Singh Wins Federal NDP on 1st Ballot

[Benz]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This reminds me of Kennedy having to reassure Americans in 1960 that he wouldn't put his religion above his nationality.  He had to do that because he wasn't protestant.  Harper didn't have to hide or downplay his religion.

I'm not religious, but I don't care if the PM is as long as he/she can be a good leader.  With Singh, it's a non-issue because he won't even be making it to opposition.

You are totally off my point. I do not know if it is because you do not understand what I explained or if because the concept is out of your reach.

Does Kennedy had an ostentious catholic symbol its religion ordered him to wear? The choice of religion of Singh is not an issue. Not at all. His inability to take his distance from it and be secular while in function, that's the issue. I also explained you the position and the reasoning along with it. It's sad that you limited yourself to the comparison of simplistic protestants afraid of a catholic president.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Benz said:

Does Kennedy had an ostentious catholic symbol its religion ordered him to wear? The choice of religion of Singh is not an issue. Not at all. His inability to take his distance from it and be secular while in function, that's the issue.

Yes, I don't put any religion above another.  Kennedy believed he was consuming human flesh each Sunday at Communion.  Do you think that that's better than wearing a ceremonial dagger ?

I don't.  I think it's all silly but as long as people are otherwise ok, they can lead the country as far as I'm concerned.  We even had a PM who talked to his dog at one point.

If you prefer cannibals to sword carriers, well then that's your business.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I don't put any religion above another.  Kennedy believed he was consuming human flesh each Sunday at Communion.  Do you think that that's better than wearing a ceremonial dagger ?

I don't.  I think it's all silly but as long as people are otherwise ok, they can lead the country as far as I'm concerned.  We even had a PM who talked to his dog at one point.

If you prefer cannibals to sword carriers, well then that's your business.

I think if the dagger is made out of unleavened bread they should be allowed to carry it anywhere.

[H10]

32 minutes ago, Benz said:

I see that many of you guys think he will divide the liberal votes for the favor of the conservatices. He is that good in English Canada? I would not be surprised if he can't even score one seat in Québec. I am rather wondering if he will push more traditional NDP supporters into the arms of the Liberal party. Which can't be good for the cons. The cons needs a substential division between NDP and the Libs.

So in your view Singh has no chance in Quebec because of his overt religious symbols?  How did he do with delegates from Quebec in the NDP race?  You certainly raise a good point, the NDP, federally, is really a Quebec and BC party.

Singh is widely popular with Indian groups in Ontario.  He is young, charismatic, and charisma goes along way in politics.  Trudeau is also charismatic and young, and from Quebec.

The problem that the liberals will have outside of Quebec from what I can see, is that in alot of these ridings have ndp and liberal vote splitting in the riding which leads to conservative candidates getting elected.  Kinda like how the conservative vote was getting split up across different factions on the right until they united into one party.

 

I could see alot of the Quebec voters going more for Trudeau thanks to Singh overt religiousness and your comments on religion and quebec.  

The real question will be can Singh sway the toronto suburbs, which are the real battleground and never vote ndp traditionally.

[H10]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This reminds me of Kennedy having to reassure Americans in 1960 that he wouldn't put his religion above his nationality.  He had to do that because he wasn't protestant.  Harper didn't have to hide or downplay his religion.

I'm not religious, but I don't care if the PM is as long as he/she can be a good leader.  With Singh, it's a non-issue because he won't even be making it to opposition.

Except, there are concerns that Singh might be a seek extremist or nationalist or separatist of some sorts and he doesn't give reassuring statements.  In fact, he said he believed all people have the right to self determination as a UN human right = Sikh have right to separate if they want.  And how would Singh deal with French Separatist if he believes people have a right to separate.  Singh is going to get punked in the debates from both the left and right.  I can only just imagine what Scheer is going to say about Singh.

[H10]

27 minutes ago, Benz said:

You are totally off my point. I do not know if it is because you do not understand what I explained or if because the concept is out of your reach.

Does Kennedy had an ostentious catholic symbol its religion ordered him to wear? The choice of religion of Singh is not an issue. Not at all. His inability to take his distance from it and be secular while in function, that's the issue. I also explained you the position and the reasoning along with it. It's sad that you limited yourself to the comparison of simplistic protestants afraid of a catholic president.

I agree with this point, it would comparable if Kennedy said something like the Irish have the right to self determination and to separate from Britain, and he walked around wearing a big cross and big mitre or something silly like that.

[Benz]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I don't put any religion above another.  Kennedy believed he was consuming human flesh each Sunday at Communion.  Do you think that that's better than wearing a ceremonial dagger ?

I don't.  I think it's all silly but as long as people are otherwise ok, they can lead the country as far as I'm concerned.  We even had a PM who talked to his dog at one point.

If you prefer cannibals to sword carriers, well then that's your business.

Again, you do not get the point. The "dagger" itself is not an issue in a day-to-day personal basis. It is an issue if you wear it during your functions as a PM. You have a serious difficulty to understand the difference because in your mindset, the spirituality of an indidividual and the constrainsts ordered by the religious organization are the same for you. That is why you think you can simply say you do not mind about his religion. I do not mind about his religion as well. I mind about his unability to draw the difference and prove he is capable to not folliow a religious order. I beleive my explanations were quiet clear about it.

[Benz]

8 minutes ago, H10 said:

So in your view Singh has no chance in Quebec because of his overt religious symbols?  How did he do with delegates from Quebec in the NDP race?  You certainly raise a good point, the NDP, federally, is really a Quebec and BC party.

Singh is widely popular with Indian groups in Ontario.  He is young, charismatic, and charisma goes along way in politics.  Trudeau is also charismatic and young, and from Quebec.

The problem that the liberals will have outside of Quebec from what I can see, is that in alot of these ridings have ndp and liberal vote splitting in the riding which leads to conservative candidates getting elected.  Kinda like how the conservative vote was getting split up across different factions on the right until they united into one party.

 

I could see alot of the Quebec voters going more for Trudeau thanks to Singh overt religiousness and your comments on religion and quebec.  

The real question will be can Singh sway the toronto suburbs, which are the real battleground and never vote ndp traditionally.

Delegates from Québec are very uncomfortable with him. They had to correct him several times in the campain. Sometimes they litteraly told him to avoid some subjects. I think at this point, they are on damage control mode for the next few years. They will try to save their jobs. Plain and simple. So you can bet they will now prétend that Singh is a great leader that Canada needs. Even if they prayed days and nights that they would end up with anyone but him in the last race.

Alot of Québec people are very desapointed by Trudeau. It would have been easy for NPD to take back the advantage but, now with this, I think few will block their nose to avoid the stinks of the liberals and vote for them again. Or maybe we will assist to the return of the Bloc Québécois. Or maybe Scheer will manage to leave the shadow of Harper behind and make significant wins in Québec. Too early to say right now.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

Québec doesn't give a shit what your religious organization tells you to do. We consider that you must be intelligent enough to draw the line between what are the choices of the society and the orders from your religion. We know that some people are not able to understand and respect that difference. That's why we require a more explicit secularism than most of the people in the ROC does.

At risk of changing the topic I have to say I rather like this approach to religious rights.  I think we should do the same when it comes to parents and children, especially as it relates to genital mutilation.  The government should not be required to respect any parent's religious or cultural requirement for the circumcision of their children - such a call must only be at the discretion of a medical professional according to science and evidence based medical standards and protocols.  If a person decides to mutilate themselves when they reach adulthood they can do as they wish.

As for Singh, I won't be voting for him because he refused to outright condemn Talwinder Singh Parmar who murdered 280 Canadians in the bombing of Air India Flight 182 in 1985.  If there is anything that suggests Singh's ability to think straight will be compromised by fantastical thinking his treatment of the Air India bombing is it.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I don't put any religion above another.

Do you put them above science or justice?

Edited October 16, 2017 by eyeball

[August1991]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This reminds me of Kennedy having to reassure Americans in 1960 that he wouldn't put his religion above his nationality.

Kennedy?

Since Laurier in the 1890s, a century ago, we "Canadians" have been doing this for ages.

This guy Singh, he strikes me as a player/ignorant neophyte - a typical communal politician - immigrant in the New World.

=====

When he removes his turban, shows us his hair, then I'll take him seriously.

Edited October 16, 2017 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Such a curious Kennedy comparison in Canada:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.

Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. "  - Sen. Lloyd Bentsen - 1988

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly....MPP Jagmeet Singh Jimmy Dhaliwal is no Jack Kennedy.

Edited October 16, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[cannuck]

6 hours ago, Benz said:

You are totally off my point. I do not know if it is because you do not understand what I explained or if because the concept is out of your reach.

Does Kennedy had an ostentious catholic symbol its religion ordered him to wear? The choice of religion of Singh is not an issue. Not at all. His inability to take his distance from it and be secular while in function, that's the issue. I also explained you the position and the reasoning along with it. It's sad that you limited yourself to the comparison of simplistic protestants afraid of a catholic president.

I could not agree more.

ANYONE who puts religious beliefs ahead of rational thought is not playing with a full deck and has no business leading any democratic country 

The mess we have today is very much the product of PET's|"just society": (that is, a country that cares not about business, defence, etc., just society).   I suppose this explains why he named one of his spawns "JUSTin" - the one who is able to understand and respect nothing but his view of society.

Geez, in SIngh we have a socialist, and in Trudeau we have a socialite.   Pretty shallow field.

 

Edited October 16, 2017 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Benz said:

Again, you do not get the point. The "dagger" itself is not an issue in a day-to-day personal basis. It is an issue if you wear it during your functions as a PM. You have a serious difficulty to understand the difference because in your mindset, the spirituality of an indidividual and the constrainsts ordered by the religious organization are the same for you.

It's an issue for you, not so much for others.  The courts have already ruled on reasonable accommodation for religious garments, and have gone farther to accommodate religious headgear than this even, so this is ok.  I think 'constraints ordered by the religious organization' is an arbitrary way to decide whether the candidate's religion is a problem or not.  The candidate will decide whether or not to follow any such order, and religious garments aren't worth arguing about.

 

Joe Biden, VP of the USA, also followed religious commandments by rubbing ashes on his forehead which confused journalists in this clip:

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Benz said:

That is why you think you can simply say you do not mind about his religion. I do not mind about his religion as well. I mind about his unability to draw the difference and prove he is capable to not folliow a religious order. I beleive my explanations were quiet clear about it.

It's really not enough of an issue for me, and doesn't prove anything.  If it was more of an issue for Canadians, in general, I doubt he could have been elected leader.  Certainly he wouldn't have been elected in the 1970s, but things change.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Do you put them above science or justice?

Oh, God no.  At least I don't think so.  I don't think the government can legislate morality, so if a cult believes the quaint old notion that lusting after someone of the same gender puts you on track to hell then unfortunately we have to let that belief persist.  And that has policy implications too but it's off-thread.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. Such a curious Kennedy comparison in Canada:

2. Accordingly....MPP Jagmeet Singh Jimmy Dhaliwal is no Jack Kennedy.

1. I welcome your magnifying glass on Canadian wannabe-ism, and freely admit to looking to the founders of contemporary western democracy for examples.

2. He's not even a Ted Kennedy.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. This guy Singh, he strikes me as a player/ignorant neophyte - a typical communal politician - immigrant in the New World.

2. When he removes his turban, shows us his hair, then I'll take him seriously.

1. "Player" and "Neophyte" mean opposite things in modern parlance.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neophyte

Neophyte: someone new to something.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=player
Player: a male who is skilled at manipulating "playing" others

2. You're from Quebec.  People outside Quebec generally don't give a shit about these things.  The typical Toronto person knows far more Indian people than Quebeckers.  People outside Quebec also give less of a shit about Quebec than in 1976.

[Michael Hardner]

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/06/are-canadians-open-to-voting-for-a-turban-wearing-sikh.html

Relevant: 7/10 Canadians would vote for a man in a turban.  3/10 would not.  

[bush_cheney2004]

It's an old story, with no shortage of Canadian angles, despite the usual comparisons to American politics for more relevance:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/religion-and-politics-in-election-campaigns/article1062896/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/religion-and-politics-in-election-campaigns/article1062896/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

"Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama has been the subject of a false rumour campaign saying he's a Muslim,"    Glad that THAT was dealt with, and the perpetrators of said rumour relegated to the dustbin !

Look, to my mind the ideal of religious tolerance still has to meet with the practicality of what people will support.  Nobody complains when people from a riding, elect their boy/girl overwhelmingly.  So, to my mind, you have to treat Jagmeet Singh's reception among Sikhs or white Canadians as the inevitable result of 'home team' support.

I'd like to think that if he had really good ideas, he would win but NDP is more about playing to the base these days.  Maybe the best thing he will do is make POC believe that the door is somewhat open to them in this country.

[bush_cheney2004]

Meh...Jack Layton was more controversial than Jagmeet Singh, with moderate political success cut short by...death.

 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This reminds me of Kennedy having to reassure Americans in 1960 that he wouldn't put his religion above his nationality.  He had to do that because he wasn't protestant.  Harper didn't have to hide or downplay his religion.

Flatly untrue. Harper's religious beliefs were under a continuous attack from the Left from the moment he was named leader of the conservative party. 

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

Flatly untrue. Harper's religious beliefs were under a continuous attack from the Left from the moment he was named leader of the conservative party. 

I didn't say that, I said he didn't have to hide or downplay his religion.

[Argus]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't say that, I said he didn't have to hide or downplay his religion.

And I disagree. I never saw Harper even mention his religion in any respect in any way. I don't think that was an accident for a very observant and devout Christian. He obviously did feel the need to downplay it due to the relentlessly hostile attention he received for being a devout Christian. Had his religious beliefs required him to wear some sort of ostentatious clothing I have no doubt the Left would have collectively ridiculed him and it at every opportunity.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

And I disagree. I never saw Harper even mention his religion in any respect in any way. I don't think that was an accident for a very observant and devout Christian. He obviously did feel the need to downplay it due to the relentlessly hostile attention he received for being a devout Christian. Had his religious beliefs required him to wear some sort of ostentatious clothing I have no doubt the Left would have collectively ridiculed him and it at every opportunity.

He didn't mention it, ie. he didn't have to explain or apologize for it.  I don't recall him having to make any such statements so I disagree that he 'felt the need to downplay'.  Candidates don't generally mention religion, so Harper seems typical in these regard.

 If you have no doubt that the left would have ridiculed the hypothetical situation you describe, that's a different matter.