Singh Wins Federal NDP on 1st Ballot

[Argus]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

They certainly ridiculed Stockwell Day for his religious beliefs.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

They certainly ridiculed Stockwell Day for his religious beliefs.

Who is 'they' ?  Was it enough that he had to make a public statement ?  Where is the bar for this ?

Jagmeet Singh faces 30% disapproval.  Kennedy had to make a specific public statement.  What happened to Day ?  Was it people on the web making fun of him or more ?  Was it a journalist saying that his religious background would make it difficult for him to be objective ?  Was it a columnist saying that his religious background would be a problem for his electability ?  I certainly don't think, as you do, that he should be expected to not pay attention to his religion.  (ie. Your comments about Singh not being mainstream because he still pays attention to Sikh issues)

Let's find out the details and agree on a principle for how these things should be viewed by our public.

[bush_cheney2004]

Singh is no JFK in circumstance or purpose. Kennedy already had 14 years in the U.S. House/Senate, was a decorated war hero, and came from a very wealthy family with considerable party influence.  Singh didn't have to win primaries in many provinces.

JFK's "faith speech" was delivered to a gathering of Houston area ministers, and he used the resulting campaign collateral to further his gains in the polls, but he still faced organized opposition from Catholic bishops for issues that remain to this day (e.g. abortion).  Singh faces no such opposition.

Singh will not be able to do this in Canada (different system), but the good news for him is that he will not be shot in Dallas either.

 

Edited October 16, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[PIK]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

They certainly ridiculed Stockwell Day for his religious beliefs.

The media ripped him apart. I don't know why stock does that P & P show. Rosie seems to alway take a shot at stock, but he just brushes it off.

[H10]

On 10/15/2017 at 10:38 PM, Benz said:

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.

Why are they disappointed with trudeau?

[Benz]

7 hours ago, H10 said:

Why are they disappointed with trudeau?

He does not respect his own promises. Alot of people here voted for him because it was the best way to beat Harper. They did not really knew what they were doing. The hang over is difficult to recover. I do not have the time to exlain you everything that he does that the Québécois do not like. There are too many things. He is just not credible at all, very insignificant. Most of the people here call him mister selfy.

He is way too close to the religions. A prime minister should not show himself so much with religious organizations like that. Showing up with visible minorities and ethnical groups is very good, no problem at all. Showing with religious organizations, including those known for radicalism, it's another story.

KPMG and their clients... do I need to explain how much Trudeau is considered as a traitor?

In the campaign, he was blaming Harper regarding Raif Badawi, the spending in the military, the attitude toward the natives and many other things. But now he is doing worst than him, or just the same.

The debt... omg... I am not against investments that can bring long term benefits. But the spending he is actually doing is terrible. He is litterally wasting the money. He is trying really hard to be worst than his father on that.

Netflix... no tax. While canadian providers have to pay the tax. This is so wrong. He sets an unfair competition.

Despite I do not like Mulcair, he would have been better than him.

[Benz]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎16 at 7:13 AM, Michael Hardner said:

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:

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.

We are indeed very different on that. No, the court's decision is not ok. It is based on the constitution, which is not ok. It's not ok to allow religious organizations having such an ascending on the politics and rules. It is for you? Well good for you! We do not agree that the religions can have such priviledge over the people. Religious garments while occupying a functio of autority, are a sign that the person is not capable to seperate its religious beleifs from its role. It is an issue. Because we know too well that some people are not capable of placing the rules of the country above their religious beleifs. If their god are in contradiction to the rules of the country, their loyality lies with their god. Most of the time, those people wear religious garments. I do not mind if some people wearing religious garments are capable to make the difference. Because if they do, they won't see a problem with leaving their religious garments while in duty for such role.

Singh can beleive and practice the religion he wants. He can wear whatever that religion tells him to wear. But not when he is in position of autority. Because those religious practices are not his own. They belong to the religious organization and the religion should not have such priviledge in our society. They are suppose to serve spirituality. Nothing else.

 

[PIK]

We need Harper back. Now everyone knows Harper was a alright leadr, not perfect but solid.

[scribblet]

On 10/16/2017 at 11:38 AM, 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.

Exactly, as they did with Stockwell Day although he was more open about his beliefs.  The media would never ridicule any religion other than Christianity, they dare not do it.   The vitriol and speculation/innuendo/fearmongering about Harper's religious beliefs always amazed me because, as you say, he never discussed it and never brought forward legislation limiting women's choice, or any similar legislation.  

This is allready happening in Ontario as the unions try to smear Patrick Brown and the PCs with similar fear mongering even tho Brown has said he and the party support women's choice.   It doesn't matter what they say, the left knows how to throw mud and make it stick, big money talks.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

57 minutes ago, Benz said:

We are indeed very different on that. No, the court's decision is not ok. It is based on the constitution, which is not ok.  

 

The constitution is not 'ok' ?  Ok.  I'm not sure what you would replace it with but fine.

 

58 minutes ago, Benz said:

But not when he is in position of autority.

Yes he can.  

He won't, though because he won't win. 

[capricorn]

56 minutes ago, Benz said:

Singh can beleive and practice the religion he wants. He can wear whatever that religion tells him to wear. But not when he is in position of autority. Because those religious practices are not his own. They belong to the religious organization and the religion should not have such priviledge in our society. They are suppose to serve spirituality. Nothing else.

As party leader, Singh is aspiring to become Prime Minister. Supposing he did make it to the top job. He would not be allowed to enter Québec`s National Assembly while wearing a kirpan. Imagine the Prime Minister of Canada unable to enter the National Assembly because of wearing a religious symbol.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/sikhs-wearing-kirpans-denied-entry-to-national-assembly-1.597619

[PIK]

Remember stock and the sea doo? And how he was raked across the coals by the media, and yet trudeau jumps out at people half dressed and the media thinks it is cute.

Edited October 17, 2017 by PIK

[OftenWrong]

10 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Imagine the Prime Minister of Canada unable to enter the National Assembly because of wearing a religious symbol.

Imagine Stephen Harper as PM, wearing a giant cross on a chain around his neck. 

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, capricorn said:

As party leader, Singh is aspiring to become Prime Minister. Supposing he did make it to the top job. He would not be allowed to enter Québec`s National Assembly while wearing a kirpan. Imagine the Prime Minister of Canada unable to enter the National Assembly because of wearing a religious symbol.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/sikhs-wearing-kirpans-denied-entry-to-national-assembly-1.597619

This point from the article has never been answered for me:

Quote

 

"They could make a little bit of an effort, frankly,'' said Louise Beaudoin, who is the PQ's appointed critic for the issue of secularism.

"I think a lot of the onus is being placed on us, telling us how we have to accept this and that. It seems to me a different question should be asked and it should be asked of the people who absolutely insist on wearing either the burqa or the niqab, or the kirpan in the national assembly.''

 

 

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Imagine Stephen Harper as PM, wearing a giant cross on a chain around his neck. 

I don't think he ever did that.  Maybe because doing so just screams, "My religion comes before everything else."

[Guest]

What happens if one takes a religious symbol off for a while?  It's not lightning is it?  Do they go to Hell?  I can see it being an issue if they go to Hell, but otherwise, I would say removing any religious symbol when requested to is just reasonable accommodation.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

Remember stock and the sea doo? And how he was raked across the coals by the media, and yet trudeau jumps out at people half dressed and the media thinks it is cute.

His sea doo thing was a patently obvious attempt to show how young and vigorous he was compared to the old decrepit Trudeau. Politicians should never show up for an interview in a wet suit or a bathing suit - unless they're Ursula Andress. But he was also mocked endless about his belief in creationism. You think anyone will mock Singh's religious beliefs? Not likely!

 

[PIK]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

His sea doo thing was a patently obvious attempt to show how young and vigorous he was compared to the old decrepit Trudeau. Politicians should never show up for an interview in a wet suit or a bathing suit - unless they're Ursula Andress. But he was also mocked endless about his belief in creationism. You think anyone will mock Singh's religious beliefs? Not likely!

 

Unless you're Justin Trudeau.

[capricorn]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I would say removing any religious symbol when requested to is just reasonable accommodation.

That might be a problem if asking Singh to remove his turban. Although he did say he has nice hair and would show it depending on the circumstances.

[taxme]

On 10/16/2017 at 11:58 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Singh is no JFK in circumstance or purpose. Kennedy already had 14 years in the U.S. House/Senate, was a decorated war hero, and came from a very wealthy family with considerable party influence.  Singh didn't have to win primaries in many provinces.

JFK's "faith speech" was delivered to a gathering of Houston area ministers, and he used the resulting campaign collateral to further his gains in the polls, but he still faced organized opposition from Catholic bishops for issues that remain to this day (e.g. abortion).  Singh faces no such opposition.

Singh will not be able to do this in Canada (different system), but the good news for him is that he will not be shot in Dallas either.

 

Singh will just be another politically correct pro-multicultural mouth piece for the ones who run and rule Canada. 

If the NDP is suppose to be pro-people than why do they never bring up and want to discuss citizen initiated referendums and the right to recall? If there ever was a need or the time for this to be pushed and discussed by the NDP it is now that the NDP should be fighting for this in Canada.

But most likely that will never happen in Canada because all political party's don't believe that we the people should have a right or a say, like how it is done in Switzerland, as to how Canada will be ruled. Politicians like being the boss, and the people the slaves. It works better that way for them ,and to the detriment of the Canadian taxpayer. 

Does anyone believe that a christian minister of any party would stand a chance of getting elected leader of any political party in Canada wearing his/her christian robe or just wearing a big christian cross around his neck? Nope, sir. That person would be mocked and attacked to the point of no return by the mainstream stream politically correct fake news media. If anyone cannot see where Canada is headed than they are truly a stunned people. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

Unless you're Justin Trudeau.

What is the point of wearing a towel around ones head anyway? I just don't get these foreign religions that demand that their religious followers have to wear a turban on their head or a woman muslim has to wear a scarf around her head or a dark covered burka to cover up her body especially here in Canada? I thought that immigrants came to Canada to become Canadian and to get away from how they once lived and joined the host people and how they dressed and do things. Personally, making someone wearing a turban around his head a leader of a political party here in Canada is beyond me. I guess that we are starting to have to learn and realize that this is not the old Canada anymore that you and me were brought up in. A country that will not fight to keep their country as it is/was is not a country at all anymore. It has now become a country that will be run and ruled by foreigners. Oh the joy of it all. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, taxme said:

What is the point of wearing a towel around ones head anyway? I just don't get these foreign religions that demand that their religious followers have to wear a turban on their head or a woman muslim has to wear a scarf around her head or a dark covered burka to cover up her body especially here in Canada? I thought that immigrants came to Canada to become Canadian and to get away from how they once lived and joined the host people and how they dressed and do things. Personally, making someone wearing a turban around his head a leader of a political party here in Canada is beyond me. I guess that we are starting to have to learn and realize that this is not the old Canada anymore that you and me were brought up in. A country that will not fight to keep their country as it is/was is not a country at all anymore. It has now become a country that will be run and ruled by foreigners. Oh the joy of it all. 

 

All religions are pointless.  Choice still matters though.

[taxme]

34 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

All religions are pointless.  Choice still matters though.

I must agree. All religions are pretty much full of it. Wars have been fought over religions and many innocent people over the centuries have been killed because of religion. I have asked many religious people as to how they know that a god does exist, and all I get from them is "I know he does", and that is it.  No proof. Choice still matters is right. If you want to be led into believing that some god exists well go for it.  If it makes them fell happy great.

Myself, well this whole life thing makes no sense to me at all. I still have to keep asking and wondering as to where did god come from? He could not have just appeared, poof, like that. Who created him? If there was nothing galactic in the first place how does anything come from nothing? No one can answer me this. I have to quit now because I can feel my pea brain trying to explode thinking about it. Really. 

[PIK]

I never had a problem with people coming here, good for them. But leave the baggage at home and just become canadian be happy.

[August1991]

On 10/15/2017 at 9:52 PM, 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.

Precisely.

Wilfrid Laurier did the same in 1896.