents came to Canada in 1893, how old does that make you?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
When my parents came to Canada, this was the land of milk and honey, good jobs were plentiful and opportunity was everywhere if you were willing to just work hard!

If your parents came to Canada in 1893, how old does that make you?

When I went to high school in Hamilton, in the early 1960s, there were guys who quit school after grade 11 and easily got a job at Stelco or Dofasco or Westinghouse or Otis Elevator or National Steel Car or Proctor & Gamble, and on and on. They made enough money to buy a car, get married, buy a house and raise a family, all on one salary. I suspect that is the epoch wwwtt is referring to.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They made enough money to buy a car, get married, buy a house and raise a family, all on one salary. I suspect that is the epoch wwwtt is referring to.

Ah, the good old days. 

Were there just as many immigrants then?  Was there the same social safety net?  What were taxes like?

I don't think it's as simple as "we've lost our way since then, and neo-liberal neo-conservatism and the Liberals".  What ACTUALLY changed?  The electorate doesn't want jobs?  Harper something something?  Why can't I still buy my gal a ticket to the talkies and a hamburger and a gin fizz for a quarter any more?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I'm just reporting what I observed, Magoo, you can analyze it however you like. I certainly have no wish to attempt to educate you.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm just reporting what I observed, Magoo, you can analyze it however you like.

Very well.  I guess I just thought you might be saying that things could or should still be like that.  But if you're just saying that things used to be different for unknowable reasons then no worries!  Let's speak no more of it.

Pondering

In the early 70s a floor sweeper made 16$ an hour at Purina. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I'm just reporting what I observed, Magoo, you can analyze it however you like.

Very well.  I guess I just thought you might be saying that things could or should still be like that.  But if you're just saying that things used to be different for unknowable reasons then no worries!  Let's speak no more of it.

Maybe you should stick to saying what you are saying rather than rewording what you think other people are saying. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/28/small-town-wolfhag...

Idealy government is an institution people use to act collectively for mutual benefit. It is far from reaching any ideal but it is still the best tool we have for that purpose. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

We have to consider that Toronto was the world capital of BDSM for quite a while, and maybe there is something masochistic about the Canadian voter. 

Maybe people want to be punished and exploited. Maybe they feel guilty living on stolen land. 

I really find it rich that the predominantly white political classes are going on about Singh and the so-called "greatest terrorist act in Canadian history". Tell that to the millions of indigenous people who were murdered, raped, enslaved, and expropriated in the interests of white settlement in Canada.

I normally appreciate hypocrisy, however this form is especially vile.

NorthReport

Bingo!

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
When my parents came to Canada, this was the land of milk and honey, good jobs were plentiful and opportunity was everywhere if you were willing to just work hard!

If your parents came to Canada in 1893, how old does that make you?

When I went to high school in Hamilton, in the early 1960s, there were guys who quit school after grade 11 and easily got a job at Stelco or Dofasco or Westinghouse or Otis Elevator or National Steel Car or Proctor & Gamble, and on and on. They made enough money to buy a car, get married, buy a house and raise a family, all on one salary. I suspect that is the epoch wwwtt is referring to.

NorthReport

pro 17

Thank you for those well thought out comments.

progressive17 wrote:

We have to consider that Toronto was the world capital of BDSM for quite a while, and maybe there is something masochistic about the Canadian voter. 

Maybe people want to be punished and exploited. Maybe they feel guilty living on stolen land. 

I really find it rich that the predominantly white political classes are going on about Singh and the so-called "greatest terrorist act in Canadian history". Tell that to the millions of indigenous people who were murdered, raped, enslaved, and expropriated in the interests of white settlement in Canada.

I normally appreciate hypocrisy, however this form is especially vile.

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

We have to consider that Toronto was the world capital of BDSM for quite a while, and maybe there is something masochistic about the Canadian voter. 

Maybe people want to be punished and exploited. Maybe they feel guilty living on stolen land. 

I really find it rich that the predominantly white political classes are going on about Singh and the so-called "greatest terrorist act in Canadian history". Tell that to the millions of indigenous people who were murdered, raped, enslaved, and expropriated in the interests of white settlement in Canada.

I normally appreciate hypocrisy, however this form is especially vile.

This is a place of political conversation and the implications on elections. While you are correct about the impact and your comparison -- The Canadian public is not going to equate an airline blowing up in the same way. The reason is not about hypocrisy even if you feel it is. It is about fear. Instant terrorist acts are also nowhere near as dangerous as threats like car accidents or heart disease but the violence captures the imagination in a different way -- check out any list of top selling movies in any year of the last 50.

The discussion here is about the response of a political leader who represents more than one issue. Singh is not a Sikh representative on the national stage of Canada. He is the leader of a party that many are counting on to do well, if they want significant social progress. The management of his messages is important to his success and his success is tied to the wider left movement.

My judgement is that good and timely communications are essential. I wanted him to be clear about opposing violence and this he has now done although it would have been a little better to have done it faster. I do not think this is a threat to the next election.

My other concern is the threat of how his political priorities will be received in the next election. One quarter of the world's population live in India, so this is not just some other country. India is an important global partner for Canada. It is not racist or hypocritical to question if Singh is going to represent an NDP or Canadian position on India over a potential a Sikh homeland. He does not have to say he disagrees with a Sikh homeland but he should say that he will not let this position interfere with carrying out the duties of representing the views of his party and Canada with respect to a relationship with India. The alternative to that is to be clear about seeking a change in the NDP position on this topic. Silence is not going to look good on him and it will lead to people thinking he is less than forthright -- and this on a topic that is both political and one he apparently cares about. Regardless of his position, he has to be clear about it. I think even if he said, look I am in favour of a Sikh homeland by non-violent means but I will not let this come in the way of Canadian positions on India, that would be better than appearing to try to keep secret a political position on this topic.

Political leaders trying to keep political positions secret do not normally do well. People realize they are hiding something and then assume they must be hiding more and more. As a musician for example he could keep his politics secret but as a politician who is the leader of a major national political party, a political opinion is harder to keep secret. And people are not wrong to ask how he might manage conflicts.

It is also true that it is possible to not raise it if you are not in the leader's position and it is true that at the provincial level it would be less of an issue.

So please do not suggest that a request for directness about his politics and potential advocacy for a Sikh homeland is some kind of racist position. There is no disrespect for whatever position he holds from me  -- there is concern for the terrible communications process of managing this. Blaming everyone else, while an NDP tradition when communications go wrong, is not a smart idea.

We are now discussing nationally Singh's rejection of violence but it is predictable that once we move on from this, questions will be raised about how he sees his role as leader of the NDP and his views on Sikh independence meet. Whatever opinion he holds would be better than any attempt to be less than direct about it. Pictures of his attendance, which really are not a problem in themselves, will raise the question of what he is thinking. Being clear about his thoughts and role would set this all to rest and only the most racist or hypocritical will continue once he clarifies this.

Let’s also not pretend that any mistake he makes will not be used by the worst elements in our society. That does not mean that those calling for good communication are themselves part of a conspiracy with those elements. That does everyone a disservice.

voice of the damned

progressive17 wrote:

We have to consider that Toronto was the world capital of BDSM for quite a while, and maybe there is something masochistic about the Canadian voter. 

Maybe people want to be punished and exploited. Maybe they feel guilty living on stolen land. 

I really find it rich that the predominantly white political classes are going on about Singh and the so-called "greatest terrorist act in Canadian history". Tell that to the millions of indigenous people who were murdered, raped, enslaved, and expropriated in the interests of white settlement in Canada.

I normally appreciate hypocrisy, however this form is especially vile.

If I were to say "The Air India bombing was the greatest terrorist attack in Canadian history", the implication would certainly NOT be "The victims of the Air India bombing suffered more than anyone else in Canadian history", much less that they suffered more than the colonized First Nations. I would make that statement simply because it is true, within the usual definition of "terrorist attack", which does not include acts of colonization or state-sponsored warfare. Even right-wingers who hated the Soviet Union don't usually refer to things like the invasion of Afghanistan as "terrorism"(even as they would apply it to, say, the Baader-Meinhoff gang), since that just doesn't fit the common usage of the term.

Overall, I think comparing the Air India bombing to the imperialist colonization of the Americas and its ongoing consequences is apples and oranges. It's like saying it's hypocritical to make a big deal about thalidomide babies born with no arms in Europe, because what about all the Africans who had their hands chopped off in the Belgian Congo. The fact is, maintaining everyday safety is a recognized responsibility of modern governments, and when the established protections fail(as they do in cases of airplane crashes or harmful medication), of course it's going to be a major issue. 

It's also the case that the Air India bombing rather effed up our relations with India, a rising power of a billion people. That alone would make it worth covering, even apart from the human suffering involved.  

 

NDPP

Engler: Canada's NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Political Violence   

https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/03/canadas-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-and-...

"We should be concerned about Singh's support for political violence. But not the stuff that's making news. While the media makes much of the new NDP head's ties/indifference to Sikh violence, they've ignored Singh's leadership of a party/community that has repeatedly backed Canadian aggression...Singh has also said little (or nothing) about Canada's new defence policy, which includes a substantial boost to military spending and offensive capabilities. In the interests of a first do no harm Canadian foreign policy, it's time for a comprehensive discussion of Singh's views on political violence."

Rev Pesky

From WWWTT:

When my parents came to Canada, this was the land of milk and honey, good jobs were plentiful and opportunity was everywhere if you were willing to just work hard!

Thanks to the liberal/conservative tag team corporate brown nosers, those days are long long gone.

Actually what happened is that industry moved to brighter climes. What caused them to move was the cost of doing business. This is true not only for Canada, but for the USA and Europe.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From WWWTT:

When my parents came to Canada, this was the land of milk and honey, good jobs were plentiful and opportunity was everywhere if you were willing to just work hard!

Thanks to the liberal/conservative tag team corporate brown nosers, those days are long long gone.

Actually what happened is that industry moved to brighter climes. What caused them to move was the cost of doing business. This is true not only for Canada, but for the USA and Europe.

Yes, labour is cheaper in 3rd world countries, which is why we need to make demands on better treatment of workers and increased corporate taxation otherwise we are in a race to the bottom which we have seen over the past half century or so. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

From WWWTT:

When my parents came to Canada, this was the land of milk and honey, good jobs were plentiful and opportunity was everywhere if you were willing to just work hard!

Thanks to the liberal/conservative tag team corporate brown nosers, those days are long long gone.

Actually what happened is that industry moved to brighter climes. What caused them to move was the cost of doing business. This is true not only for Canada, but for the USA and Europe.

Yes, labour is cheaper in 3rd world countries, which is why we need to make demands on better treatment of workers and increased corporate taxation otherwise we are in a race to the bottom which we have seen over the past half century or so. 

I think countries with relatively inexpensive labour like China, India, and Mexico, will not agree to raise the cost of their labour because inexpensive labour is currently the comparative advantage in international trade that is increasing their standards of living.

Also, if we increase tax rates on our corporations many of them will then be outcompeted by companies from jurisdictions with lower tax rates and also many of our companies will also move to jurisdictions with lower tax rates.

I think we should follow the path currently taken by the social democratic countries of northern Europe and maintain competitive corporate tax rates while providing our populace with the best social programs in areas such as education, health care, transportation, recreation, and housing.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

WWWTT wrote:

My apologies, but this just makes me laugh. Why in heavens name would someone go out of their way to make voters unhappy? If people are happy, let them be happy.

 

In the above comment, switch the word happy for stupid and you'll actually get a little more accuracy.

When my parents came to Canada, this was the land of milk and honey, good jobs were plentiful and opportunity was everywhere if you were willing to just work hard!

Thanks to the liberal/conservative tag team corporate brown nosers, those days are long long gone.

Jagmeet has to drive the inequality fact home! Not all Canadian voters have their eyes open! Far from it actually

The world economy got flipped over onto its head in the 1980's. Those days of wealth are over thanks to the Conservative governments at the time in Canada,the US and Britain selling us all down the river by taking our wealth and handing it to Third World countries and annihilating unions. And even there,the average worker didn't see the wealth. The already wealthy benefited,moved to countries like Canada and the USA and bought up property and real estate and jacked up the cost of living almost double in a very short period of time between 1984 and 1988 (The Mulroney/Wilson GST didn't help either). Our current national housing crisis can be blamed on the same. It just took about 10 years to destroy affordable housing and there's no relief in sight.

The problem is that concurrent governments didn't and possibly couldn't reverse these 'Free Trade' agreements and the days of ' milk and honey' are over and never coming back. It doesn't matter who makes up the government. Even in the US with the Orange asshole,the tearing up of these deals will do very little for your average worker. And thanks to the Orange asshole,all countries will impose heavy tariffs on goods,create a trade war and drag us back into a Great Depression.

We got fucked 35 years ago. And there is no way to undo that damage. Doesn't matter if the government is Red,Blue or even Orange. There's nothing that can be done to bring back the wealth and quality jobs that were available in the 50's,60's and 70's. It's done and it's over. 

Pages