This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people? Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum?
It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland.
As an aside, it is far too early to assume that a Sikh homeland would expel all non-Silkhs.
What statement would be acceptable to his critics?
That decision doesn’t sit well with New Democrats, who are trying to retain or grow support in Quebec under new leader Jagmeet Singh. Foreign critic Hélène Laverdière, a Montreal MP, said in a statement “the NDP has always believed in the right to self-determination.”
“We find it extremely disappointing that the Liberal government has simply called the situation an ‘internal problem’ for Spain,” she said. “The imposition of direct rule on Catalonia, and the removal of the region’s president, is not a constructive course of action and may further inflame tensions. We would much rather see both parties engage in respectful dialogue to find a solution to the crisis.”
How dare the NDP meddle in Spain's internal affairs! They should have agreed with the Liberals, right?
Singh said:
“So whether it is in Punjab, for the people of Punjab, or whether it is in Catalonia, for the people of that region, whether it is in Basque, wherever that is, whether it is in Quebec, it’s a basic right. Everyone should be able to do that.”
But in equating self-determination and the issue of recent separatist movements to the demand for a separate Sikh homeland, Singh is echoing the strategy adopted by hardline groups such as Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which is spearheading the so-called “Khalistan 2020 Referendum” effort.
This may be a coincidence, and SFJ’s legal advisor Gurpatwant Pannun said that while he had communicated with Singh in 2010-11, there had been “no contact” since then.
Jagmeet Singh's outreach has been about thwarting violence, not stoking it
These spaces are exactly where Singh's message needs to be heard
Jagmeet Singh taught me how to channel that pain and turn it into something positive. Instead of avoiding it, he talked to me — and so many others — openly and honestly about the 1984 Sikh genocide. About how it was okay to feel enraged, and helpless. And about how the first step toward healing was to turn that rage into something positive for our community, lest we perpetuate the cycle of violence. For me, that path led to law school and graduate studies in conflict, law and transitional justice. It could have gone another way.
Here's another thing that seems to be missing in discussion of this issue: "self-determination" doesn't mean violent separation. It doesn't even necessarily mean the creation of a new state. It means the right of the Sikh community in India to determine their own future. It's a right shared by all peoples, from Quebec to Catalonia. It's a right so important that it is enshrined in the very first article of the United Nations Charter.
“Let’s make it really clear. I think it’s an important question. I condemn political violence absolutely, no question about that. It’s something that’s unacceptable. It divides people. It hurts people. It does not advance justice. It does not build a better society,” Singh said.
“I have never attended an event where the goal was to advance political violence, nor would I ever. That’s not my response; that’s not my values. It’s not what I believe in.”
NDPers who opposed having Singh as leader have been very quick to condemn him and very slow to do any research. People who regularly condemn mainstream media as biased against the NDP embrace any negative word they print about Singh even though there is zero evidence against him. None that he has ever worked for organizations, or even belonged to organizations, that promote Sikh independence.
Even if he personally supports independence, since becoming leader, he has only supported self-determination for all people. Apparently that is not NDP policy.
Is this what you want him to say?
"My position and Canada's position has not changed. We support one united India," Trudeau said.
This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people? Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum?
It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland.
As an aside, it is far too early to assume that a Sikh homeland would expel all non-Silkhs.
What statement would be acceptable to his critics?
That decision doesn’t sit well with New Democrats, who are trying to retain or grow support in Quebec under new leader Jagmeet Singh. Foreign critic Hélène Laverdière, a Montreal MP, said in a statement “the NDP has always believed in the right to self-determination.”
“We find it extremely disappointing that the Liberal government has simply called the situation an ‘internal problem’ for Spain,” she said. “The imposition of direct rule on Catalonia, and the removal of the region’s president, is not a constructive course of action and may further inflame tensions. We would much rather see both parties engage in respectful dialogue to find a solution to the crisis.”
How dare the NDP meddle in Spain's internal affairs! They should have agreed with the Liberals, right?
Singh said:
“So whether it is in Punjab, for the people of Punjab, or whether it is in Catalonia, for the people of that region, whether it is in Basque, wherever that is, whether it is in Quebec, it’s a basic right. Everyone should be able to do that.”
But in equating self-determination and the issue of recent separatist movements to the demand for a separate Sikh homeland, Singh is echoing the strategy adopted by hardline groups such as Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which is spearheading the so-called “Khalistan 2020 Referendum” effort.
This may be a coincidence, and SFJ’s legal advisor Gurpatwant Pannun said that while he had communicated with Singh in 2010-11, there had been “no contact” since then.
Jagmeet Singh's outreach has been about thwarting violence, not stoking it
These spaces are exactly where Singh's message needs to be heard
Jagmeet Singh taught me how to channel that pain and turn it into something positive. Instead of avoiding it, he talked to me — and so many others — openly and honestly about the 1984 Sikh genocide. About how it was okay to feel enraged, and helpless. And about how the first step toward healing was to turn that rage into something positive for our community, lest we perpetuate the cycle of violence. For me, that path led to law school and graduate studies in conflict, law and transitional justice. It could have gone another way.
Here's another thing that seems to be missing in discussion of this issue: "self-determination" doesn't mean violent separation. It doesn't even necessarily mean the creation of a new state. It means the right of the Sikh community in India to determine their own future. It's a right shared by all peoples, from Quebec to Catalonia. It's a right so important that it is enshrined in the very first article of the United Nations Charter.
“Let’s make it really clear. I think it’s an important question. I condemn political violence absolutely, no question about that. It’s something that’s unacceptable. It divides people. It hurts people. It does not advance justice. It does not build a better society,” Singh said.
“I have never attended an event where the goal was to advance political violence, nor would I ever. That’s not my response; that’s not my values. It’s not what I believe in.”
NDPers who opposed having Singh as leader have been very quick to condemn him and very slow to do any research. People who regularly condemn mainstream media as biased against the NDP embrace any negative word they print about Singh even though there is zero evidence against him. None that he has ever worked for organizations, or even belonged to organizations, that promote Sikh independence.
Even if he personally supports independence, since becoming leader, he has only supported self-determination for all people. Apparently that is not NDP policy.
Is this what you want him to say?
"My position and Canada's position has not changed. We support one united India," Trudeau said.
You are talking beside the point. Self determination does not involve the advocacy of a leader of a political party half way around the world. This is not a situation where there has been a vote -- or even where there are agreed-upon territorial borders to have such a vote as boundaries would be in dispute.
It is fair to support the broad principle of self determination. It is not for a leader of a Canadian political party to be involved in advocacy regarding what the result of that determination may be or to be using his office, without the support of members be taken into account, to decide when to apply this to territories that have not identified themselves expressing a clear desire to do so.
I know you like Singh. I sincerely hope that he is successful but he is following this particular path in a way that is more likely to interfere with his potential success than support it.
I am also in support of self determination.
I am even open to a resolution and investigation -- done carefully with support of the members -- to argue if this is a case of denied self-determination or a minority of a territory that do not actually have such support.
Comparing Catalonia is a false comparison first becuase, while you can contest the result, they did have a vote and Spain and the then Catalonian administration has engaged with the international community. In this case there is no comparisons to make.
Further, as much as you can say from Canada that you disavow violence, you cannot press for this in the case of India without promoting a result that could only be expected to be violent.
Comparing Catalonia to Khalistan is extremely ignorant when you consider the facts. Notably:
1) Sihks are a religious group not a territory like Catalonia and those who want independence are not even in the majority in the Punjab. This means that participants in the Khalistan state would require territory be given them that is not defined, where they are not a majority and where the existing people would be displaced and they would gather from other places to populate.
2) The areas claimed for Khalistan involve two different countries, India and Pakistan (both Nuclear powers with a history of massacre due to a religious definition of a geographical place.
3) There is no proof that there is significant majority support for this in any part of India, even among Sihks, nevermind a territory that includes all residents in the determination and so there is no place where the issue of self-determination would be relevant. These are minorities who wish to re-locate, to and evict the local majorities to create a new state. That is not what self determination means in the context of geographical areas that supply a vote to all people living in the area -- be it Quebec or Catalonia. All residents would participate in the later areas.
4) Some 50 years ago there were people who wanted to create a Sihk majority state within India. This never happened and there is no boundary other than a desire on behalf of a minority of people in the region. The Punjabi Suba movement tried to create a province within India but did not succeed. It is worth noting that they never did call for independence but mainly diaspora people have used the arguments.
5) Poponents of this movement have frequently called for violence. Some of that violence is well known in Canada and merely saying you do not agree with the violence is not sufficient given that there is no way other than violence to effect the kinds of changes required to make this project viable. To get the majority in the territory that Khalistan proponents claim would require ethnic cleansing.
6) Apart from territory there are other divisive issues including river damning and directions affecting many poeple. To think this is about a local territory that has expressed a desire for a common independent future and being held back by a central authority is to misunderstand many of the complicated issues involved.
Supporting this naitonal project on either the principle of self determination or some desire to help the oppressed is fraught with danger. It is not an area that a leader of a Canadian political party, without the support of his party, should be doing.
This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people? Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum?
It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland.
As an aside, it is far too early to assume that a Sikh homeland would expel all non-Silkhs.
What statement would be acceptable to his critics?
That decision doesn’t sit well with New Democrats, who are trying to retain or grow support in Quebec under new leader Jagmeet Singh. Foreign critic Hélène Laverdière, a Montreal MP, said in a statement “the NDP has always believed in the right to self-determination.”
“We find it extremely disappointing that the Liberal government has simply called the situation an ‘internal problem’ for Spain,” she said. “The imposition of direct rule on Catalonia, and the removal of the region’s president, is not a constructive course of action and may further inflame tensions. We would much rather see both parties engage in respectful dialogue to find a solution to the crisis.”
How dare the NDP meddle in Spain's internal affairs! They should have agreed with the Liberals, right?
Singh said:
“So whether it is in Punjab, for the people of Punjab, or whether it is in Catalonia, for the people of that region, whether it is in Basque, wherever that is, whether it is in Quebec, it’s a basic right. Everyone should be able to do that.”
But in equating self-determination and the issue of recent separatist movements to the demand for a separate Sikh homeland, Singh is echoing the strategy adopted by hardline groups such as Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which is spearheading the so-called “Khalistan 2020 Referendum” effort.
This may be a coincidence, and SFJ’s legal advisor Gurpatwant Pannun said that while he had communicated with Singh in 2010-11, there had been “no contact” since then.
Jagmeet Singh's outreach has been about thwarting violence, not stoking it
These spaces are exactly where Singh's message needs to be heard
Jagmeet Singh taught me how to channel that pain and turn it into something positive. Instead of avoiding it, he talked to me — and so many others — openly and honestly about the 1984 Sikh genocide. About how it was okay to feel enraged, and helpless. And about how the first step toward healing was to turn that rage into something positive for our community, lest we perpetuate the cycle of violence. For me, that path led to law school and graduate studies in conflict, law and transitional justice. It could have gone another way.
Here's another thing that seems to be missing in discussion of this issue: "self-determination" doesn't mean violent separation. It doesn't even necessarily mean the creation of a new state. It means the right of the Sikh community in India to determine their own future. It's a right shared by all peoples, from Quebec to Catalonia. It's a right so important that it is enshrined in the very first article of the United Nations Charter.
“Let’s make it really clear. I think it’s an important question. I condemn political violence absolutely, no question about that. It’s something that’s unacceptable. It divides people. It hurts people. It does not advance justice. It does not build a better society,” Singh said.
“I have never attended an event where the goal was to advance political violence, nor would I ever. That’s not my response; that’s not my values. It’s not what I believe in.”
NDPers who opposed having Singh as leader have been very quick to condemn him and very slow to do any research. People who regularly condemn mainstream media as biased against the NDP embrace any negative word they print about Singh even though there is zero evidence against him. None that he has ever worked for organizations, or even belonged to organizations, that promote Sikh independence.
Even if he personally supports independence, since becoming leader, he has only supported self-determination for all people. Apparently that is not NDP policy.
Is this what you want him to say?
"My position and Canada's position has not changed. We support one united India," Trudeau said.
Sorry Pondering but you are smearing the people that disagree with you. That is unseemly. This post is extremely arrogant in assuming only you have done adequate research. This is not the way to change anyone's mind. It is guaranteed to start a fight here instead of provoke a respectful discussion.
And you are back to old tactics of avoiding the central statements being made and really being dishonest in your characterizations of what other people are saying. That is not constructive and eventually only gets you in a flame war.
Stop pretending that the people concerned about this are asking Singh to declare opposition to any homeland. That is not true.
Stop thinking you know more than other people. That clearly is not true. The territory being claimed by Sikh nationalists would only be viable with mass outflow of people in order for them to gain a majority in favour of the national project. I encourage you to spend a little time reviewing Indian 20th century history so that you might even have a chance of coming to the conclusion that there are good reasons why many Sikhs in India would not want to see this -- nevermind the non-Sikh population.
You are the one making this complicated by, as you have in a couple threads, questioning the motivations of people concerned about this. Many of these people are NDP supporters not wanting the party to go into this without a lot more thought, dragged in by a leader not clarifying his position regarding his role as leader and these opinions.
You pretend to say what people would accept: They might accept him saying he will not use his role as leader to get involved in this issue. He can also state that the territorial integrity of India remains an NDP position so long as the party itself does not change that -- regardless of his personal thoughts. This does not contradict self determination as there has been no such thing being held back here. There has been a violent dispute that is not even significant in India now other than a wound from history. There is no vote the Indian government is refusing to hold or denying the result of. There is no demand for this at a level where invoking self determination would be appropriate. At this stage invoking the principle of self determination would be provocation and interference and not comparable to any concept of self-determination that has been respected and advocated by the leaders of any Canadian party.
Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum?
Singh should have kept quiet about Catalonia. However not much was made about it because he was just making a rhetorical point and it was not a cause he was associated with.
Quote:
It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland.
All he has to say is that whether Punjab remains in India or leaves is none of his business.[/quote]
Sean said You are talking beside the point. Self determination does not involve the advocacy of a leader of a political party half way around the world. This is not a situation where there has been a vote -- or even where there are agreed-upon territorial borders to have such a vote as boundaries would be in dispute.
Please show me any evidence that Singh has been an advocate for Sikh separatism. He has not supported the 2020 movement. They spoke to him once in 2010 and once in 2011 (probably to try to gain his support).
Please show me any evidence that as leader of the NDP Singh has expressed support for Sikh separtism. One statement. If you can't find one since he became leader find one from before he became leader.
Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum?
Singh should have kept quiet about Catalonia. However not much was made about it because he was just making a rhetorical point and it was not a cause he was associated with.
Quote:
It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland.
All he has to say is that whether Punjab remains in India or leaves is none of his business.
[/quote]
He tried that when he was pushed to condemn the Air India guy. People insisted that denouncing the bombing itself was not enough, he had to specifically condemn the individual accused of being mastermind even though it happened when he was five years old. He can't just say "it's none of his business" as being PM includes foreign affairs. Saying "it's none of his business" would be interpreted as not wanting to condemn it but not having the guts to express his position.
This is bullshit. This "controversy" was manufactured by mainstream media. Please quote the statement Singh has made that you disagree with or is inappropriate Concerning Sikhs or India.
Sorry Pondering but you are smearing the people that disagree with you. That is unseemly. This post is extremely arrogant in assuming only you have done adequate research. This is not the way to change anyone's mind. It is guaranteed to start a fight here instead of provoke a respectful discussion.
No one here has presented a single thing on this topic that Singh has said which they disagree with.
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
And you are back to old tactics of avoiding the central statements being made and really being dishonest in your characterizations of what other people are saying. That is not constructive and eventually only gets you in a flame war
I almost always quote what I am referring to. I don't or rarely paraphrase. My motives were constantly questioned when I supported Trudeau. Now that I support Singh when I have disagreed with criticism of Trudeau no one said a word.
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The territory being claimed by Sikh nationalists would only be viable with mass outflow of people in order for them to gain a majority in favour of the national project.
Then won't the people there vote against it rather than leaving?
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I encourage you to spend a little time reviewing Indian 20th century history so that you might even have a chance of coming to the conclusion that there are good reasons why many Sikhs in India would not want to see this -- nevermind the non-Sikh population.
So what. That isn't a reason to deny self-determination.
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You are the one making this complicated by, as you have in a couple threads, questioning the motivations of people concerned about this. Many of these people are NDP supporters not wanting the party to go into this without a lot more thought, dragged in by a leader not clarifying his position regarding his role as leader and these opinions.
No, I've tried to simplify by getting people to say exactly what it is they object to that Singh has said. So far, nada. Many of these people started dissing Singh the moment he was elected.
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
They might accept him saying he will not use his role as leader to get involved in this issue. He can also state that the territorial integrity of India remains an NDP position so long as the party itself does not change that -- regardless of his personal thoughts.
I didn't realize that the NDP already has a policy on the territorial integrity of India not to mention Singh has not said anything in opposition of the territorial integrity of India. He hasn't used his position as leader to get involved and he shouldn't have to declare that he won't because he is Silkh. If he does get involved that would be soon enough to criticize him for it.
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This does not contradict self determination as there has been no such thing being held back here. There has been a violent dispute that is not even significant in India now other than a wound from history. There is no vote the Indian government is refusing to hold or denying the result of. There is no demand for this at a level where invoking self determination would be appropriate. At this stage invoking the principle of self determination would be provocation and interference and not comparable to any concept of self-determination that has been respected and advocated by the leaders of any Canadian party.
So the NDP has to say the same things as other party leaders. I don't think so. Singh has not said a word against the Indian government or promoted Sikh independence.
Like anyone else Sikhs should have the right to self-determination and should have a right to strive for a separate homeland. That is not the same thing as saying they have a right to homeland or a right to the Punjab region. They have a right to try as long as they aren't violent.
By including Catalonia and Quebec he made it a general statement of support for self-determination not support for the Sikh cause in particular.
Mulcair didn't get a quarter of the grief Singh is getting.
In my opinion the mainstream media are trying to force him to state his opposition or support for a Sikh homeland and certain NDP supporters, not all, will support any criticism of Singh because they want him gone, the sooner the better even if that results in the party losing support.
I could change my mind but I think I have said all I have to say on the topic.
Sean said You are talking beside the point. Self determination does not involve the advocacy of a leader of a political party half way around the world. This is not a situation where there has been a vote -- or even where there are agreed-upon territorial borders to have such a vote as boundaries would be in dispute.
Please show me any evidence that Singh has been an advocate for Sikh separatism. He has not supported the 2020 movement. They spoke to him once in 2010 and once in 2011 (probably to try to gain his support).
Please show me any evidence that as leader of the NDP Singh has expressed support for Sikh separtism. One statement. If you can't find one since he became leader find one from before he became leader.
He has attended events where that is the point of being there and it is a fair question to ask and he has not answered it. He has been a guest speaker at such a rally.
"Video also shows Mr. Singh, who left provincial politics after he won the federal NDP leadership in October of 2017, walking in the pro-sovereignty march behind a truck that displayed signs saying “India out of Sikh Homeland,” and “1984 Sikh Genocide Independence.” Parade participants carried the same messages on placards as well as others including “Sikhs Demand Independence.”
"He did not answer a series of questions from The Globe including whether he supports an independent Sikh homeland; why he attended a rally that extolled a violent extremist and whether he considers Mr. Bhindranwale a martyr or freedom fighter."
It is not up to people to dig up what he has said but for him to declare if this independence movement is his belief -- like it was for just about everyone else there. Saying he disavows the violence -- and taking months to do that -- does not clarify an issue that becuase of his role he will either clarify or get nailed for it in an election.
Last word goes to the critics. I have nothing more to say on it.
Yes you missed the point in so many areas. It is tiresome to unpack it becuase it is so mixed up. The point about Indian history is that you should not be under the delusion that all Sikhs would want a division when the last time millions died or lost family. This is not about ALLOWING self determination -- this is a movement about inciting a movement that has not recieved enough support at home by a majority in any one place to justify the involvement of others.
No we do not need to get involved where there is no consensus there to want us to. There is no international appeal but rather the dreams of a diaspora that is not necessarily representative of anything going on there.
****
A lot of well-meaning Irish diaspora in North America funded the IRA when many people who actually lived there on the same side of the divide they thought they were supporting would ahve wanted them to come and see the dead bodies their money bought.
Listening to a diaspora is not by itself a justification to get involved and supporting what may be seen as violent and radical back home -- even if you try to keep your hands clean by saying you are not for the violence. The conflict itself by definition may be violent.
I would certainly think it a bit odd if the NDP Leader had something to say about Khalistan if he, personally, were not Sikh. That would be odd. And while I've no real horse in that race myself, I can kind of understand why a Sikh might have some sort of opinion, particularly if badgered to give one.
At the same time, I think it would be declared a special day of celebration at babble if a bunch of non-Israeli NDP MP wrote a letter in support of a "one-state solution" in Israel/Palestine, even if none of them is either Israeli or Palestinian. And I'm absolutely not talking about an NDP MP calling for an end to the violence, or an end to the settlements, or an end to the occupation. I'm talking about calling for one particular form of solution over another. It's human to say "stop the violence". It's political to say "only a one-state solution can be considered".
For that matter, why should even casual Canadians want to weigh in on how the solution must look? It's nice to say we should let everyone attend to their own affairs, except we also want the opposite.
I would certainly think it a bit odd if the NDP Leader had something to say about Khalistan if he, personally, were not Sikh. That would be odd. And while I've no real horse in that race myself, I can kind of understand why a Sikh might have some sort of opinion, particularly if badgered to give one.
At the same time, I think it would be declared a special day of celebration at babble if a bunch of non-Israeli NDP MP wrote a letter in support of a "one-state solution" in Israel/Palestine, even if none of them is either Israeli or Palestinian. And I'm absolutely not talking about an NDP MP calling for an end to the violence, or an end to the settlements, or an end to the occupation. I'm talking about calling for one particular form of solution over another. It's human to say "stop the violence". It's political to say "only a one-state solution can be considered".
For that matter, why should even casual Canadians want to weigh in on how the solution must look? It's nice to say we should let everyone attend to their own affairs, except we also want the opposite.
Of course he can have an opinion. The problem is he cannot attend these events as a public person and then say that his opinion about them is not the business of public who ask.
He always had the option to be private about this. By attending these events he invited the questions and gave up the right to keep that opinion entirely private. His only option now is to assert that he will not make this issue soemthing he will use his leadership role to support. Otherwise, this will follow him, notwithstanding any late statements he might have made regarding believing in non violence.
Fair enough. Now that he's Party Leader, I guess it's a fair question for him, even if none of this happened in the last six months.
It is a fair question since it happened during his public life. He could just say as NDP leader he will make no statment of support or use the office to advocate for this -- but he is refusing to answer. The quesiton is fair and politically damaging to refuse to answer.
It is a fair question since it happened during his public life.
Very well. Let us judge him as someone who supported something in his public life. But not as "the Leader" if he wasn't the Leader.
And if he's accountable either way, please let us not whine and moan the next time some mere candidate for a seat has to similarly own up to some offensive tweet or blog post they made before they were a candidate. Perhaps they weren't a candidate at that point, but in what way is the internet not "public"?
It is a fair question since it happened during his public life.
Very well. Let us judge him as someone who supported something in his public life. But not as "the Leader" if he wasn't the Leader.
And if he's accountable either way, please let us not whine and moan the next time some mere candidate for a seat has to similarly own up to some offensive tweet or blog post they made before they were a candidate. Perhaps they weren't a candidate at that point, but in what way is the internet not "public"?
This is not about being accountable to the past but about a RECENT past (2013) raising questions about the present and how he sees the future -- that he does not want to answer but should.
Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people?
I support self-determination in the area of divorce and re-marriage. In other words, I think everyone has the right to get divorced, and then marry someone else, if that's what they wanna do.
But if, among my circle of friends, I were to go around saying, out of the blue, "You know, I support Julie's right to divorce Ted and marry Hugh, if that's what she wants to do", well, I think that's going to attract a bit of suspicion as to my own personal motivations. If someone accuses me of pushing my own personal agenda, I don't think I can fall back on saying "Well, I'm just defending the principle of self-determination for everyone."
Now, yes, there are situations where I COULD take such a stand in my personal life, ie. if Julia and Ted were already discussing the possibility of divorce, and everyone was privy to it, AND I was not viewed as having any self-interest in the matter. My point is simply that, just because you support an overarching principle, does not mean that it's a good idea to go around explicitly advocating its application in a specific situation.
Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people?
I support self-determination in the area of divorce and re-marriage. In other words, I think everyone has the right to get divorced, and then marry someone else, if that's what they wanna do.
But if, among my circle of friends, I were to go around saying, out of the blue, "You know, I support Julie's right to divorce Ted and marry Hugh, if that's what she wants to do", well, I think that's going to attract a bit of suspicion as to my own personal motivations. If someone accuses me of pushing my own personal agenda, I don't think I can fall back on saying "Well, I'm just defending the principle of self-determination for everyone."
Now, yes, there are situations where I COULD take such a stand in my personal life, ie. if Julia and Ted were already discussing the possibility of divorce, and everyone was privy to it, AND I was not viewed as having any self-interest in the matter. My point is simply that, just because you support an overarching principle, does not mean that it's a good idea to go around explicitly advocating its application in a specific situation.
Very well said and exactly what I should have said as it is the principle in this case. Advertising the possibility to a party that is not already decided and asking for it is interference not respect of self determination.
As part of the diaspora Singh can express interest -- but given what he has publicly attended -- and spoken at -- he should also express his intentions of how this relates to his current job. The issue is not his beliefs which can be private but his promise of non-interference and non-advocacy for this objective while leader ---- or ----- his promise to do it within the party that he leads with membership support. anything else is allowing the appearance of a conflict of interest and use of a role that he has for a purpose that he was not given that role for. Respect for the position of leadership of the NDP and for the democratic function of the party requires no less. He has choice but keeping his intentions secret is not an option even if keeping his opinion secret could be.
It is a valid desire to want to know if he would use his profile to promote this or not. Silence only escalates the situation making it more likely that people would be both opposed to the silence and ultimately if he decided to make this an issue, opposed to him doing so. In this case his judgement looks poor and that is not a great thing in a leader. I hope he comes around to understanding the question and why it is being asked and respecting the right of those asking it. Enabling the evasiveness by calling this a racist question does not help him or the party. It probably does help those who are racist.
Enabling the evasiveness by calling this a racist question does not help him or the party. It probably does help those who are racist.
That's a big part of the problem. I don't disagree that there are valid reasons to want to know how he really feels about a "Khalistan". But I also can't deny that I think many people who take offense to his appearance at some rally are more interested in the fact that he wears a turban and associates with other turban wearers.
If some old video of him attending a "Brexit" rally (for or against; take your pick) turned up, who'd care?
It's a bit like Hillary Clinton. Are the people chanting "Lock her up!!" because she's a hawkish war criminal? Or a Liberal "shrew"? Probably some of each, but at any given moment it's hard to tell.
Statement from Jagmeet Singh, Leader of the Federal NDP:
A few years ago, I was invited to speak as a human rights advocate and attend an annual event in San Francisco that commemorates the Sikh Genocide of 1984. While there, I spoke directly about the pain in the community and my own path to learning about my heritage. When faced with the knowledge that your relatives were targeted for who they were, you are faced with the question of how to respond. My response was to embrace my identity and work harder to stand up for human rights and not allow the voices of the marginalized to be made silent. That is a lesson that has helped me to empathize with the struggles of others. I encourage all those facing these tough questions not to fall prey to rage and violence, but rather to embrace your truth and move forward with love and courage. Admittedly, this is not a simple or easy process, but attempts to oversimplify these experiences will not advance the cause of reconciliation.
My belief in human rights includes a fundamental principle that is written into Article 1 of the UN Charter: respect for equal rights and self-determination. Questions regarding the future of India are not for me to decide. I am not a citizen of India or an Indian politician. Self-determination means respecting the views of people in whatever country to choose their own path. 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.
Published Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:36PM EDT
Last Updated Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:33PM EDT
OTTAWA – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his participation in Sikh nationalist events is not because he is necessarily sympathetic to an Indian separatist movement, but rather because he views the gatherings as an opportunity to share his beliefs, and he won’t hesitate attending events in the future.
Singh said that because of his experience dealing personally with the discrimination and marginalization as a member of the Sikh community, he views invitations to speak at these events as opportunities to speak about how he’s personally overcome that adversity.
"When I have an opportunity to speak at events, I speak from that position, where I can take that opportunity to share my beliefs and my ideas, and if I don’t, the other side is I could leave those opportunities vacant and someone else can talk and share other ideas that maybe I don’t agree with," Singh said in an interview for CTV’s Question Period with guest host and Ottawa Bureau Chief Joyce Napier....
Asked several times what his position is on Sikh independence, Singh said it is not his place to pick a side.
"I believe that I actually don’t have a place to inform a decision on that," Singh said. "I believe that people should be allowed to talk about it." He said he supports the right for people to have that conversation, peacefully and democratically.
Questions regarding the future of India are not for me to decide. I am not a citizen of India or an Indian politician. Self-determination means respecting the views of people in whatever country to choose their own path.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his participation in Sikh nationalist events is not because he is necessarily sympathetic to an Indian separatist movement
Asked several times what his position is on Sikh independence, Singh said it is not his place to pick a side. "I believe that I actually don’t have a place to inform a decision on that," Singh said.
Okay, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. I tried.
This is what I think is going on. Layton/Mulcair had several shots taking the centrist path. The more leftish within the NDP wanted a Corbyn/Sanders type and believed they had it in Angus, or even one of the other candidates. Many of them also believe that Singh won unfairly because he was able to sign up many Sikhs based on common ethnicity/religion and that others voted for him based on his shallow similarities to Trudeau. This has created a bias against him.
So, instead of looking for information with which to defend him, mainstream media criticism is swallowed without challenge.
This particular statement from Singh was posted to the NDP website on March 14th, almost a month ago. It was covered on CBC, CTV, Globe and probably every other major news source in Canada. It seems I was the only one who read beyond the headlines as I remembered he had said he didn't have or wasn't taking a position on Sikh independence but I couldn't find any reference.
The concerns about Jagmeet Singh's leadership recently expressed by UBC professor Phil Resnick mirror those of New Democrat members of long standing whom I've spoken to recently, all of them still active in the Party. They voiced their misgivings privately for fear of being falsely branded as racist--a well grounded fear as I can attest.
Resnick's observations appear to me as well to reflect the sentiments of a large section of the Canadian public. While making allowance for right-wing trolls and other hard-core detractors of the NDP, a perusal of the message boards of CBC News and other mainstream media sites lends credence to my earlier comment on this thread: namely, that Singh is widely perceived to be preoccupied with diaspora politics and that his religious garb implicitly crosses a line between religion and politics that is unacceptable to most Canadians (of all political persuasions). It is idle to deny that these issues are real and that they pose a huge challenge for the Federal NDP.
Questions regarding the future of India are not for me to decide. I am not a citizen of India or an Indian politician. Self-determination means respecting the views of people in whatever country to choose their own path.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his participation in Sikh nationalist events is not because he is necessarily sympathetic to an Indian separatist movement
Asked several times what his position is on Sikh independence, Singh said it is not his place to pick a side. "I believe that I actually don’t have a place to inform a decision on that," Singh said.
Again in the post after this you resort to blaming motivations. That is not the issue for many.
I have heard multiple interviews with Singh where he has been asked this directly and been evasive. If he put out this each time and had started doing that earlier that would be better. He does not just deliver one message on one channel. Having made this statement about three weeks ago, he should refer to it and be consistent. Frnakly, he made this statement then becuase of the feedback and concern that he had not made it earlier when it first came up.
It is not the fault of others that there is an appearance that this has been dragged out of him.
Anyway, it is the right statement. Now he has to practice not sounding evasive and pointing to the clarity of the statement when asked.
The concerns about Jagmeet Singh's leadership recently expressed by UBC professor Phil Resnick mirror those of New Democrat members of long standing whom I've spoken to recently, all of them still active in the Party. They voiced their misgivings privately for fear of being falsely branded as racist--a well grounded fear as I can attest.
Wow. Opinion columist is accurate, journalist or reporter would be wildly inaccurate for such a dishonest hatchet job. It's difficult not to see it as a racist attack. Singh has not been in the least preoccupied with the topic. The media is preoccupied with it.
This was published after the statement which was made on March 14th yet it still misrepresents the gathering in 2015 and still tries to link Singh with speakers he was there as a human rights activist to oppose not support violence.
Seated beside Shamsher Singh on the 2016 panel is the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh, who is not shown disagreeing. In a third video Shamsher Singh says, “If you want self-determination, you’re going to have to take up arms.”
"Not shown disagreeing" Seriously! It was a panel. Jagmeet Singh must have said something. Telling us what someone else said is immaterial.
Jagmeet Singh already stated in unequivocal terms that he is not a politician in India and he is not taking a position on whether or not Sikhs should have a separate homeland in India. That is up to the people living there. He isn't obsessing about it the right wing media is obsessing about it.
FYI, Pondering: Phil Resnick is a professor of political science at UBC. Are you accusing him of being racist? Do you take issue with his observations about the larger political impact of Singh's leadership of the NDP? If so, on what grounds?
Questions regarding the future of India are not for me to decide. I am not a citizen of India or an Indian politician. Self-determination means respecting the views of people in whatever country to choose their own path.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his participation in Sikh nationalist events is not because he is necessarily sympathetic to an Indian separatist movement
Asked several times what his position is on Sikh independence, Singh said it is not his place to pick a side. "I believe that I actually don’t have a place to inform a decision on that," Singh said.
Again in the post after this you resort to blaming motivations. That is not the issue for many.
I have heard multiple interviews with Singh where he has been asked this directly and been evasive. If he put out this each time and had started doing that earlier that would be better. He does not just deliver one message on one channel. Having made this statement about three weeks ago, he should refer to it and be consistent. Frnakly, he made this statement then becuase of the feedback and concern that he had not made it earlier when it first came up.
It is not the fault of others that there is an appearance that this has been dragged out of him.
Anyway, it is the right statement. Now he has to practice not sounding evasive and pointing to the clarity of the statement when asked.
He said things before that statement and that statement came out March 14th. It is now April 11th and a couple of days ago you were claiming he had still not answered the questions and asked me for a quote.
To be clear I was not referring to you specifically when I said there is bias against him. I would say your approach is more agnostic but you certainly aren't investigating his views and background or looking to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying he has approached the issue perfectly but he hasn't been stonewalling either. He has attempted to answer the questions as honestly as he could and I personally think he has shown a lot of integrity by refusing to be backed into a corner. There is zero evidence that he has ever promoted an independent Sikh homeland or defended the air india bomber.
He did not attend any independence rallies. The event he attended is specifically described as an event to commemorate the 1984 attack on Sikhs. It is not surprising that some Sikhs in the parade are supporters of an independent homeland or that one of the groups had a picture of the air india bomber which appeared in the background of a picture that Singh appeared in.
There are people within the Sikh community for whom the 1984 genocide is in living memory and that view the air india bomber as a martyr and have pictures of him up. That is who the media is trying to force Singh to denounce. The implication has always been that if he won't denounce them he must be a sympathizer.
That is why it doesn't matter how many times he says India's internal affairs are not his business nor that there is no evidence he has ever promoted Sikh independence. The point is to get him to denounce part of the Sikh community to promote division and eat into his support within the community.
I put my money on Trudeau to win last time. My money is still on Trudeau for another majority and probably a minority after that. There is no chance that Singh will win outright but he will prove his detractors wrong during the campaign itself. He will maintain the NDP's core support even with the opposition from within. So in that sense my money is on Singh strengthening support for the NDP.
Despite the history that has been made with Mr. Singh’s political career, the coverage of his leadership has resembled much of what my friends and I saw of Sikhs in news media and popular culture when I was a kid in the 1990s. Stories about Mr. Singh have been dominated by questions surrounding Sikh extremism. From Mr. Singh’s first day as leader, when CBC’s Terry Milewski asked about the appropriateness of Sikh temples treating the architect of the Air India bombing as a martyr, until more recent videos from San Francisco in 2015 that show Mr. Singh sharing a stage with Sikh separatists promoting violence, media coverage of the NDP Leader feels more like a throwback than ushering in a new age of Canadian politics. Things haven’t changed as much as we might have thought.
This treatment of Mr. Singh has also shown that some of Canada’s loudest voices have missed out on a lesson I learned growing up. Leaders such as Mr. Singh, who present an a positive moral alternative to the extremists they might share a stage with, are incredibly important to many young men seeking a national identity in Canada. As a kid in the 1990s, I saw young people around me struggle to belong in this country. Europe’s experience today with young men who grow up like I did shows how easily we can turn to extremist thinking.
To understand the danger posed by a short-sighted media frenzy such as the one surrounding Mr. Singh, Canadians would benefit from taking a look at the lives of young men such as me.
....................................
Our treatment of Mr. Singh reveals we are concerned the NDP Leader might have extremist views or at least tolerate them. But we aren’t concerned about the extremist views that Mr. Singh himself provides a positive moral alternative to. Or, at least, we aren’t concerned enough to avoid tearing him down and diminishing the positive impact he can have in our country.
Certainly, it’s fair game to ask Mr. Singh and anyone else who has the privilege of holding political office in Canada about his views. It’s also fair game to ask Mr. Singh about his foreign-policy positions regarding one of Canada’s key allies, India. In the process of doing so, though, we can respect him as a person who is invested in Canada’s laws and our democracy. We can say it’s good that he attends rallies and other events where young Sikh men will benefit from seeing that fighting for your community doesn’t require violence. We can allow Singh to stand tall amongst our in-betweeners and promote a national identity that includes them as Canadians.
Finance Minister Bill Morneau has dismissed NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh's pitch to bring the standoff over the Kinder Morgan pipeline to an end, saying the idea of sending the matter to the Supreme Court is "not a course of action that makes sense."
..."We are in a position where we know that this is federal jurisdiction. We've been clear. We don't see a need to refer something to the Supreme Court of Canada when we already know that its a federal jurisdiction," Morneau said. "That, from our standpoint, is not a course of action that makes sense."
Finance Minister Bill Morneau has dismissed NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh's pitch to bring the standoff over the Kinder Morgan pipeline to an end, saying the idea of sending the matter to the Supreme Court is "not a course of action that makes sense."
..."We are in a position where we know that this is federal jurisdiction. We've been clear. We don't see a need to refer something to the Supreme Court of Canada when we already know that its a federal jurisdiction," Morneau said. "That, from our standpoint, is not a course of action that makes sense."
If that is so the Supreme Court should decide very quickly. If the feds don't act BC could take months just to formulate the question. It seems silly to avoid it. As there are already other cases before the courts the result of this one would probably come faster than the others so would not create extra delay.
@ Pondering -- I read news everyday and missed this statement. It was not brought up here in the middle of the debate either. I have heard him dodge the question only a month ago in an interview on CBC. Come on. This is very late anyway for such a statement given how many opportunities he has had.
The Outremont idea is not a good one. The reason he would be hailed if he won is becuase his chance of winning is extremely low and becuase as I said in another thread - he is not only not from there which is forgiveable but he would be an anglophone parachute.
I think I have said before that a position of the court deciding is a reasonable one for him -- this contradicts people saying today that he came out agaisnt the pipeline.
If that is so the Supreme Court should decide very quickly. If the feds don't act BC could take months just to formulate the question.
I'm not sure how having the Supreme Court reiterate that pipelines are federal jusidiction would change things. BC is not challenging federal jurisdiction, they are challenging some aspects of the construction of the pipeline. They would continue to do that no matter what.
If BC would agree beforehand that they would end their opposition to the pipeline if the Supreme Court said pipelines were federal jurisdiction, then there may be a point in doing it. Otherwise it's just a useless waste of time.
Although Purewal “conservatively” estimated that “not more than five per cent of (Canadian) Sikhs support the Khalistan movement,” he stressed that the federal NDP’s “one-person, one-vote” system for choosing a leader is highly vulnerable to block voting by ethnic, religious or minority groups. In contrast, Purewal said the federal Conservative and B.C. Liberal parties have reduced the impact of regional interest groups on leadership votes by giving equal voting weight to each riding and by adding a preferential ballot.
Purewal has previously emphasized Singh’s ties with the Khalistani movement. Over the years, Singh has helped Canadian Sikhs protest the visit of an Indian cabinet minister, Kamal Nath; supported Scottish Sikh militant Jagtar Singh Johal; opposed the death penalty for Sikh assassin Balwant Singh Rajoana; and, in the past year, refused to denounce some Canadian Sikhs’ glorification of Talwinder Singh Parmar, the suspected mastermind of the 1985 Air India bombing. Since 2013, India has refused to offer a visa to Singh."
If that is so the Supreme Court should decide very quickly. If the feds don't act BC could take months just to formulate the question.
I'm not sure how having the Supreme Court reiterate that pipelines are federal jusidiction would change things. BC is not challenging federal jurisdiction, they are challenging some aspects of the construction of the pipeline. They would continue to do that no matter what.
If BC would agree beforehand that they would end their opposition to the pipeline if the Supreme Court said pipelines were federal jurisdiction, then there may be a point in doing it. Otherwise it's just a useless waste of time.
They aren't testing the jurisdiction of pipelines. They are testing their own powers in protecting the environment.
The environment is a flashpoint issue. All the provinces are watching this from the perspective of what the limits are on protecting their provinces. Quebec will support BC. I think other provinces will too. That the federal government has the power to force a project through a province doesn't mean it's a good idea.
At this point they can't anyway. There are still FN cases working their way through the courts. Construction on the pipeline can't start before those are concluded.
The province is free to use all legal means to prevent the pipeline from going through. Saying they intend to refer the question to the Supreme Court is not illegal. Doing it is not illegal. It is not counter to the rule of law.
That the federal government has the power to send in the army doesn't make it a good idea.
Trudeau and cabinet are saying they won't negotiate in public. They will be threatening all sorts of dire consequences. What they don't get is that there is nothing to negotiate. Opponents do not trust the oil industry nor the government to protect the environment. This is based on their track-record and the complete lack of data on how bitumen would be cleaned up and the limited liability that saddles the public with clean-up costs.
The crisis is not constitutional yet. It is a crisis of confidence in government's ability to protect the public interest. It is a fundamental difference of opinion over what is in the national interest. This is in Alberta's interest not the national interest.
I am a Canadian as well as a Quebecer and as a Canadian I am appalled at the possibility of damaging our priceless west coast waters. Even if all I ever get to appreciate is pictures I want my nameless legacy as a Canadian to have fought to preserve the priceless and irreplacable natural wonders of Canada.
Canada does not need to increase oil production to pay for transition nor are the oil sands at risk of being shut down so they will continue generating profits as they have been. Alberta is very foolish if they buy into their doomed pipeline.
BC cannot be browbeaten into submission. That will only embolden and strengthen protesters. Sending the military in against indigenous people and unarmed civilians could provoke a real constitutional crisis. How many Canadians are they willing to put in prison. Hundreds? Thousands? For how long? Mass arrests, especially of indigenous peoples will not look good on Canada. The pipeline passes through a lot of unceded FN territory.
Protesters to the pipelines will be joined by people who don't care about the pipelines but do care about the federal government trying to force it through.
Quebec and Alberta are not the only provinces that toy with separation chit chat. Being the coastal province and having the mountains separating the province from the rest of Canada has made it distinct in its own right. It has different values. It imposed a carbon tax on its own accord. It did it because it is the wise thing to do not in exchange for social licence. Alberta demanding a pipeline in exchange for accepting a carbon tax is not giving BC something or giving Canada something. It isn't up to BC to get Alberta to accept a carbon tax.
If Singh were to run for Mulcair's seat I expect he'd lose badly, and in the process produce more bad optics for the NDP leading toward the election in 2019.
And Singh's idea of taking the pipeline battle between BC and Alberta to the Supreme Court is alternately a namby-pamby effort to continue sitting on the fence and refuse to take sides, or it's an effort to gently side with BC's efforts to stall the project. Either way it's a waste of the court's time, especially since Boulerice immediately implied that a Supreme Court ruling that agreed with Ottawa and Alberta would not necessarily be accepted.
Again? Did you ask the question before? I just saw you saying you didn't consider them in any way to be allies, and you didn't say why.
The countries have strong economic relations, Canada is home to a large Indian diaspora, and the two nations have been moving toward closer strategic relations in recent years, including Canada's advocating for India's exception at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and an Intelligence-sharing agreement.
Again? Did you ask the question before? I just saw you saying you didn't consider them in any way to be allies, and you didn't say why.
The countries have strong economic relations, Canada is home to a large Indian diaspora, and the two nations have been moving toward closer strategic relations in recent years, including Canada's advocating for India's exception at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and an Intelligence-sharing agreement.
Really, the biggest sticking point is Canada's waffling on the Independence movement in India.
""That makes our two countries both natural allies and rather special in terms of the states of the world," he says, adding that the two countries have worked together quietly for years on such things as counter-terrorism and sharing concerns about violent extremists."
- Elliot Tepper, Carleton University South Asian studies professor
Sure you can debate this till the cows come home and this is really a matter of semantics. India relations are extremely important to Canada. This is true of countries where the term ally is even less applicable. The point is it is a significant country and the attitude of a leader of a federal party to that country is relevant and worthy of an answer. As I have said, parties do not need to have excellent relations with any country. However, the NDP, as a democratic party traditionally allows Members a voice in such decisions. I have not objected to the leader raising this with Members if he wants to. I also have not objected to him keeping his opinions to himself provided the committment not to advocate while leader.
The statement quoted from the website is helpful. What is not helpful is the number of times Singh was evasive on the topic. I have heard multiple interviews with him doing this. It will take a few times where he will have to send out the new message to replace all the times where he refused to speak with such clarity.
Canada-India trade is about $2 billion each way, which is microscopic, compared to our trade with the US and China.
When you buy things made in India, they could very well have been made by slavery. One manpower is 75W. That is equivalent to lifting 7.64 kg against the force of gravity for one metre every second. Or walking all day and lifting less. If you have your manpower for free, you have no incentive to invest in machinery, or even horses, which produce 10 manpower. Not only that, because you are a slavemaster, your slaves have no money to buy the things you produce. So you try to look respectable and sell them into countries which do not really know you are using slavery, or do not care because they have "a large Indian diaspora" and slavery (and the next best thing, the caste system) is a "cultural thing we really have no business sticking our noses into".
The predominant religion in India requires that dark-skinned people serve light-skinned people as a matter of birthright. It is called the caste system, and with the current government in India, it is certainly not going away any time soon. We really have no business buying anything from a country which tolerates slavery.
It kind of puts downward pressure on Canadian wages too. You see how that works?
Indeed, with a GDP/capita of USD 1,700, pretty well everyone in India is in some kind of economic slavery. Trading with them only encourages that. If you think wealth disparity is bad in Canada, think about a country where the GDP/capita is less than what you pay for your phone bill.
As far as the Indian dispora in Canada is concerned, what about the Canadian diaspora in India? There doesn't seem to be any Canadian diaspora in India. Why is that? Is it because India's GDP per capita is USD 1,700 and Canada's is USD 43,000?
Canada should have respectful diplomatic relations with India, as with all other countries, but India in no way, shape, or form, is an ally. India does not have Canada's best interests at heart. If the classes that rule India had their way, we would all be their slaves too. By birthright.
India's possession of nuclear weapons is of extreme concern (along with Pakistan's), and Canada's permissiveness on any kind of nuclear supply with India is an outrage. India has a neo-fascist government, and on their list of priorities will be imperial conquest.
The only stance that should be taken with India and Pakistan is denuclearization.
And then of course there is the question of rampant corruption in India. If you complain that a female that you know got raped, you are beaten, sometimes imprisoned, and left to die. Not to mention what happens to the female herself. If you write about official corruption in India, you are killed.
So, in no way, shape, or form, is India an ally. The only reason they are not much more dangerous is because they deliberately keep themselves poor. If you consider India to be an ally, what kind of person are you? Obviously one who tolerates slavery and the caste system. Go fuck yourself.
Canada-India trade is about $2 billion each way, which is microscopic, compared to our trade with the US and China.
When you buy things made in India, they could very well have been made by slavery. One manpower is 75W. That is equivalent to lifting 7.64 kg against the force of gravity for one metre every second. Or walking all day and lifting less. If you have your manpower for free, you have no incentive to invest in machinery, or even horses, which produce 10 manpower. Not only that, because you are a slavemaster, your slaves have no money to buy the things you produce. So you try to look respectable and sell them into countries which do not really know you are using slavery, or do not care because they have "a large Indian diaspora" and slavery (and the next best thing, the caste system) is a "cultural thing we really have no business sticking our noses into".
The predominant religion in India requires that dark-skinned people serve light-skinned people as a matter of birthright. It is called the caste system, and with the current government in India, it is certainly not going away any time soon. We really have no business buying anything from a country which tolerates slavery.
It kind of puts downward pressure on Canadian wages too. You see how that works?
Indeed, with a GDP/capita of USD 1,700, pretty well everyone in India is in some kind of economic slavery. Trading with them only encourages that. If you think wealth disparity is bad in Canada, think about a country where the GDP/capita is less than what you pay for your phone bill.
As far as the Indian dispora in Canada is concerned, what about the Canadian diaspora in India? There doesn't seem to be any Canadian diaspora in India. Why is that? Is it because India's GDP per capita is USD 1,700 and Canada's is USD 43,000?
Canada should have respectful diplomatic relations with India, as with all other countries, but India in no way, shape, or form, is an ally. India does not have Canada's best interests at heart. If the classes that rule India had their way, we would all be their slaves too. By birthright.
India's possession of nuclear weapons is of extreme concern (along with Pakistan's), and Canada's permissiveness on any kind of nuclear supply with India is an outrage. India has a neo-fascist government, and on their list of priorities will be imperial conquest.
The only stance that should be taken with India and Pakistan is denuclearization.
And then of course there is the question of rampant corruption in India. If you complain that a female that you know got raped, you are beaten, sometimes imprisoned, and left to die. Not to mention what happens to the female herself. If you write about official corruption in India, you are killed.
So, in no way, shape, or form, is India an ally. The only reason they are not much more dangerous is because they deliberately keep themselves poor. If you consider India to be an ally, what kind of person are you? Obviously one who tolerates slavery and the caste system. Go fuck yourself.
The word does not change the context. India is important to Canada and a position about the unity of such a country is one that belongs with the Party Membership. Your freakout on a term that has been used by others is really a tangent. Fact is that a position on the division of Russia would also be a matter of party policy and discussion not the opinion of the leader alone and it also would be a valid question.
So, in no way, shape, or form, is India an ally. The only reason they are not much more dangerous is because they deliberately keep themselves poor. If you consider India to be an ally, what kind of person are you? Obviously one who tolerates slavery and the caste system. Go fuck yourself.
Look. I said India is an ally of Canada's and that is very much the case; you don't share sensitive intelligence information with a nation you do not trust.
You seem to be talking about something else, specifically whether we personally approve of the actions of the Indian government. That is a different question, and one that has no bearing on the fact Canada and India do cooperate and help each other.
Did you even read the article about why Hitler is popular in India? It may have been a ploy on the Nazis part, but it actually has nothing to do with the absurd comparisons some are making nowadays between him and Modi.
And "deliberately keep themselves poor"? How do you figure that? If that was their goal why did they put the recent import tariffs on Canadian pulse crops.
The problem with the criticism of Singh is in part that there is truth there even if it might be the best thing Singh could do.
The consitutional reference seems like it is more an opportunity to fence-sit. As many are pointing out, the issue is not the constitution if the decision can be made at the federal level, but the promise the Liberals made with respect to social license which they are on the verge of obliterating if they have not already.
But in fairness this is a quesiton of strategy perhaps. By drawing out a failing legal argument, some may think this allows more opposition to organize. The fight might be on different ground, however. And it might already be over.
If the Liberals have the authority and are determined to do it using any force required, then Horgan ran on an empty promise, a best efforts, that come down to trying to convince the Liberal government to change their minds when politically they might have more to lose by not building the pipeline than by building it.
This might have been decided in the last election even if the decision was made by a government that promised a consensus where none was possible and social license that he could not deliver.
Singh's delaying tactic may be the only one he has and the fence sitting may be reconciliation with the idea that there is nothing the NDP can do to stop this other than take more of a blow from a more definite position. The mediator style position of the reference, however unrealistic, preserves the NDP from having to pay for a division that in the end won't make a difference to the project.
This is what I think the calculations look like.
If you look at the big picture in light of the weaknesses of the NDP, there is good reason for them to want to look "against" as much as they can while not being so definite that they lose anything at all.
It seems to me that all the parties: The federal Liberals, Federal NDP, Federal Conservatives, Provincial NDP in Alberta and Ontario, Provincial Greens in BC -- they are all doing exactly what their political interests suggest are the least costly most beneficial. That is not a shock since political mistakes in the short- term interest are really quite rare. The most recent is the calculation by the Liberals that they could promise anything in 2015 becuase they did not think they woudl be called on to deliver -- at least on their own, so cover would have existed in a coalition.
The self-interests are also predictive:
- The Liberals will build the pipeline if they can or it will fail through no fault of their own
- Horgan will fight as much as he can in a losing battle, needing to show the good fight, and that might work
- Notley will get the pipeline and this may or may not save her but it will not hurt her
- the federal NDP will not take a definitive decision about the merits of the project so long as there is no chance of that making a differnce; however they will appear as much against the pipeline as possible using process rather than principle
- The Conservatives will sit back and hope for an opening -- either if the pipeline ultimately fails or there is anything hey can take advantage of agaisnt the other parties
- The Greens will try to blame the NDP for not being pure on this and fight with them for the anti-pipeline vote
None of this is a shock -- it is all hardwired, political necessity.
The only way out left the station in 2015. Back then the Liberals and provincial NDP in Alberta could have made the case for a national significant investment in BC to move away from dependency on exporting raw fossil fuels with a major federal-supported diversification strategy for all Provinces in the Fossil Fuel Business. That would have had a cost but also a huge benefit.
It is true that the Trudeau, Notley and Horgan meeting could come to this conclusion but I think it is too late for the Federal Liberals to follow this route and nothing less than a massive program to benefit Alberta would allow Notley or Trudeau to stand down. Now, I think the Liberals have already spent the money and political capital they would have needed to get this done.
This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people? Why was there no objection when support for Catalonia was expressed? Is not Spain a sovereign nation? Should the NDP have opposed the referendum?
It seems to me that the only thing that will satisfy his critics is for Singh to state that he is unequivocally against the Sikhs seeking an independent homeland.
As an aside, it is far too early to assume that a Sikh homeland would expel all non-Silkhs.
What statement would be acceptable to his critics?
Where was the uproar over this:
How dare the NDP meddle in Spain's internal affairs! They should have agreed with the Liberals, right?
Singh said:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/jagmeet-singh-leader-of-canada...
So no evidence that he is an active separatist.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-1.4590537
NDPers who opposed having Singh as leader have been very quick to condemn him and very slow to do any research. People who regularly condemn mainstream media as biased against the NDP embrace any negative word they print about Singh even though there is zero evidence against him. None that he has ever worked for organizations, or even belonged to organizations, that promote Sikh independence.
Even if he personally supports independence, since becoming leader, he has only supported self-determination for all people. Apparently that is not NDP policy.
Is this what you want him to say?
"My position and Canada's position has not changed. We support one united India," Trudeau said.
You are talking beside the point. Self determination does not involve the advocacy of a leader of a political party half way around the world. This is not a situation where there has been a vote -- or even where there are agreed-upon territorial borders to have such a vote as boundaries would be in dispute.
It is fair to support the broad principle of self determination. It is not for a leader of a Canadian political party to be involved in advocacy regarding what the result of that determination may be or to be using his office, without the support of members be taken into account, to decide when to apply this to territories that have not identified themselves expressing a clear desire to do so.
I know you like Singh. I sincerely hope that he is successful but he is following this particular path in a way that is more likely to interfere with his potential success than support it.
I am also in support of self determination.
I am even open to a resolution and investigation -- done carefully with support of the members -- to argue if this is a case of denied self-determination or a minority of a territory that do not actually have such support.
Comparing Catalonia is a false comparison first becuase, while you can contest the result, they did have a vote and Spain and the then Catalonian administration has engaged with the international community. In this case there is no comparisons to make.
Further, as much as you can say from Canada that you disavow violence, you cannot press for this in the case of India without promoting a result that could only be expected to be violent.
Comparing Catalonia to Khalistan is extremely ignorant when you consider the facts. Notably:
1) Sihks are a religious group not a territory like Catalonia and those who want independence are not even in the majority in the Punjab. This means that participants in the Khalistan state would require territory be given them that is not defined, where they are not a majority and where the existing people would be displaced and they would gather from other places to populate.
2) The areas claimed for Khalistan involve two different countries, India and Pakistan (both Nuclear powers with a history of massacre due to a religious definition of a geographical place.
3) There is no proof that there is significant majority support for this in any part of India, even among Sihks, nevermind a territory that includes all residents in the determination and so there is no place where the issue of self-determination would be relevant. These are minorities who wish to re-locate, to and evict the local majorities to create a new state. That is not what self determination means in the context of geographical areas that supply a vote to all people living in the area -- be it Quebec or Catalonia. All residents would participate in the later areas.
4) Some 50 years ago there were people who wanted to create a Sihk majority state within India. This never happened and there is no boundary other than a desire on behalf of a minority of people in the region. The Punjabi Suba movement tried to create a province within India but did not succeed. It is worth noting that they never did call for independence but mainly diaspora people have used the arguments.
5) Poponents of this movement have frequently called for violence. Some of that violence is well known in Canada and merely saying you do not agree with the violence is not sufficient given that there is no way other than violence to effect the kinds of changes required to make this project viable. To get the majority in the territory that Khalistan proponents claim would require ethnic cleansing.
6) Apart from territory there are other divisive issues including river damning and directions affecting many poeple. To think this is about a local territory that has expressed a desire for a common independent future and being held back by a central authority is to misunderstand many of the complicated issues involved.
Supporting this naitonal project on either the principle of self determination or some desire to help the oppressed is fraught with danger. It is not an area that a leader of a Canadian political party, without the support of his party, should be doing.
Who Is "Christina Freeland"?
Sorry Pondering but you are smearing the people that disagree with you. That is unseemly. This post is extremely arrogant in assuming only you have done adequate research. This is not the way to change anyone's mind. It is guaranteed to start a fight here instead of provoke a respectful discussion.
And you are back to old tactics of avoiding the central statements being made and really being dishonest in your characterizations of what other people are saying. That is not constructive and eventually only gets you in a flame war.
Stop pretending that the people concerned about this are asking Singh to declare opposition to any homeland. That is not true.
Stop thinking you know more than other people. That clearly is not true. The territory being claimed by Sikh nationalists would only be viable with mass outflow of people in order for them to gain a majority in favour of the national project. I encourage you to spend a little time reviewing Indian 20th century history so that you might even have a chance of coming to the conclusion that there are good reasons why many Sikhs in India would not want to see this -- nevermind the non-Sikh population.
You are the one making this complicated by, as you have in a couple threads, questioning the motivations of people concerned about this. Many of these people are NDP supporters not wanting the party to go into this without a lot more thought, dragged in by a leader not clarifying his position regarding his role as leader and these opinions.
You pretend to say what people would accept: They might accept him saying he will not use his role as leader to get involved in this issue. He can also state that the territorial integrity of India remains an NDP position so long as the party itself does not change that -- regardless of his personal thoughts. This does not contradict self determination as there has been no such thing being held back here. There has been a violent dispute that is not even significant in India now other than a wound from history. There is no vote the Indian government is refusing to hold or denying the result of. There is no demand for this at a level where invoking self determination would be appropriate. At this stage invoking the principle of self determination would be provocation and interference and not comparable to any concept of self-determination that has been respected and advocated by the leaders of any Canadian party.
Singh should have kept quiet about Catalonia. However not much was made about it because he was just making a rhetorical point and it was not a cause he was associated with.
All he has to say is that whether Punjab remains in India or leaves is none of his business.[/quote]
Sean said You are talking beside the point. Self determination does not involve the advocacy of a leader of a political party half way around the world. This is not a situation where there has been a vote -- or even where there are agreed-upon territorial borders to have such a vote as boundaries would be in dispute.
Please show me any evidence that Singh has been an advocate for Sikh separatism. He has not supported the 2020 movement. They spoke to him once in 2010 and once in 2011 (probably to try to gain his support).
Please show me any evidence that as leader of the NDP Singh has expressed support for Sikh separtism. One statement. If you can't find one since he became leader find one from before he became leader.
He tried that when he was pushed to condemn the Air India guy. People insisted that denouncing the bombing itself was not enough, he had to specifically condemn the individual accused of being mastermind even though it happened when he was five years old. He can't just say "it's none of his business" as being PM includes foreign affairs. Saying "it's none of his business" would be interpreted as not wanting to condemn it but not having the guts to express his position.
This is bullshit. This "controversy" was manufactured by mainstream media. Please quote the statement Singh has made that you disagree with or is inappropriate Concerning Sikhs or India.
No one here has presented a single thing on this topic that Singh has said which they disagree with.
I almost always quote what I am referring to. I don't or rarely paraphrase. My motives were constantly questioned when I supported Trudeau. Now that I support Singh when I have disagreed with criticism of Trudeau no one said a word.
Then won't the people there vote against it rather than leaving?
So what. That isn't a reason to deny self-determination.
No, I've tried to simplify by getting people to say exactly what it is they object to that Singh has said. So far, nada. Many of these people started dissing Singh the moment he was elected.
I didn't realize that the NDP already has a policy on the territorial integrity of India not to mention Singh has not said anything in opposition of the territorial integrity of India. He hasn't used his position as leader to get involved and he shouldn't have to declare that he won't because he is Silkh. If he does get involved that would be soon enough to criticize him for it.
So the NDP has to say the same things as other party leaders. I don't think so. Singh has not said a word against the Indian government or promoted Sikh independence.
Like anyone else Sikhs should have the right to self-determination and should have a right to strive for a separate homeland. That is not the same thing as saying they have a right to homeland or a right to the Punjab region. They have a right to try as long as they aren't violent.
By including Catalonia and Quebec he made it a general statement of support for self-determination not support for the Sikh cause in particular.
Mulcair didn't get a quarter of the grief Singh is getting.
In my opinion the mainstream media are trying to force him to state his opposition or support for a Sikh homeland and certain NDP supporters, not all, will support any criticism of Singh because they want him gone, the sooner the better even if that results in the party losing support.
I could change my mind but I think I have said all I have to say on the topic.
Last word goes to the critics. I have nothing more to say on it.
He has attended events where that is the point of being there and it is a fair question to ask and he has not answered it. He has been a guest speaker at such a rally.
"Video also shows Mr. Singh, who left provincial politics after he won the federal NDP leadership in October of 2017, walking in the pro-sovereignty march behind a truck that displayed signs saying “India out of Sikh Homeland,” and “1984 Sikh Genocide Independence.” Parade participants carried the same messages on placards as well as others including “Sikhs Demand Independence.”
"He did not answer a series of questions from The Globe including whether he supports an independent Sikh homeland; why he attended a rally that extolled a violent extremist and whether he considers Mr. Bhindranwale a martyr or freedom fighter."
It is not up to people to dig up what he has said but for him to declare if this independence movement is his belief -- like it was for just about everyone else there. Saying he disavows the violence -- and taking months to do that -- does not clarify an issue that becuase of his role he will either clarify or get nailed for it in an election.
Yes you missed the point in so many areas. It is tiresome to unpack it becuase it is so mixed up. The point about Indian history is that you should not be under the delusion that all Sikhs would want a division when the last time millions died or lost family. This is not about ALLOWING self determination -- this is a movement about inciting a movement that has not recieved enough support at home by a majority in any one place to justify the involvement of others.
No we do not need to get involved where there is no consensus there to want us to. There is no international appeal but rather the dreams of a diaspora that is not necessarily representative of anything going on there.
****
A lot of well-meaning Irish diaspora in North America funded the IRA when many people who actually lived there on the same side of the divide they thought they were supporting would ahve wanted them to come and see the dead bodies their money bought.
Listening to a diaspora is not by itself a justification to get involved and supporting what may be seen as violent and radical back home -- even if you try to keep your hands clean by saying you are not for the violence. The conflict itself by definition may be violent.
I would certainly think it a bit odd if the NDP Leader had something to say about Khalistan if he, personally, were not Sikh. That would be odd. And while I've no real horse in that race myself, I can kind of understand why a Sikh might have some sort of opinion, particularly if badgered to give one.
At the same time, I think it would be declared a special day of celebration at babble if a bunch of non-Israeli NDP MP wrote a letter in support of a "one-state solution" in Israel/Palestine, even if none of them is either Israeli or Palestinian. And I'm absolutely not talking about an NDP MP calling for an end to the violence, or an end to the settlements, or an end to the occupation. I'm talking about calling for one particular form of solution over another. It's human to say "stop the violence". It's political to say "only a one-state solution can be considered".
For that matter, why should even casual Canadians want to weigh in on how the solution must look? It's nice to say we should let everyone attend to their own affairs, except we also want the opposite.
Of course he can have an opinion. The problem is he cannot attend these events as a public person and then say that his opinion about them is not the business of public who ask.
He always had the option to be private about this. By attending these events he invited the questions and gave up the right to keep that opinion entirely private. His only option now is to assert that he will not make this issue soemthing he will use his leadership role to support. Otherwise, this will follow him, notwithstanding any late statements he might have made regarding believing in non violence.
Fair enough. Now that he's Party Leader, I guess it's a fair question for him, even if none of this happened in the last six months.
It is a fair question since it happened during his public life. He could just say as NDP leader he will make no statment of support or use the office to advocate for this -- but he is refusing to answer. The quesiton is fair and politically damaging to refuse to answer.
Very well. Let us judge him as someone who supported something in his public life. But not as "the Leader" if he wasn't the Leader.
And if he's accountable either way, please let us not whine and moan the next time some mere candidate for a seat has to similarly own up to some offensive tweet or blog post they made before they were a candidate. Perhaps they weren't a candidate at that point, but in what way is the internet not "public"?
This is not about being accountable to the past but about a RECENT past (2013) raising questions about the present and how he sees the future -- that he does not want to answer but should.
Pondering wrote:
Does the NDP support self-determination or not? Or do they support it, but only for some people?
I support self-determination in the area of divorce and re-marriage. In other words, I think everyone has the right to get divorced, and then marry someone else, if that's what they wanna do.
But if, among my circle of friends, I were to go around saying, out of the blue, "You know, I support Julie's right to divorce Ted and marry Hugh, if that's what she wants to do", well, I think that's going to attract a bit of suspicion as to my own personal motivations. If someone accuses me of pushing my own personal agenda, I don't think I can fall back on saying "Well, I'm just defending the principle of self-determination for everyone."
Now, yes, there are situations where I COULD take such a stand in my personal life, ie. if Julia and Ted were already discussing the possibility of divorce, and everyone was privy to it, AND I was not viewed as having any self-interest in the matter. My point is simply that, just because you support an overarching principle, does not mean that it's a good idea to go around explicitly advocating its application in a specific situation.
Interesting column about wage disparity and housing.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/04/how-your-social-class-affects-whe...
It's an American study but I think it applies to Canada too,
Very well said and exactly what I should have said as it is the principle in this case. Advertising the possibility to a party that is not already decided and asking for it is interference not respect of self determination.
As part of the diaspora Singh can express interest -- but given what he has publicly attended -- and spoken at -- he should also express his intentions of how this relates to his current job. The issue is not his beliefs which can be private but his promise of non-interference and non-advocacy for this objective while leader ---- or ----- his promise to do it within the party that he leads with membership support. anything else is allowing the appearance of a conflict of interest and use of a role that he has for a purpose that he was not given that role for. Respect for the position of leadership of the NDP and for the democratic function of the party requires no less. He has choice but keeping his intentions secret is not an option even if keeping his opinion secret could be.
It is a valid desire to want to know if he would use his profile to promote this or not. Silence only escalates the situation making it more likely that people would be both opposed to the silence and ultimately if he decided to make this an issue, opposed to him doing so. In this case his judgement looks poor and that is not a great thing in a leader. I hope he comes around to understanding the question and why it is being asked and respecting the right of those asking it. Enabling the evasiveness by calling this a racist question does not help him or the party. It probably does help those who are racist.
That's a big part of the problem. I don't disagree that there are valid reasons to want to know how he really feels about a "Khalistan". But I also can't deny that I think many people who take offense to his appearance at some rally are more interested in the fact that he wears a turban and associates with other turban wearers.
If some old video of him attending a "Brexit" rally (for or against; take your pick) turned up, who'd care?
It's a bit like Hillary Clinton. Are the people chanting "Lock her up!!" because she's a hawkish war criminal? Or a Liberal "shrew"? Probably some of each, but at any given moment it's hard to tell.
Not commenting. Just providing some informational links.
http://www.ndp.ca/news/statement-jagmeet-singh-leader-federal-ndp
March 14th, 2018
Statement from Jagmeet Singh, Leader of the Federal NDP:
A few years ago, I was invited to speak as a human rights advocate and attend an annual event in San Francisco that commemorates the Sikh Genocide of 1984. While there, I spoke directly about the pain in the community and my own path to learning about my heritage. When faced with the knowledge that your relatives were targeted for who they were, you are faced with the question of how to respond. My response was to embrace my identity and work harder to stand up for human rights and not allow the voices of the marginalized to be made silent. That is a lesson that has helped me to empathize with the struggles of others. I encourage all those facing these tough questions not to fall prey to rage and violence, but rather to embrace your truth and move forward with love and courage. Admittedly, this is not a simple or easy process, but attempts to oversimplify these experiences will not advance the cause of reconciliation.
My belief in human rights includes a fundamental principle that is written into Article 1 of the UN Charter: respect for equal rights and self-determination. Questions regarding the future of India are not for me to decide. I am not a citizen of India or an Indian politician. Self-determination means respecting the views of people in whatever country to choose their own path. 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.
MacCleans called it an independence rally.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/jagmeet-singh-sikh-separatist-rally-stat...
Was it "an annual event in San Francisco that commemorates the Sikh Genocide of 1984." or an independence rally?
LA news says https://www.dailynews.com/2015/11/07/sikhs-protest-1984-genocide-indian-... nothing about it being an independence rally.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-leader-singh-says-he-d-attend-future...
Published Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:36PM EDT
Last Updated Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:33PM EDT
OTTAWA – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his participation in Sikh nationalist events is not because he is necessarily sympathetic to an Indian separatist movement, but rather because he views the gatherings as an opportunity to share his beliefs, and he won’t hesitate attending events in the future.
Singh said that because of his experience dealing personally with the discrimination and marginalization as a member of the Sikh community, he views invitations to speak at these events as opportunities to speak about how he’s personally overcome that adversity.
"When I have an opportunity to speak at events, I speak from that position, where I can take that opportunity to share my beliefs and my ideas, and if I don’t, the other side is I could leave those opportunities vacant and someone else can talk and share other ideas that maybe I don’t agree with," Singh said in an interview for CTV’s Question Period with guest host and Ottawa Bureau Chief Joyce Napier....
Asked several times what his position is on Sikh independence, Singh said it is not his place to pick a side.
"I believe that I actually don’t have a place to inform a decision on that," Singh said. "I believe that people should be allowed to talk about it." He said he supports the right for people to have that conversation, peacefully and democratically.
I guess my last post was too long:
Jagmeet Singh statements, March 14th and 15th:
Okay, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. I tried.
This is what I think is going on. Layton/Mulcair had several shots taking the centrist path. The more leftish within the NDP wanted a Corbyn/Sanders type and believed they had it in Angus, or even one of the other candidates. Many of them also believe that Singh won unfairly because he was able to sign up many Sikhs based on common ethnicity/religion and that others voted for him based on his shallow similarities to Trudeau. This has created a bias against him.
So, instead of looking for information with which to defend him, mainstream media criticism is swallowed without challenge.
This particular statement from Singh was posted to the NDP website on March 14th, almost a month ago. It was covered on CBC, CTV, Globe and probably every other major news source in Canada. It seems I was the only one who read beyond the headlines as I remembered he had said he didn't have or wasn't taking a position on Sikh independence but I couldn't find any reference.
The concerns about Jagmeet Singh's leadership recently expressed by UBC professor Phil Resnick mirror those of New Democrat members of long standing whom I've spoken to recently, all of them still active in the Party. They voiced their misgivings privately for fear of being falsely branded as racist--a well grounded fear as I can attest.
Resnick's observations appear to me as well to reflect the sentiments of a large section of the Canadian public. While making allowance for right-wing trolls and other hard-core detractors of the NDP, a perusal of the message boards of CBC News and other mainstream media sites lends credence to my earlier comment on this thread: namely, that Singh is widely perceived to be preoccupied with diaspora politics and that his religious garb implicitly crosses a line between religion and politics that is unacceptable to most Canadians (of all political persuasions). It is idle to deny that these issues are real and that they pose a huge challenge for the Federal NDP.
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-ndp-could-suffer...
Again in the post after this you resort to blaming motivations. That is not the issue for many.
I have heard multiple interviews with Singh where he has been asked this directly and been evasive. If he put out this each time and had started doing that earlier that would be better. He does not just deliver one message on one channel. Having made this statement about three weeks ago, he should refer to it and be consistent. Frnakly, he made this statement then becuase of the feedback and concern that he had not made it earlier when it first came up.
It is not the fault of others that there is an appearance that this has been dragged out of him.
Anyway, it is the right statement. Now he has to practice not sounding evasive and pointing to the clarity of the statement when asked.
Wow. Opinion columist is accurate, journalist or reporter would be wildly inaccurate for such a dishonest hatchet job. It's difficult not to see it as a racist attack. Singh has not been in the least preoccupied with the topic. The media is preoccupied with it.
This was published after the statement which was made on March 14th yet it still misrepresents the gathering in 2015 and still tries to link Singh with speakers he was there as a human rights activist to oppose not support violence.
"Not shown disagreeing" Seriously! It was a panel. Jagmeet Singh must have said something. Telling us what someone else said is immaterial.
Jagmeet Singh already stated in unequivocal terms that he is not a politician in India and he is not taking a position on whether or not Sikhs should have a separate homeland in India. That is up to the people living there. He isn't obsessing about it the right wing media is obsessing about it.
FYI, Pondering: Phil Resnick is a professor of political science at UBC. Are you accusing him of being racist? Do you take issue with his observations about the larger political impact of Singh's leadership of the NDP? If so, on what grounds?
He said things before that statement and that statement came out March 14th. It is now April 11th and a couple of days ago you were claiming he had still not answered the questions and asked me for a quote.
To be clear I was not referring to you specifically when I said there is bias against him. I would say your approach is more agnostic but you certainly aren't investigating his views and background or looking to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying he has approached the issue perfectly but he hasn't been stonewalling either. He has attempted to answer the questions as honestly as he could and I personally think he has shown a lot of integrity by refusing to be backed into a corner. There is zero evidence that he has ever promoted an independent Sikh homeland or defended the air india bomber.
He did not attend any independence rallies. The event he attended is specifically described as an event to commemorate the 1984 attack on Sikhs. It is not surprising that some Sikhs in the parade are supporters of an independent homeland or that one of the groups had a picture of the air india bomber which appeared in the background of a picture that Singh appeared in.
There are people within the Sikh community for whom the 1984 genocide is in living memory and that view the air india bomber as a martyr and have pictures of him up. That is who the media is trying to force Singh to denounce. The implication has always been that if he won't denounce them he must be a sympathizer.
That is why it doesn't matter how many times he says India's internal affairs are not his business nor that there is no evidence he has ever promoted Sikh independence. The point is to get him to denounce part of the Sikh community to promote division and eat into his support within the community.
I put my money on Trudeau to win last time. My money is still on Trudeau for another majority and probably a minority after that. There is no chance that Singh will win outright but he will prove his detractors wrong during the campaign itself. He will maintain the NDP's core support even with the opposition from within. So in that sense my money is on Singh strengthening support for the NDP.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jagmeet-singh-and-the-im...
....................................
Singh mulling Outremont run.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/11/jagmeet-singh-mulcair-outremont-2018_a_23409035/
Finally some common sense, eh!
Singh calls on feds to partner with B.C., ask courts about Kinder Morgan
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/04/11/singh-calls-on-feds-to-partner-with-b-c-...
Singh accuses Liberals of 'driving a wedge' between Alberta, B.C. over Kinder Morgan
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/singh-accuses-liberals-of-driving-a-wedg...
As Bill Morneau noted
If that is so the Supreme Court should decide very quickly. If the feds don't act BC could take months just to formulate the question. It seems silly to avoid it. As there are already other cases before the courts the result of this one would probably come faster than the others so would not create extra delay.
@ Pondering -- I read news everyday and missed this statement. It was not brought up here in the middle of the debate either. I have heard him dodge the question only a month ago in an interview on CBC. Come on. This is very late anyway for such a statement given how many opportunities he has had.
The Outremont idea is not a good one. The reason he would be hailed if he won is becuase his chance of winning is extremely low and becuase as I said in another thread - he is not only not from there which is forgiveable but he would be an anglophone parachute.
I think I have said before that a position of the court deciding is a reasonable one for him -- this contradicts people saying today that he came out agaisnt the pipeline.
The statement was a month ago. It was on the NDP website. We shouldn't trust the mainstream media. I should have looked there sooner myself.
You are correct on his pipeline position. The thread claiming he came out against it doesn't have a quote.
It has been very difficult to find actual quotes of what Singh says as opposed to cut up quotes interspered in articles and paraphrasing.
From Pondering:
I'm not sure how having the Supreme Court reiterate that pipelines are federal jusidiction would change things. BC is not challenging federal jurisdiction, they are challenging some aspects of the construction of the pipeline. They would continue to do that no matter what.
If BC would agree beforehand that they would end their opposition to the pipeline if the Supreme Court said pipelines were federal jurisdiction, then there may be a point in doing it. Otherwise it's just a useless waste of time.
Again, how are Canada and India allies?
Also quoting from this piece:
"Kwantlen Polytechnic University political scientist Shinder Purewal said Wednesday that Singh picked up a large portion of the votes to win the leadership of the federal NDP from Sikh groups and temples, some of them with pro-Khalistan tendencies, in the heavily Punjabi-populated municipalities of Surrey and Brampton, Ont.
Although Purewal “conservatively” estimated that “not more than five per cent of (Canadian) Sikhs support the Khalistan movement,” he stressed that the federal NDP’s “one-person, one-vote” system for choosing a leader is highly vulnerable to block voting by ethnic, religious or minority groups. In contrast, Purewal said the federal Conservative and B.C. Liberal parties have reduced the impact of regional interest groups on leadership votes by giving equal voting weight to each riding and by adding a preferential ballot.
Purewal has previously emphasized Singh’s ties with the Khalistani movement. Over the years, Singh has helped Canadian Sikhs protest the visit of an Indian cabinet minister, Kamal Nath; supported Scottish Sikh militant Jagtar Singh Johal; opposed the death penalty for Sikh assassin Balwant Singh Rajoana; and, in the past year, refused to denounce some Canadian Sikhs’ glorification of Talwinder Singh Parmar, the suspected mastermind of the 1985 Air India bombing. Since 2013, India has refused to offer a visa to Singh."
They aren't testing the jurisdiction of pipelines. They are testing their own powers in protecting the environment.
The environment is a flashpoint issue. All the provinces are watching this from the perspective of what the limits are on protecting their provinces. Quebec will support BC. I think other provinces will too. That the federal government has the power to force a project through a province doesn't mean it's a good idea.
At this point they can't anyway. There are still FN cases working their way through the courts. Construction on the pipeline can't start before those are concluded.
The province is free to use all legal means to prevent the pipeline from going through. Saying they intend to refer the question to the Supreme Court is not illegal. Doing it is not illegal. It is not counter to the rule of law.
That the federal government has the power to send in the army doesn't make it a good idea.
Trudeau and cabinet are saying they won't negotiate in public. They will be threatening all sorts of dire consequences. What they don't get is that there is nothing to negotiate. Opponents do not trust the oil industry nor the government to protect the environment. This is based on their track-record and the complete lack of data on how bitumen would be cleaned up and the limited liability that saddles the public with clean-up costs.
The crisis is not constitutional yet. It is a crisis of confidence in government's ability to protect the public interest. It is a fundamental difference of opinion over what is in the national interest. This is in Alberta's interest not the national interest.
I am a Canadian as well as a Quebecer and as a Canadian I am appalled at the possibility of damaging our priceless west coast waters. Even if all I ever get to appreciate is pictures I want my nameless legacy as a Canadian to have fought to preserve the priceless and irreplacable natural wonders of Canada.
Canada does not need to increase oil production to pay for transition nor are the oil sands at risk of being shut down so they will continue generating profits as they have been. Alberta is very foolish if they buy into their doomed pipeline.
BC cannot be browbeaten into submission. That will only embolden and strengthen protesters. Sending the military in against indigenous people and unarmed civilians could provoke a real constitutional crisis. How many Canadians are they willing to put in prison. Hundreds? Thousands? For how long? Mass arrests, especially of indigenous peoples will not look good on Canada. The pipeline passes through a lot of unceded FN territory.
Protesters to the pipelines will be joined by people who don't care about the pipelines but do care about the federal government trying to force it through.
Quebec and Alberta are not the only provinces that toy with separation chit chat. Being the coastal province and having the mountains separating the province from the rest of Canada has made it distinct in its own right. It has different values. It imposed a carbon tax on its own accord. It did it because it is the wise thing to do not in exchange for social licence. Alberta demanding a pipeline in exchange for accepting a carbon tax is not giving BC something or giving Canada something. It isn't up to BC to get Alberta to accept a carbon tax.
Also, just to add to the discussion:
If Singh were to run for Mulcair's seat I expect he'd lose badly, and in the process produce more bad optics for the NDP leading toward the election in 2019.
And Singh's idea of taking the pipeline battle between BC and Alberta to the Supreme Court is alternately a namby-pamby effort to continue sitting on the fence and refuse to take sides, or it's an effort to gently side with BC's efforts to stall the project. Either way it's a waste of the court's time, especially since Boulerice immediately implied that a Supreme Court ruling that agreed with Ottawa and Alberta would not necessarily be accepted.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/singh-trans-mountain-analysis-1.4614352
Again? Did you ask the question before? I just saw you saying you didn't consider them in any way to be allies, and you didn't say why.
The countries have strong economic relations, Canada is home to a large Indian diaspora, and the two nations have been moving toward closer strategic relations in recent years, including Canada's advocating for India's exception at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and an Intelligence-sharing agreement.
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2018/02/23/canada-india-joint-initiatives-and-...
Really, the biggest sticking point is Canada's waffling on the Independence movement in India.
""That makes our two countries both natural allies and rather special in terms of the states of the world," he says, adding that the two countries have worked together quietly for years on such things as counter-terrorism and sharing concerns about violent extremists."
- Elliot Tepper, Carleton University South Asian studies professor
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/narendra-modi-visit-why-india-matters-to-ca...
http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/india-inde/relations.aspx?lang=eng
Sure you can debate this till the cows come home and this is really a matter of semantics. India relations are extremely important to Canada. This is true of countries where the term ally is even less applicable. The point is it is a significant country and the attitude of a leader of a federal party to that country is relevant and worthy of an answer. As I have said, parties do not need to have excellent relations with any country. However, the NDP, as a democratic party traditionally allows Members a voice in such decisions. I have not objected to the leader raising this with Members if he wants to. I also have not objected to him keeping his opinions to himself provided the committment not to advocate while leader.
The statement quoted from the website is helpful. What is not helpful is the number of times Singh was evasive on the topic. I have heard multiple interviews with him doing this. It will take a few times where he will have to send out the new message to replace all the times where he refused to speak with such clarity.
Canada-India trade is about $2 billion each way, which is microscopic, compared to our trade with the US and China.
When you buy things made in India, they could very well have been made by slavery. One manpower is 75W. That is equivalent to lifting 7.64 kg against the force of gravity for one metre every second. Or walking all day and lifting less. If you have your manpower for free, you have no incentive to invest in machinery, or even horses, which produce 10 manpower. Not only that, because you are a slavemaster, your slaves have no money to buy the things you produce. So you try to look respectable and sell them into countries which do not really know you are using slavery, or do not care because they have "a large Indian diaspora" and slavery (and the next best thing, the caste system) is a "cultural thing we really have no business sticking our noses into".
The predominant religion in India requires that dark-skinned people serve light-skinned people as a matter of birthright. It is called the caste system, and with the current government in India, it is certainly not going away any time soon. We really have no business buying anything from a country which tolerates slavery.
It kind of puts downward pressure on Canadian wages too. You see how that works?
Indeed, with a GDP/capita of USD 1,700, pretty well everyone in India is in some kind of economic slavery. Trading with them only encourages that. If you think wealth disparity is bad in Canada, think about a country where the GDP/capita is less than what you pay for your phone bill.
As far as the Indian dispora in Canada is concerned, what about the Canadian diaspora in India? There doesn't seem to be any Canadian diaspora in India. Why is that? Is it because India's GDP per capita is USD 1,700 and Canada's is USD 43,000?
Canada does not need to pander to a country where the 11th most popular book on Amazon is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. https://mic.com/articles/120411/how-hitler-s-mein-kampf-became-a-bestsel...
Canada should have respectful diplomatic relations with India, as with all other countries, but India in no way, shape, or form, is an ally. India does not have Canada's best interests at heart. If the classes that rule India had their way, we would all be their slaves too. By birthright.
India's possession of nuclear weapons is of extreme concern (along with Pakistan's), and Canada's permissiveness on any kind of nuclear supply with India is an outrage. India has a neo-fascist government, and on their list of priorities will be imperial conquest.
The only stance that should be taken with India and Pakistan is denuclearization.
And then of course there is the question of rampant corruption in India. If you complain that a female that you know got raped, you are beaten, sometimes imprisoned, and left to die. Not to mention what happens to the female herself. If you write about official corruption in India, you are killed.
So, in no way, shape, or form, is India an ally. The only reason they are not much more dangerous is because they deliberately keep themselves poor. If you consider India to be an ally, what kind of person are you? Obviously one who tolerates slavery and the caste system. Go fuck yourself.
The word does not change the context. India is important to Canada and a position about the unity of such a country is one that belongs with the Party Membership. Your freakout on a term that has been used by others is really a tangent. Fact is that a position on the division of Russia would also be a matter of party policy and discussion not the opinion of the leader alone and it also would be a valid question.
Look. I said India is an ally of Canada's and that is very much the case; you don't share sensitive intelligence information with a nation you do not trust.
You seem to be talking about something else, specifically whether we personally approve of the actions of the Indian government. That is a different question, and one that has no bearing on the fact Canada and India do cooperate and help each other.
Did you even read the article about why Hitler is popular in India? It may have been a ploy on the Nazis part, but it actually has nothing to do with the absurd comparisons some are making nowadays between him and Modi.
And "deliberately keep themselves poor"? How do you figure that? If that was their goal why did they put the recent import tariffs on Canadian pulse crops.
"But to hope for substance from Singh is to wish for unicorns."
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/macdougall-trudeaus-in-troub...
Cute quote, but the message of the whole article is: Stop the politickin' and build the frickin' pipeline already!
Not surprising, given who the author is:
Andrew MacDougall is a London-based communications consultant and ex-director of communications to former prime minister Stephen Harper.
The problem with the criticism of Singh is in part that there is truth there even if it might be the best thing Singh could do.
The consitutional reference seems like it is more an opportunity to fence-sit. As many are pointing out, the issue is not the constitution if the decision can be made at the federal level, but the promise the Liberals made with respect to social license which they are on the verge of obliterating if they have not already.
But in fairness this is a quesiton of strategy perhaps. By drawing out a failing legal argument, some may think this allows more opposition to organize. The fight might be on different ground, however. And it might already be over.
If the Liberals have the authority and are determined to do it using any force required, then Horgan ran on an empty promise, a best efforts, that come down to trying to convince the Liberal government to change their minds when politically they might have more to lose by not building the pipeline than by building it.
This might have been decided in the last election even if the decision was made by a government that promised a consensus where none was possible and social license that he could not deliver.
Singh's delaying tactic may be the only one he has and the fence sitting may be reconciliation with the idea that there is nothing the NDP can do to stop this other than take more of a blow from a more definite position. The mediator style position of the reference, however unrealistic, preserves the NDP from having to pay for a division that in the end won't make a difference to the project.
This is what I think the calculations look like.
If you look at the big picture in light of the weaknesses of the NDP, there is good reason for them to want to look "against" as much as they can while not being so definite that they lose anything at all.
It seems to me that all the parties: The federal Liberals, Federal NDP, Federal Conservatives, Provincial NDP in Alberta and Ontario, Provincial Greens in BC -- they are all doing exactly what their political interests suggest are the least costly most beneficial. That is not a shock since political mistakes in the short- term interest are really quite rare. The most recent is the calculation by the Liberals that they could promise anything in 2015 becuase they did not think they woudl be called on to deliver -- at least on their own, so cover would have existed in a coalition.
The self-interests are also predictive:
- The Liberals will build the pipeline if they can or it will fail through no fault of their own
- Horgan will fight as much as he can in a losing battle, needing to show the good fight, and that might work
- Notley will get the pipeline and this may or may not save her but it will not hurt her
- the federal NDP will not take a definitive decision about the merits of the project so long as there is no chance of that making a differnce; however they will appear as much against the pipeline as possible using process rather than principle
- The Conservatives will sit back and hope for an opening -- either if the pipeline ultimately fails or there is anything hey can take advantage of agaisnt the other parties
- The Greens will try to blame the NDP for not being pure on this and fight with them for the anti-pipeline vote
None of this is a shock -- it is all hardwired, political necessity.
The only way out left the station in 2015. Back then the Liberals and provincial NDP in Alberta could have made the case for a national significant investment in BC to move away from dependency on exporting raw fossil fuels with a major federal-supported diversification strategy for all Provinces in the Fossil Fuel Business. That would have had a cost but also a huge benefit.
It is true that the Trudeau, Notley and Horgan meeting could come to this conclusion but I think it is too late for the Federal Liberals to follow this route and nothing less than a massive program to benefit Alberta would allow Notley or Trudeau to stand down. Now, I think the Liberals have already spent the money and political capital they would have needed to get this done.
Pages