Argus Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 This Singh guy, from India, the separatist whose radical followers managed to get him elected to the NDP leadership, has turned up in several videos lately, all meeting with Sikh radicals as they plan their campaign for a separate Sikh state. The Globe printed excterps from his speech at the first one, just a couple of years ago in California “Why do we talk about genocide, what happened to us?” Mr. Singh said, speaking in Punjabi that was translated into English for The Globe and Mail. “We are talking about it because, in our country where we live, that country intentionally tried to wipe us out, that in that country it was a planned process to attack the Golden Temple.” Notice how he refers to India as "our country"? He refused to give an interview to the Globe about the video and refused to condemn the terrorists involved. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jagmeet-singh-attended-sikh-separatist-rally-in-2015/4 A second video emerged today showing another meeting with Sikh radical, this one in the UK. He sure does get around, doesn't he? He jets from India to America to the UK to meet with Sikh radicals in his apparently determined quest for a Sikh homeland in India. One wonders just what interest he has in Canada other than using it as a base to enhance the chances of a Sikh state. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/as-jagmeet-singh-condemns-terrorism-second-video-shows-him-speaking-alongside-sikh-separatist/wcm/717b0fb2-3424-43e9-9f39-7d22aa39a83d 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Who knows? Perhaps Canada would be a good place for a Sikh homeland, lots of space and welcoming of radicals and extremists of all types. Not to mention that there is no core identity in Canada and it's the first post national state. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 1 minute ago, AngusThermopyle said: Who knows? Perhaps Canada would be a good place for a Sikh homeland, lots of space and welcoming of radicals and extremists of all types. Not to mention that there is no core identity in Canada and it's the first post national state. Anybody else getting a wee bit tired of being told we are not a country and have no identity and culture? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centerpiece Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 When you recklessly pander for ethnic votes, sometimes it comes back to bite you. Liberals and the NDP have been finding that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 A part of this story which might have passed overlooked Canada is home to the world’s largest Sikh population outside India, which helped elect 17 Sikh Canadians to Parliament in the 2015 election. Seriously? Are there that many Sikhs in parliament? These people have been extremely busy politically. They're less than 1.5% of the population, but they take over local riding associations by having everyone in the local temples go down and plonk down a few bucks to buy a membership card to ensure THEIR guy is candidate. The problem with this is the Sikhs in Canada are mostly foreign born and appear to be obsessed with India and Sikh separatism. Even Singh who was born in Canada, has spent much of his life jaunting around the world in pursuit of a Sikh homeland in India. A few years ago he persuaded the disgusting Wynne government in Ontario to declare the Indian government attack on their golden temple in India "genocide" which is ludicrous in every rational sense of the word. It also ignores that this temple was packed with armed and violent radicals and terrorists who had been murdering government officials. Almost a thousand Indian soldiers died in the attack. You can imagine what that did to Ontario's chances of trade deals with India. But guys like Singh don't seem to care about Canada's interests. The federal Liberals, similarly influenced by their frantic pursuit of Sikh votes has basically made the Indian government an enemy, ignoring Canada's best interests in pursuit of immigrant voters. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jagmeet-singh-attended-seminar-with-sikh-youth-leader-who-advocated/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herples Posted March 16, 2018 Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 Jagmeet Singh was born in Ontario, Canada so it is very strange to call him a foreigner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 16, 2018 Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 1 hour ago, herples said: Jagmeet Singh was born in Ontario, Canada so it is very strange to call him a foreigner. More foreign (barely) than himself is what Argus meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, herples said: Jagmeet Singh was born in Ontario, Canada so it is very strange to call him a foreigner. He refers to India as his country where he lives. his week, reports in The Globe gave details of Mr. Singh’s appearances at two different events promoting Sikh separatism. At one of them, he talked as if India were his own homeland. In a speech he gave there, he accused India of “genocide,” and described it as something that happened to “us.” His use of the first person was striking. He described India as “our country where we live” – a startling use of language for a born-and-bred Canadian politician. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-strange-loyalties-of-jagmeet-singh/ Edited March 16, 2018 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 16, 2018 Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Argus said: He refers to India as his country where he lives. And his real name is Jimmy Dhaliwal. Edited March 16, 2018 by PIK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted March 16, 2018 Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 There is a foreigner as your head of state and it seems to bother no-one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, -TSS- said: There is a foreigner as your head of state and it seems to bother no-one. The Queen is the embodiment of the state. All Canadians are her subjects and she cannot be her own subject. But she is not a foreigner. She does not hold a British passport. She travels on a passport she issues herself as Queen. More to the point she does not legislate, so there are no fears she will bring her 'foreign' agenda into play when making laws and policies for us. Edited March 16, 2018 by Argus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 What's the big deal ? Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff once said he was an American at a university commencement speech, and said "America is your country just as much as it is mine". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 On 3/15/2018 at 11:45 PM, herples said: Jagmeet Singh was born in Ontario, Canada so it is very strange to call him a foreigner. But he insists on wearing a wrap on his head - indeed, we don't know how long his hair is. ======= When Wilfrid Laurier became PM in 1896, his cabinet was entirely Anglo. Why? Laurier knew that he was the first federal Canadian PM with a francophone name from Quebec. (BTW, Laurier was not Canada's first Roman Catholic federal PM.) === We in Canada have dealt with these kind of issues for many, many years - generally, in a civilised manner. IMHO, Jagmeet Singh should do as Wilfrid Laurier, and remove his headdress. Federal Canada is more than religious identification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 Parties usually pick leaders whom they expect to lead the party to the best possible election-result. Perhaps the NDP believe that this guy can do it. There are some exceptions though. For example the Swedish Social Democratic Party which until very recently was in effect a state within a state. It has always had a strict hierarchy which includes rules for succession and when it is someone's "turn" to be the leader then that person must be the leader, no matter if there would have been better alternatives on offer. I'm thinking especially of Mona Sahlin, whom everyone knew she would be a disaster for a party-leader, but it was her "turn" to be leader in the 2010 elections and unsurprisingly she led the party to an election-defeat. More recently, as far as I have followed the Swedish politics, the SDP in Sweden have relaxed the hierarchy and pick the leader who actually wins elections. They are currently back in power. p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herples Posted March 18, 2018 Report Share Posted March 18, 2018 On 16/03/2018 at 7:48 AM, Argus said: He refers to India as his country where he lives. his week, reports in The Globe gave details of Mr. Singh’s appearances at two different events promoting Sikh separatism. At one of them, he talked as if India were his own homeland. In a speech he gave there, he accused India of “genocide,” and described it as something that happened to “us.” His use of the first person was striking. He described India as “our country where we live” – a startling use of language for a born-and-bred Canadian politician. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-strange-loyalties-of-jagmeet-singh/ Like I said he is born and raised in Canada he isn't a foreigner. Pandering to a group of people is what politicians do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 On 3/17/2018 at 11:29 PM, herples said: he isn't a foreigner. Pandering to a group of people is what politicians do. You cannot deny that he identifies primarily with India, else why would he meddle in India's politics? As for pandering, he panders to a group of Sikhs that advocate violence in pursuit of their goal of breaking off from India. It's really not that difficult to comprehend. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) On 3/17/2018 at 11:29 PM, herples said: Like I said he is born and raised in Canada he isn't a foreigner. Pandering to a group of people is what politicians do. ..... Pandering to Sikhs? As a method to win a riding nomination, doable. Win the riding? Possible. Win a leadership of a minor federal party? Depends on the party. ======= "...isn't a foreigner"? Sorry, if he wears a religious symbol always, for many older Canadians - he's an ignorant foreigner. In Canada, trust me, we have no desire to relive religious disputes/wars. ===== Jagmeet, Jimmy, please remove your headdress (sometimes) and show that you represent all Canadians. Edited March 20, 2018 by August1991 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 On 3/15/2018 at 11:45 PM, herples said: Jagmeet Singh was born in Ontario, Canada so it is very strange to call him a foreigner. He refers to India as his country. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 On 3/17/2018 at 11:29 PM, herples said: Pandering to a group of people is what politicians do. Which has got to stop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 Isn't the NDP a slightly left-leaning party which means their voters are xenophiles therefore they don't mind if their leader is considered as a foreigner by the supporters of other parties? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) In 1896, many WASPs voted for a Roman Catholic. In 1958, many Roman Catholics voted for a Protestant. In 1955, many WASPs voted for Nathan Phillips, and he became Toronto's first Jewish Mayor. After election, Nathan Phillips famously said: "I represent everyone, all the people." IMHO, Canada is a civilised society because we are not tribal. Why? ===== Make no mistake: Trudeau (father - still less son) never enjoyed tribal support. And there has always been a few protestant anglos willing to vote for the catholic franco. Again, why? Edited March 24, 2018 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) Btw, Canada's first Roman Catholic federal PM was not Laurier. It was a Conservative: John Thompson. Moreover, Ontario's first premier (1867) was also Roman Catholic. ====== Canada has a long history of individuals in a group willing to cross "tribal lines" and choose someone from another group. Why? =============== I suspect that at the federal level, we don't like appeals to ethnicity, religion. We prefer federal politicians who cross lines. (For example, a politician who is both religious, but not obviously practicing.) 1. In Quebec, this means a federal politician (likely bad in French) who will leave us alone. 2. In Ontario, this means a politician who will maintain the status quo. Edited March 24, 2018 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinkinoutsidethebox Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 I'm constantly being told Canada has no talent, we have to import it. Why would it be any different for our leadership? Hell, even Jr might be half Cuban... 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herples Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 On 2018-03-20 at 3:30 AM, betsy said: He refers to India as his country. Doesn't make him a foreigner since you know he was born in Canada. On 2018-03-19 at 9:48 AM, capricorn said: You cannot deny that he identifies primarily with India, else why would he meddle in India's politics? As for pandering, he panders to a group of Sikhs that advocate violence in pursuit of their goal of breaking off from India. It's really not that difficult to comprehend. And none of that makes him a foreigner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 25, 2018 Report Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, herples said: Doesn't make him a foreigner since you know he was born in Canada. And none of that makes him a foreigner. You're wrong. All of that makes him a foreigner! He may be born here (I don't know).....but he claims he is born in India (by calling India his homeland). Homeland is defined as the country you were born in. To reject Canada as his homeland (if he's born here)....what more can we say about that? Here are the definitions by Merriam. Foreigner: a person belonging to or owing allegiance to a foreign country chiefly dialectal : one not native to a place or community it He claims India to be his homeland. Therefore....he is a foreigner. Edited March 25, 2018 by betsy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.