Who will replace Mulcair? (NDP leadership)

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

More to the left which fortunately makes the NDP even more unelectable!

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

He's more to the right, He's Trudeau Lite.

So which is it then? More to the right or left?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't find Singh particularly likeable at all, but nor do I Trudeau. They both seem so fake to me. I may admire their values, but they try too hard when they speak to them and it makes me question their authenticity. Very politiciany.

I can't think of any current Canadian politicians who aren't heavily scripted. Which ones do you admire for their "authenticity"?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I can't think of any current Canadian politicians who aren't heavily scripted. Which ones do you admire for their "authenticity"?

Trump, and even Sanders or Macron.

Just 'cause the three major federal parties happen to coincide in having three heavily scripted leaders at a particular point in time doesn't mean it's impossible to have "authentic" leaders emerging in Western democracies. There's some chance involved too.

[harls]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't find Singh particularly likeable at all, but nor do I Trudeau. They both seem so fake to me. I may admire their values, but they try too hard when they speak to them and it makes me question their authenticity. Very politiciany.

He doesn't UM and AHH as much as JT.. albeit he hasn't been pinned under the media microscope yet.. but that is a +1 for me (and yes, I'm over 40 and said fucking '+1').

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I can't think of any current Canadian politicians who aren't heavily scripted. Which ones do you admire for their "authenticity"?

Caron, Michael Chong, Maxime Bernier, and yes, guys like Sanders, Obama or Biden. Though Trump certainly doesn't speak like a politician, I don't generally believe that he believes what he says.

I generally disagree with the notion that politicians should speak like regular people; I would want the leader of the country to be pretty clearly smarter than the average person. But this can be done without descending to grand, meaningless platitudes on how we need love not fear, etc. There's no substance to it.

Obama was obviously very scripted but he never gave me the same vibe of "I'm just saying as many progressive buzzwords as I can so I sound left-wing to non-observant viewers" the way Singh and Trudeau do. When Sanders or Biden talk about the plight of the working class, I believe that that's an issue that really matters to them. Or even when Bernier talks about the burdens of over-regulation or over-taxation. But when Singh and Trudeau talk, I really get the impression that they're just going through a checklist of words to say. Do I believe they actually care about those issues? With Trudeau, no, not really. With Singh I'm not sure yet, but again, as of now, I don't see him very differently from Trudeau.

[Blader]

It's the passing of the torch to a new generation. I'm disturbed by one thing which applies to Sikhs in Canada, who are Khalsa. I've a long memory. Prior to the Air India bombing, a warning was issued to Sikhs not to fly Air India. Many did anyhow because money matters. Air India was reputed to have two sets of books. At the time the industry was heavily regulated by IATA. I've personally received a receipt from Pakistan International Airlines at twice the amount that I paid. So the warning was ignored because money was dear.
And the bombings happened. There was another bomb placed on a CP AIR that detonated in Narita.

What troubles me is that those behind the bombing are elevated to sainthood.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagm...hill-1.4317611
Air India bombing

Singh was also asked if he condemned Sikhs in Canada who still display posters of Talwinder Singh Parmar, who is publicly celebrated to this day as a shahid — a martyr — by his devotees.

During the Air India trial in Vancouver, the defence, prosecution and judge all agreed that Parmar was the mastermind of the Air India bombing.

Parmar was never put on trial for the bombing, however, and in 1992 Indian police caught and killed him while he was on a mission to buy Stinger anti-aircraft missiles from the Pakistani Taliban.

Singh said the bombing was a "heinous massacre" that is condemned by Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus, but did not specifically denounce those who hang posters of Parmar and celebrate him as a martyr.

"I don't know who's responsible [for the Air India bombing] but I think we need to find out who's responsible, we need to make sure that the investigation results in a conviction of someone who is actually responsible," Singh said.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalsa

[Loco101]

I still can't believe that some people are assuming that the vast majority Indo-Canadians will support Singh in the next election. But he certainly accomplished something by winning a Brampton riding under the NDP banner provincially.

It is not uncommon to see all three main candidates being of Indian descent in federal and provincial elections in Brampton. Singh received 37% of the votes in Brampton-Gore-Malton in 2011 and 44% in 2014. Don't forget that the NDP lost support and seats in the GTA in the 2014 election.

[Docere]

Milewski is tough and arrogant and doesn't back down, and he's well known for confronting those in power. However a lot of NDPers think that his interview was race-baiting. I have not yet watched the interview.

[Delusio Cogno]

Originally Posted by Blader

It's the passing of the torch to a new generation. I'm disturbed by one thing which applies to Sikhs in Canada, who are Khalsa.

I am disturbed that a reporter would ask a politician to condemn members of a race/religion who are not related to the politician except by race/religion.

Wow.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Delusio Cogno

I am disturbed that a reporter would ask a politician to condemn members of a race/religion who are not related to the politician except by race/religion.

Wow.

Looking at it from a different angle, Mr. Singh has hinted that he does not see the need to divorce his religious views from his political life, as evidenced by his support of an exemption for Sikhs from highway traffic laws on motorcycle helmets.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

AFAIK no one has asked Calgary mayor Nenshi for his opinion "as a Muslim" on anything related to Islam or the behaviour of Muslims. That's probably because he keeps his religious views to himself.

[Delusio Cogno]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Looking at it from a different angle, Mr. Singh has hinted that he does not see the need to divorce his religious views from his political life, as evidenced by his support of an exemption for Sikhs from highway traffic laws on motorcycle helmets.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

AFAIK no one has asked Calgary mayor Nenshi for his opinion "as a Muslim" on anything related to Islam or the behaviour of Muslims. That's probably because he keeps his religious views to himself.

The helmet law issue displays his view defending religious freedoms in Canada.
It is a charter right in Canada he is defending there, not terrorism.
Not the same sword at all.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Delusio Cogno

The helmet law issue displays his view defending religious freedoms in Canada.
It is a charter right in Canada he is defending there, not terrorism.
Not the same sword at all.

Whether or not Charter rights to religious freedoms allow you to circumvent security regulations is a matter of debate, not a cut and dried issue.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I still can't believe that some people are assuming that the vast majority Indo-Canadians will support Singh in the next election. But he certainly accomplished something by winning a Brampton riding under the NDP banner provincially.

It is not uncommon to see all three main candidates being of Indian descent in federal and provincial elections in Brampton. Singh received 37% of the votes in Brampton-Gore-Malton in 2011 and 44% in 2014. Don't forget that the NDP lost support and seats in the GTA in the 2014 election.

I think this is a good point. "Indo-Canadians" aren't a unified group and there can be tensions (or at least few affinities) between Sikhs, Hindus, Tamils, etc.

Just think about it. If you dumped a few hundred thousand Canadians from all regions in a distant land, would those Canadians there who are Québécois in origin all automatically vote for a right-wing unilingual anglo guy from Alberta like Rob Anders just because he's Canadian "too"?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Delusio Cogno

I am disturbed that a reporter would ask a politician to condemn members of a race/religion who are not related to the politician except by race/religion.

Wow.

Why not? The same is done to some known Christian officials in public life (especially those who allow their religion to shape their policies and make it public), and should be done even more so IMO.

His religious position is actually my biggest concern about him.

No, it is not because he is brown or even Sikh, but let me just say there is a pretty big divide in the South Asian community where I grew up, and those who wear turbans and grow religious related facial hair are often seen as "old school" and deeply religious by those of the South Asian community who don't. I worked in a cedar mill for 3 years with countless South Asians, half of them were not religious, and half wore turbans and had beards, just from casual conversation and working together one group was far more in line with left wing Canadian values regarding women and homosexuality than the other.

I would be equally as concerned if the new leader of the NDP was a white guy who always visibly wore a cross on him.

I think many on the left do not hold "minority" religions and those who adhere to them to the same standard of scrutiny as Christians (particularly white Christians) which is a major self-induced values blind spot IMO.

I am not saying that he is a bad guy or even a bad politician, or that I won't vote for him if he is the best choice at the end of the next election, just that when it comes to religion in politics we should hold everyone to the same standard regardless of faith or skin colour.

I really liked and supported BC's former premier Ujjal Dosanjh, but I am not going to instantly accept this guy simply because he is a minority.

Essentially what I am saying is, people should be just as stringent regarding religion with Singh as they have been with other religious Canadian politicians in the past, such as Stockwell Day who was frequently mocked for his Christian religious beliefs (and rightfully so IMO).

In the end I find people such as that crazy racist woman who confronted this guy about being Muslim (what an idiot) and those who will support a minority politician, no questions asked, simply because they are a minority (and not hold them to the same level of scrutiny as other white politicians) to be different sides of the same shitty coin. Both still regard minorities as an other and treat / measure people based on what they are, not who they are.

[Blader]

Another take on the Milewski interview.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/q...rty-leader-yet

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Whether or not Charter rights to religious freedoms allow you to circumvent security regulations is a matter of debate, not a cut and dried issue.

I believe it is settled law in Canada that a construction helmet trumps a turban (for safety reasons), but I don't think "motorcycle helmet vs turban" has been tested at the level of the SCC. It is permitted in BC and Manitoba, afaik. In neither case, however, is anything being "circumvented" - the issue is one of whether or not "reasonable accomodation" applies.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I believe it is settled law in Canada that a construction helmet trumps a turban (for safety reasons), but I don't think "motorcycle helmet vs turban" has been tested at the level of the SCC. It is permitted in BC and Manitoba, afaik. In neither case, however, is anything being "circumvented" - the issue is one of whether or not "reasonable accomodation" applies.

Semantics schemantics. Reasonable accommodation (which I do support in a number of cases) is still circumventing stuff that applies to everyone except you. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't IMO.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Why not? The same is done to some known Christian officials in public life (especially those who allow their religion to shape their policies and make it public), and should be done even more so IMO.

His religious position is actually my biggest concern about him.

No, it is not because he is brown or even Sikh, but let me just say there is a pretty big divide in the South Asian community where I grew up, and those who wear turbans and grow religious related facial hair are often seen as "old school" and deeply religious by those of the South Asian community who don't. I worked in a cedar mill for 3 years with countless South Asians, half of them were not religious, and half wore turbans and had beards, just from casual conversation and working together one group was far more in line with left wing Canadian values regarding women and homosexuality than the other.

I would be equally as concerned if the new leader of the NDP was a white guy who always visibly wore a cross on him.

I think many on the left do not hold "minority" religions and those who adhere to them to the same standard of scrutiny as Christians (particularly white Christians) which is a major self-induced values blind spot IMO.

I am not saying that he is a bad guy or even a bad politician, or that I won't vote for him if he is the best choice at the end of the next election, just that when it comes to religion in politics we should hold everyone to the same standard regardless of faith or skin colour.

I really liked and supported BC's former premier Ujjal Dosanjh, but I am not going to instantly accept this guy simply because he is a minority.

Essentially what I am saying is, people should be just as stringent regarding religion with Singh as they have been with other religious Canadian politicians in the past, such as Stockwell Day who was frequently mocked for his Christian religious beliefs (and rightfully so IMO).

In the end I find people such as that crazy racist woman who confronted this guy about being Muslim (what an idiot) and those who will support a minority politician, no questions asked, simply because they are a minority (and not hold them to the same level of scrutiny as other white politicians) to be different sides of the same shitty coin. Both still regard minorities as an other and treat / measure people based on what they are, not who they are.

If there is anything I disagree with in this post I guess I missed it.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Semantics schemantics. Reasonable accommodation (which I do support in a number of cases) is still circumventing stuff that applies to everyone except you. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't IMO.

As I understand it, the only way a reasonable accommodation could be unjustified would be if it imposed an undue burden on someone else. Afaik, there is no example of this in Canadian jurisprudence. If there were, it would be a bad decision, istm, and open to challenge.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If there is anything I disagree with in this post I guess I missed it.

Thanks, but I feel that there is a high chance I will be called a racist by somebody on here soon for that position