Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Interesting articles, however...

The world needs to wake up and see which way India is heading before considering extending free trade and business with it.

I don't know how feasible it really is to say that we should make decisions about trade deals with a country based on "the way it is heading". That's a fairly nebulous concept, and, except in certain fairly limited circumstances, the direction of any particular country is hard to predict.

Okay, so India under the BJP might be heading towards Hindu-supremacist fascism. No trade deals for them! But if Congress wins the next election, do trade deals become okay? Then what if the BJP comes back in the election after that? We cancel the trade deals?

alan smithee wrote:

Oh please. This is far from unprecedented. I even recall George W,,Harper too, wearing traditional clothing of the host country he was visiting.How quickly we forget.

This is a bunch of right wing garbage. If you're going to attack,find something with actual substance. This is really weak. What a pathetic 'controversy'.

I think you are probably mistaken on this confusing a G7 / G8 etc. tradition with this. There is a tradition at those international meetings where the host would arrange some kind of national garb for all guests. This is, as I say, arranged by the host who decides the look and everyone participates. This is not the same as showing up as a guest on your own and appropriating your idea of the traditional clothing of the country you are visiting. This has been embarassing for Canada.

These kinds of things should not be treated as a game by an arrogant leader. Damage is done on a policy front from the accumulation of such antics -- people that might support the PM's view on some things may find a Conservative in his place due to such behaviour.

The effect of a party scooping up support in a campaign and then blowing it while in power, or blowing a campaign, lets down those who supported that platform for more than the looks of the leader. When either the NDP or Liberals blow political opportunities on non-policy issues, the people who support those policies are let down. And since they are largely competing for the same support, such waste affects the supporters of the other party that opposes the conservatives.

Political parties occupy space in the area of public ideological outlook. Incompetence does not make it like they are not there -- it creates a black hole into which goes the support and energy of those wanting a particular point of view in power. When the NDP and Liberals compete for this with similar rhetoric, as they often do, they are not just letting down the supporters of thier party but all who oppose a more conservative point of view. Of course when the Conservatives do this, they let down their supporters as well (as hopefully will happen in Ontario - fingers crossed).

NDPP wrote:

On Contact: Rise of Hindutva Fascism With Shela Rashid Shora

https://youtu.be/aLOm1LSwSPA

Chris Hedges interviews this important Indian activist on the Modi government and Hindu fascism. This is the true nature of the regime that Justin Trudeau so desperately capered for and brown-nosed to on his recent embarrassing visit.

Well, like it or not(and I don't much like it), the BJP are the elected government of India at the current time. So, unless Canada intends to break off relations over their Hindu chauvinist policy, treating Modi with the usual degree of respect and decorum normally offered by one world leader to another seems like an appropriate thing for Trudeau to do.

And as for the possibility of breaking off relations, well, again, I don't like the BJP, but Hindu supremacy is not written into the permanent law of India in the same way that, say, white supremacy was written into the permanent law of apartheid South Africa. So, if that's the route some people think we should go down, I'm not at all sure that it's justified at the present time.

NDPP:

In post # 309, you accuse Trudeau of "brownnosing" to Modi.

In post # 312, you quote a newspaper article accusing Trudeau of "imbecility" for "insulting the prime minister of India". The article also praises Modi for being "gracious" in his dealings with Trudeau.

Are you just posting anything that says bad stuff about Trudeau, irrespective of whether or not the articles are consistent with one another?

NDPP wrote:

 Part of the problem is that Canadian politicians, and their advisors are so uninterested, stupid and un/mis informed about foreign affairs, that most don't know their ear-holes from their ass-holes in this regard, as should be obvious from Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Palestine etc.

And yet they still know a lot more than most Canadians. Any associating of Sikhs with extremism will hit Singh harder than Trudeau. Not all Sikh separatists are violent just like not all Quebec sovereignists are violent. The FLQ was, but that is old news. So is the Air India bomb or whatever it was. 

Trudeau seems to be dropping a bit now but this is similar to Trudeau tanking before the 2015 election and we saw how that turned out. It's a pretty safe bet that he will roll out all kinds goodies before the election that will increase his popularity again. There is also a danger that attacking Trudeau will benefit the Conservatives not the NDP. 

Singh has to focus on policy that generates inequality because that tars the Liberals and Conservatives with the same brush. 

He has a clear position. Singh supports the right of all separatists which includes those in India if they have 50+1 support. If the separatists in India have that then he supports them. But who cares? As far as I can tell only the pundits. Everyone else is:

• "whatever, it's India, who's Singh?"
• (Leader of the NDP)
• "oh, I don't pay attention to politics between elections" "Did you see Black Panther?"

The right wing is trying to make this into something but it's just playing to their base. The only people that might care a little bit are diaspora and nothing said in the news is going to influence their opinion. Those that are interested are already informed. 

Singh should stick to his guns. His support for separation with 50%+1 will be popular in Quebec. The rest of Canada is "whatever" on the subject. It's a dead horse. 

Pundits can focus on whatever they like. They don't have near the influence people think they have.

Right wingers listen to right wing pundits and left wingers listen to left wing pundits. People in the centre wait for the election. They don't want to hear all the detailed little shit. That's why Ford is such a threat. He only needs 3 or 4 five-word sentences. It's why Harper's labeling of Dion and Ignatieff were so effective. Nobody paid attention to policy. Harper was breaking election laws and doing horrible things like shutting down the experimental lakes etc. but nobody gave a damn when it came time to vote. He still has a reputation as a great economic manager. 

Singh is focusing on inequality therefore the economy. That is a 99% issue. He has to poke holes in neoliberal "truths" that people have come to believe about the economy. 

Trudeau is timing infrastructure projects to be coming on line before the election to stimulate the economy but not so far in advance that the impact will be lost. Same goes for cannabis legalization. Same goes for "pharmacare". Trudeau will as much as possible simply ignore criticism. By refusing to defend himself stories loose their legs. It isn't very interesting reading stories about someone avoiding answering questions unless the issue is of great interest. I'm sure he is prepared for questions on Transmountain and Keystone and NAFTA and TPP. His answers will be short so he can't be accused of not answering at all and he will segue smoothly into Liberal policy. 

I think Singh will be a much better debater so he might be able to make Trudeau look the fool during debates. Singh will have to force him off script in a way pundits can't. Singh against Scheer, no contest. Trudeau against Scheer probably no contest. I don't fear a Conservative surge. I think their current support is very soft and will be easily overcome by Trudeau's platform. 

The negative fallout is that Vlad Putin seems unhappy.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I disagree -- with the idea that being against violence is enough. For a Canadian political leader to be involved in a seperatist movement -- even peacefully while participating here, is problematic. He can do one or the other. He should put this to bed by endorsing the territorial integrity of India or not be a federal leader. That is setting aside the whole principle of associating with a movement that has been violent on Canadian soil -- even if you disavow that violence.

I am being no harsher than Canadians will be in an election.

Sure, I agree many are not paying attention right now but they will and it won't be pretty if he does not settle this conclusively.

He has already stated that he does not have a political position concerning Sikh independence. His only position is to defend the rights of Quebecers, Catalonians, and Sikhs to democratically secede if they choose to. 

It's frustrating to see no matter how clear he is and no matter how many times he states his position there are people who simply refuse to hear him. I don't see what more he can do. I don't think he should have to state daily that he is not promoting Sikh independence and he abhors all violence and condemns all terrorism. 

Should Canadian politicians similarly swear on a stack of pancakes that they're not "promoting" Quebec sovereignty, even if they support it?  It's a fairly thin hair to split, but is there a difference between (say) the NDP supporting Quebecer's right to leave, and promoting it?

Transferring response to Singh thread. 

I think many in Canada regret the degree to which Canada relies on the US for trade and the limitation of independence. I think these mistakes were made many years ago and even the right that wanted them knows that this aspect is a problem as much as they beleive in trade. The problem is nobody has figured out what to do.

It is very likely that there is no way to really diversify the Canadian reliance on the US without taking a hit financially. The reality that long term gain in this respect requires short term pain -- perhaps a lot of it . This is a reason why, even as the problem is now obvious to almost everyone, nobody will do it as they would have to sacrifice their government to do so.

NDPP wrote:

If You Murdered A Bunch of People Mass Murder is Your Single Defining Legacy

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

Does one have to be American to be considered a war criminal here or is it merely helpful?

There is a lack of inclusiveness on the subject and there are many examples of serious war criminals that never rate a mention as the faithful race to embrace the vision of Americans creating havoc.

quizzical wrote:

Lol...like they're not Martin.

do you corporatists never falter in your support of them?

I'm a capitalist and a nationalist as opposed to a corporatist or a globalist. My query relates to why the neomarxists only single out Americans when there is an entire world full of deserving war criminals.

Neomarxist globalist losers who cannot stand the thought of an American superpower. I am a realist who lives in the world as it exists, not in a fantasy world where 'the people' rule and dogs wear pants.

No American president was “more courageous, more principled and more honourable than George Herbert Walker Bush,” former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney said in an eulogy at Wednesday’s state funeral.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/12/05/no-president-was-more-courageous-more-principled-and-more-honourable-than-george-hw-bush-mulroney-says-in-eulogy.html

Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.

Noah Cross.  Chinatown