Jagmeet Singh Takes Nonsensical Shots At Justin Trudeau While Gives NDP Premier John Horgan A Pass

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Jagmeet Singh Takes Nonsensical Shots At Justin Trudeau While Gives NDP Premier John Horgan A Pass

The RCMP have set up a police checkpoint outside of a Wet’suwet’en First Nation site that evicted a gas company earlier this month.

Jagmeet Singh sends out a tweet saying

"News out of Wet’suwet’en territory is concerning. Mr. Trudeau says the right things about relationships with Indigenous peoples but he must match those words with respect, justice & actions. The fed gov’t is responsible for the RCMP & must answer for their choices & use of force."

However Justin Trudeau has nothing to do with this. It falls under provincial jurisdiction. As CBC National News Anchor Rosemary Barton tweeted

"The NDP leader conveniently leaves out that this project is of provincial jurisdiction and approved by the NDP premier of the province. So what exactly is he asking Ottawa to do? Direct the RCMP? Intervene? Tell BC what to do?"

So I would assume this is a fight with John Horgan, right?

voice of the damned

As you yourself state, Singh doesn't target Horgan in his tweet, so your title in misleading. I get that you're trying to be sensationalistic, but may I suggest something more accurate, but still combustible, like "Singh takes nonsensical shots at Trudeau, gives his buddy Horgan a pass"?

Mighty Middle

voice of the damned wrote:

As you yourself state, Singh doesn't target Horgan in his tweet, so your title in misleading. I get that you're trying to be sensationalistic, but may I suggest something more accurate, but still combustible, like "Singh takes nonsensical shots at Trudeau, gives his buddy Horgan a pass"?

Thanks, I wasn't quite sure of my title - but yours is more accurate, so I used yours. Thanks again.

 

voice of the damned

Hey, the sincerest form of flattery! Thanks.

And just to be clear, I don't neccessarily endorse the viewpoint taken by my suggested headline. Not sure of the jurisdictional issues about who has the final say over what the Mounties can and cannot do. Agree than Singh almost certainly has an interest in keeping the heat focused on JT and away from Horgan.

 

Pondering

Political parties shouldn't share names for reasons like this one. Singh is a federal politician so why would he take aim at Horgan, a provincial premier? To help out the provincial Liberals or the Greens? 

The majority of Canadians do not want ideological leaders. The majority of Canadians want energy projects to be judged individually.

This issue isn't about whether or not it should go through. It is about the treatment of indigenous peoples. The RCMP is a federal force. BC pays the RCMP to also act in lieu of a provincial police force but they are still a federal police force ultimately under federal control. 

It is entirely appropriate to challenge Trudeau on how the RCMP is acting on behalf of a provincial government. 

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

It is entirely appropriate to challenge Trudeau on how the RCMP is acting on behalf of a provincial government. 

B.C. Premier John Horgan said "This project is proceeding and the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C.”

So why is Trudeau taking the heat for something John Horgan is initiating? Jagmeet Singh seems to be playing the old songbook of his past conflicts with then NDP Premier Rachel Notley. Singh will avoid criticizing any NDP Premier for what they are doing, but turning it around to be the blame of Justin Trudeau.

kropotkin1951

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It is entirely appropriate to challenge Trudeau on how the RCMP is acting on behalf of a provincial government. 

B.C. Premier John Horgan said "This project is proceeding and the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C.”

So why is Trudeau taking the heat for something John Horgan is initiating? Jagmeet Singh seems to be playing the old songbook of his past conflicts with then NDP Premier Rachel Notley. Singh will avoid criticizing any NDP Premier for what they are doing, but turning it around to be the blame of Justin Trudeau.

I think that Jagmeet should be speaking up firmly against the narrative of both Horgan and Trudeau that claims the Indian Act Band councils speak for the title owners of the unceded territories. This is a federally approved project despite the lack of consent by the SCC recognized indigenous leaders it is being pushed forward. Neither Trudeau not Horgan give a flying fuck about indigenous consent to projects on their traditional territories. The RCMP is a federal para-military force that charges communities for its services. For instance they have been trying to get the City of Burnaby to pay extra to police the TMX site at the tank farm even though the city has taken TMX to court to try and shut it down because it is unsafe.

Pondering

I agree with you but it's unrealistic in today's political climate. 

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

I agree with you but it's unrealistic in today's political climate. 

Which is why Jagmeet is laying this solely on Trudeau, and not even mentioning Horgan. As Singh doesn't want to ailenate Horgan's NDP supporters. Which shows Singh is like every other politician picking his battles.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

Political parties shouldn't share names for reasons like this one.

Or, at least, the public should be educated to understand that sharing a name, or even an overarching organizational structure, doesn't neccessarily mean that two parties are going to agree on every issue.

Though something I've been curious about: prior to Notley vs. Horgan on pipelines, had there been any cases of two NDP provincial governments at loggerheads over something? Or a provincial NDP vs. the federal party, as is implicitly the case with Horgan and Singh right now?  

Mighty Middle

voice of the damned wrote:

Or a provincial NDP vs. the federal party, as is implicitly the case with Horgan and Singh right now?  

Bob Rae & Audrey McLaughlin

voice of the damned

Mighty Middle wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Or a provincial NDP vs. the federal party, as is implicitly the case with Horgan and Singh right now?  

Bob Rae & Audrey McLaughlin

Can you refresh my memory? What was the issue?

bekayne

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Political parties shouldn't share names for reasons like this one.

Or, at least, the public should be educated to understand that sharing a name, or even an overarching organizational structure, doesn't neccessarily mean that two parties are going to agree on every issue.

Though something I've been curious about: prior to Notley vs. Horgan on pipelines, had there been any cases of two NDP provincial governments at loggerheads over something? Or a provincial NDP vs. the federal party, as is implicitly the case with Horgan and Singh right now?  

The Constitution, early 1980s

voice of the damned

bekayne wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Political parties shouldn't share names for reasons like this one.

Or, at least, the public should be educated to understand that sharing a name, or even an overarching organizational structure, doesn't neccessarily mean that two parties are going to agree on every issue.

Though something I've been curious about: prior to Notley vs. Horgan on pipelines, had there been any cases of two NDP provincial governments at loggerheads over something? Or a provincial NDP vs. the federal party, as is implicitly the case with Horgan and Singh right now?  

The Constitution, early 1980s

Blakeney vs. Broadbent?

 

NDPP

After widespread calls for a public inquiry into the 1995 Gustafsen Lake crisis, federal NDP leader Alexa Mcdonough supported the call against the BC NDP's refusal to countenance one.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

After widespread calls for a public inquiry into the 1995 Gustafsen Lake crisis, federal NDP leader Alexa Mcdonough supported the call against the BC NDP's refusal to countenance one.

Thanks.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Just a counterpoint. Rather than simply saying they should not share names there is another point. If th NDP in one jurisdiction cannot explain their position to the NDP in another jurisdiction in a way that is understandable, does that not mean that one of those positions or communications is incorrect? If another NDP cannot accept the stance -- how can the public?

In some of these cases the NDP has taken positions that are at odds with principles of the party and has failed to explain why they "had to" do so. Many of those governments were defeated in part due to these splits.

I think honestly agreeing to differe -- and saying exactly why is what the party can do at times and the public will understand even while shoosing which side so long as the position is one that is explained and is of some integrity.

I am not offering this as a conclusion but using different names does not solve the problem of some pretty poor communications and some very bad positions taken at times. Perhaps the party can listen to friendly criticsm and respond better.

kropotkin1951

The BC NDP is a tightly controlled institution with a tendency to nepotism. The federal NDP members from BC often get chewed up in the Ottawa political games. Either a political party believes in UNDRIP or they don't and actions are all that counts especially when a government's actions are at odds with its high sounding words. I voted for Scott Fraser last election despite not trusting the BC NDP because they promised action on PR and UNDRIP. I've seen the "action" and I am not impressed. I hope the Eco-Socialists find a credible candidate for my riding.

bekayne

voice of the damned wrote:

bekayne wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Political parties shouldn't share names for reasons like this one.

Or, at least, the public should be educated to understand that sharing a name, or even an overarching organizational structure, doesn't neccessarily mean that two parties are going to agree on every issue.

Though something I've been curious about: prior to Notley vs. Horgan on pipelines, had there been any cases of two NDP provincial governments at loggerheads over something? Or a provincial NDP vs. the federal party, as is implicitly the case with Horgan and Singh right now?  

The Constitution, early 1980s

Blakeney vs. Broadbent?

 

Yes.

cco

voice of the damned wrote:

bekayne wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Political parties shouldn't share names for reasons like this one.

Or, at least, the public should be educated to understand that sharing a name, or even an overarching organizational structure, doesn't neccessarily mean that two parties are going to agree on every issue.

Though something I've been curious about: prior to Notley vs. Horgan on pipelines, had there been any cases of two NDP provincial governments at loggerheads over something? Or a provincial NDP vs. the federal party, as is implicitly the case with Horgan and Singh right now?  

The Constitution, early 1980s

Blakeney vs. Broadbent?

 

The NPDQ was expelled from the federal party and had to change its name, eventually becoming Québec solidaire.

kropotkin1951

Broadbent's stand on the constitution was not just a battle with Blakeney but it was an affront to the majority of party members in Western Canada. The NDP federal party took an Ontario centric perspective and chose the losing side in the debate. The Ottawa bubble produces very bad decisions because our MP's keep getting told the "national interest" or "party interest" should supercede what they know is best for their particular area.