Jagmeet Singh heads to Parliament

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
R.E.Wood

Thanks for sharing my post in this thread, Unionist. Glad you appreciated it.

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..while i have my thoughts on it at this point i don't really have enough info on the workings of the membership. but if it is the case that the membership will not rebel, i'm thinking that they should share some of the criticisms the leader faces. also the braintrust and the caucus. otherwise i feel this just feeds into the power struggles going on within the ndp.

I agree. I always have. Those who worship the Leader: 1) have never bothered to read the NDP constitution, which gives the leader no power whatsoever; and 2) enjoy being sheep - haven't noticed the power that the constitution allegedly gives them and are too lazy and self-satisfied to use that power.

That's why I'm not a member. Can't stand the members.

One day it will change. Like a volcanic eruption. No slow transformation.

NDPP

Or never.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Here’s a surprise from the icm! Jagmeet becoming the PM in a headline 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/jagmeet-singh-ndp-leader-canadas-next-pm-151816694.html

There’s a potential roadblock in Quebec this time around because of the fact that Singh, a Sikh, wears a turban. Fournier, a Quebec native, says it’s more about religion for Quebecers than it is about race when it comes to voting. After all, this is a province that last year gave a majority mandate to a government that has proposed a ban on public servants wearing religious symbols at work.

Fits right in with why Julia lost to a Jewish liberal candidate. Perhaps if Julia was Jewish, maybe she could have stepped out of the shadow cast by Jags turban?

Lots of bigots in Quebec, no different than the rest of Canada. 

If Quebecers can't abide voting for a party whose leader is a Sikh who wears a long beard and a turban, explain why they vote Liberal, knowing that that party leads a government which includes Sikh cabinet ministers who wear...long beards and turbans, and whose leader took the exact same position as Tom Mulcair in 2015 on the right of a Muslim woman to wear the hijab at her citizenship ceremony.  Or why they voted NDP in 2011 when its leader wore a turban-in the party color-at Sikh events throughout the country.  Or numerous Quebec ridings re-elected NDP MPs in 2015 when Mulcair himself, as far as I know, wore turbans at Sikh events and...wait for it...had a beard.

Whatever else we can say, isn't it time to give the beard-and-turban thing a rest? 

Singh can't shave and lose the turban without losing his identity and his integrity entirely.  And the man just won a by-election, a by-election he at one point seen as being in great danger of losing, WHILE wearing a long beard and turban, in a riding where a right-wing hate party took 11% of the vote?   

The NDP would have made the exact same showing in Outremont with a bland, clean-shaven white dude as leader.  And we all know it.

It's time to move on on the ethnic thing.

WWWTT

It’s not me that needs to move on. You can try to shoot the messenger, but why bother?

oh and by the way, did Harjit Singh Sajjan help Bendayan campaign in Outremont?

NorthReport
swallow swallow's picture

The NDP would have made the exact same showing in Outremont with a bland, clean-shaven white dude as leader.  And we all know it.

It's time to move on on the ethnic thing.

Appreciate the general message there, Ken, but I have to respectfully disagree. Racism exists in Canada, and in Quebec, and we can't move on from this knowledge while people still refer to Singh, for instance, as "Mr Turban" (anecdotal but I hear this one a lot in conversation). Singh has, I think, addressed racism more honestly than most, and that can only be good for Canadian politics. 

NorthReport
NorthReport

How the NDP tested its federal election strategy in Burnaby South

It may not be a coincidence that Singh won convincingly in Burnaby South while Trudeau’s support is plummeting at the same time

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_ca/article/wjm7q9/how-the-ndp-and-jagmeet-singh-tested-its-federal-election-strategy-in-burnaby-south

bekayne

There's a chance of a racist backlash against Singh in Cullen's riding of Skeena–Bulkley Valley, which was Reform Party territory in the 1990s. 

The riding also has one of the highest percentages of Aboriginal people in the country, which helped Cullen retain the seat for 15 years. But there's no guarantee that he was going to hold his seat with Singh as leader, notwithstanding his large margins of victory in recent elections.

But an Indigeous candidate might help increase turnout in Indigenous communities. Imagine, for example, if Grand Chief Stewart Phillip were to carry the party banner there. 

Penticton is nowhere near Skeena.

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

How the NDP tested its federal election strategy in Burnaby South

It may not be a coincidence that Singh won convincingly in Burnaby South while Trudeau’s support is plummeting at the same time

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_ca/article/wjm7q9/how-the-ndp-and-jagmeet-singh-tested-its-federal-election-strategy-in-burnaby-south

Is the Green Party not running part of that strategy? (Or do they still exist? I don't know after reading that article.)

NDPP

"I have to say it is a bad idea to get involved in the federal voting process as individual First Nation persons. Any FN person involved in the federal electoral process will be, wittingly or unwittingly, part of implementing the government's termination plan." - R Diabo

First Nations and the Federal Election: An Exercise in Self-Termination

https://ricochet.media/en/534/first-nations-and-the-federal-election-an-...

Cullen's riding is an illegal nullity. The area in question is unceded and still sovereign indigenous territory. But yes, by all means let's pretend we support Hereditary chiefs when they tell us this to oppose a pipeline we don't like but continue to support Canada's usurpation-as-genocide when we covet political power that issues from that usurpation.

WWWTT
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What Singh could and should do, dealing with the visible religious symbols issue, would be to borrow from a tactic that worked extremely well for John Kennedy in 1960.  That year, the big issue was whether a Catholic could be trusted with the U.S. presidency.  JFK, whatever else you can say about him(and you can say a hell of a lot that is far from good) had a public, televised meeting with Protestant pastors in Houston, assuring them repeatedly that he would not take instruction from the Vatican or attempt to turn the US into a Catholic country as president.  While Sikhism has no Pope, Singh could offer to have a similar meeting with hardline secularists in Quebec-put it on tv, do it all in French, obviously-where he would face the religious/ethnicity issues head-on.  He would make it clear to them that he has no intent of trying to impose Sikhism as a state faith, that he is not actively involved with the Sikh separatist movement, and that, while he will not stop wearing his turban or shave his beard, he will be fully committed to a secular Quebec and a secular Canada.  He would demonstrate leadership on this by facing the most extreme Quebec "Laïcité" types and making it clear that he will neither impose anything on them OR simply give in to their pointless demands that he change his personal appearance.  He'd look gutsy and he'd have nothing to lose.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I disagree Ken. Your suggestion sounds like pandering to racists to me. Did Harper have to do that, no he didn't and he belongs to a church that is far outside Canadian norms in its beliefs. Did Trudeau have to do that despite being a Catholic from Quebec? Did he have to promise not to listen to the Pope? Nope only the "other" needs to do that kind of demeaning conduct.

WWWTT

No I think Ken Burch has something actually. Maybe a bit too extreme?

Harper and Justin Among other political leaders have met with leaders from other faits  this is nothing new  kropotkin  Also, racism has no colour religion sex etc etc  Anyone can be racist and probably is  the only question is to what degree and if any self awareness exists  

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The turban debate happened in BC a very long time ago. We have had politicians elected from the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals who wear that particular religious symbol. Why should he have to go on bended knee to bigots and racists to tell them he is a good guy?  Isn't that a lot like asking a Jewish person who wears a symbol of their religion to assure people that they won't be the horrific stereotype that racists love to hate.

pietro_bcc

I actually like Ken's suggestion because however such a meeting would turn out he would leave looking good. Just pretending that an issue doesn't exist won't make it disappear. I don't think that Singh should have to do this on a basis of what is right, but I do think it is sound electoral strategy. If Singh does nothing then the Richard Martineaus of the world define the issue, if he would attack the issue head on then he defines the issue and leaves others to react. Its gutsy and good politics.

brookmere

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 Did Harper have to do that, no he didn't and he belongs to a church that is far outside Canadian norms in its beliefs.

Might have something to do with never breaking 40% Canada wide, and never getting anywhere near that in Quebec.

Quote:
Did Trudeau have to do that despite being a Catholic from Quebec? Did he have to promise not to listen to the Pope?
He doesn't have to promise not to listen to the Pope, because it's obvious he doesn't. Many of his political positions are at direct odds with the Catholic church. In fact I can remember him being accused of not being a good Catholic by at least one Conservative MP.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Have we had a Prime Minister who didn't have a religous affiilation? Did MacKenzie King have to meet with the skeptic societies to say he wasn't going to let his mother run the country from the other side of the mirror?

bekayne

Pogo wrote:

Have we had a Prime Minister who didn't have a religous affiilation? 

Nope.

brookmere

bekayne wrote:

Pogo wrote:

Have we had a Prime Minister who didn't have a religous affiilation? 

Nope.

Yes - Kim Campbell.

NorthReport

Looks like the NDP are starting to rebound in the polls

 

bekayne

brookmere wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Pogo wrote:

Have we had a Prime Minister who didn't have a religous affiilation? 

Nope.

Yes - Kim Campbell.

Well, sort of Anglican

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ATWgzcU0s

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

brookmere wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 Did Harper have to do that, no he didn't and he belongs to a church that is far outside Canadian norms in its beliefs.

Might have something to do with never breaking 40% Canada wide, and never getting anywhere near that in Quebec.

Quote:
Did Trudeau have to do that despite being a Catholic from Quebec? Did he have to promise not to listen to the Pope?
He doesn't have to promise not to listen to the Pope, because it's obvious he doesn't. Many of his political positions are at direct odds with the Catholic church. In fact I can remember him being accused of not being a good Catholic by at least one Conservative MP.

This highlights one of the things I find fundamentally wrong with our current federal politics. The idea of big tent parties that can appeal to 40% of voters from sea to sea to sea is the problem. That and the cult of the leader. I would really like to see the a new GreenLabour party that had less heirarchy and more regional autonomy and a multi-faceted leadership structure.

In the meantime I find the Singh religion thing to be very xenophobic because it highlights that only certain kinds of people may apply to lead in Canada. Why should it be okay for a Liberal cabinet Minister to proudly wear a turban and not have to explain to the military that he will not impose his religious views on anyone but if he was to succeed Trudeau he would be unelectable in Quebec.