Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader

Pondering wrote:

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:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/as-trudeau-supports-united-spain-q...

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.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/jagmeet-singh-leader-of-canada...

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.

So no evidence that he is an active separatist. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-1.4590537

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.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-...

“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.

Pondering wrote:

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:

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/as-trudeau-supports-united-spain-q...

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.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/jagmeet-singh-leader-of-canada...

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.

So no evidence that he is an active separatist. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/jagmeet-singh-1.4590537

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.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/21/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-...

“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.

Pondering wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

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"?

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.

voice of the damned wrote:

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.

 

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.

Pondering wrote:

I guess my last post was too long:

Jagmeet Singh statements, March 14th and 15th:

• 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.

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?

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-...

As Bill Morneau noted

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."

@ 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.

From Pondering:

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. 

Coldwell wrote:

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

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."

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

6079_Smith_W wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Again, how are Canada and India allies?

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.

progressive17 wrote:

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.

"But to hope for substance from Singh is to wish for unicorns."

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/macdougall-trudeaus-in-troub...

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.