Jagmeet Singh Strips Niki Ashton Of Her Critic Role

Jagmeet certainly read the room correctly. People are rightfully incensed by these actions whether it was a luxuary getaway to St. Barts or a trip to visit an ailing grandparent. People all across the country have been making sacrifices and limiting travel and even in-community visits to loved ones because of the pandemic. It is absolutely tone deaf to do otherwise as a public representative who is counselling citizens to make these sacrifices. I am sorry that Nikki Ashton felt that her time with her grandmother was so important that she could send out a message of great self-entitlement. This is a huge disconnect for people who have not been able to see family for so many months - sometimes even within their own city.  My neighbour hasn't seen her husband since mid-January because of his location and obligations. All in all, I can fully understand this backlash against these choices, even if not illegal by the letter of the law.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

So my mom can't visit my grandmother in her Hamilton retirement home, as it won't admit people due to COVID.  

And I can't visit my uncle in Hagersville over Christmas, even if it's likely his last one.

My kids can't see their grandparents, whom they haven't visited since February.

By the time this is over, my wife will have not seen her parents in Eastern Ontario more than two years.

And some people don't even get to say goodbye, in person, if their family members are in hospital dying.

But Nikki Ashton can go to an airport, ride on a plane, go to another airport, ride on another plane, go to another airport, likely either rent a car or take transit or ride in a car with someone that's not her family, and visit someone in another country (and repeat this on the way back)?

"Ailing" or not ... holy heck is that ever entitlement.

Her punishment isn't an anti-socialist plot. It's punishment for her insane level of entitlement (and probably her bad judgment too.) New Democrat or not. The right values or not. She should be ashamed of herself.

Jagmeet doesn't do a lot right but he nailed this one.

The retirement homes have their own rules. If her grandmother were living alone elsewhere she would be permitted to see her. (People living alone are allowed contact with one other household). 

Which of the rest were dying? People are allowed to enter Canada to visit a dying relative. Any and all Canadians were and still are free to do what Ashton did. 

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole has accepted MP David Sweet’s resignation as chair of the House of Commons’ information, privacy and ethics committee after it was revealed that a trip by Sweet to the U.S. included “leisure” travel not permitted by O’Toole’s office, a spokesperson for the leader’s office told iPolitics on Monday.

Sweet had gone to the U.S. for “a property issue,” but then decided to continue travelling for pleasure without informing his party’s whip.

“Mr. O’Toole has accepted his resignation as a Committee Chair,” Chelsea Tucker, O’Toole’s press secretary, wrote in an email to iPolitics.

Nor will he seek re-election to Parliament, Sweet said Monday.

https://ipolitics.ca/2021/01/04/conservative-mp-david-sweet-out-as-ethics-committee-chair-after-u-s-trip/

It appears that Jason Kenney is the one who is going to pay the political price 

I like Singh's appraoch and the NDP could benefit from it in the next election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_44th_Canadian_fede...

Property issues as an excuse is also freaking tone deaf. You make arrangements with locals to deal with your home if you can't get there yourself. These are politicians who can afford to have a second home outside the country. They are obviously well heeled enough to pay for professional services to take care of their properties.

It's just the typical Liberal pile on nonsense.

melovesproles wrote:

I think our biggest difference in perspective on this is that I think governments and public health officials are less leading the public than being pushed by it. That’s great that you are not motivated by fear, but your opinion is a minority one and it is not surprising that governments and public health officials have to give more weight to the views held by the wider public. That is how democracy works.

I think there's a great deal of truth to that as well. Queen's University professor doctor Matt Strauss pointed out that it was public panic, not the guidance of public health experts that resulted in government lockdowns. People see news stories about the pandemic, and they want the government to "do something." You also have the problem of media outlets and social media companies being arbiters of "the science," and whenever there's a conflict, the media tends to accept the government officials at their word as being the authority. It's ironic that the (up until recently) lax approach of Sweden was derided as being "anti-science," when it was their state epidemiologist who was in charge the whole time. I also think that's the reason that Bonnie Henry has gained the following she has in Canada (probably moreso even than Theresa Tam) because, unlike everyone else, she's dealt with this before. She knew what was doing, and whatever issues I have with her, I have to give her credit for dealing with a surging second wave while clearing a backlog of surgeries and keeping amenities like indoor pools and libraries open during this time.

In any case, Ashton isn't the only politician under scrutiny for family gatherings:

Quote:

An Ontario MPP is facing backlash after sharing a photo of a large family gathering this week, in apparent defiance of provincial lockdown rules.

Randy Hillier has been outspoken about provincial restrictions throughout the pandemic and posted a picture on social media on Dec. 27 of what appears to be his family celebrating Christmas dinner.

The happy scene goes against the provincial lockdown rules prohibiting indoor social gatherings with anyone outside of your household.

Say what you want about Hillier, but flouting rules that you are openly criticizing is not nearly as bad as flouting rules that you expect other people to follow.

eastnoireast wrote:

ordinary people are sacrificing much, there is no plan, we aren't building critical capacity, or fundamentaly changing how we do things, or supporting people adequately; we haven't hit bottom.

This point cannot be stressed enough.

And the devil take the hindmost.

So have the NDP polling numbers shot through the roof since throwing Ashton under the bus for visiting her dying grandmother?

melovesproles wrote:

We're not in this together.

I think a  good example of this was the Covid outbreak at Big White Ski Resort. All the blame was placed on the staff who committed the dual sins of living in cramped housing and socializing. Absolutely no reflection on whether the bougiest of luxury sports should go on during a pandemic. Business owners and luxury consumers have far more rights than workers. This was always true in our Capitalist system but its becoming more and more apparent in Covid times. Too bad there isn't a workers party out there.

In all seriousness, how bad was the outbreak? I know there were many cases, but how many of these are people who simply tested positive for covid but otherwise would have had no reason to suspect they are sick? Are there many people becoming seriously sick with this outbreak?

I take your point about the issue of luxury events going on during a pandemic as if it is a priority. That said, skiing is an active, outdoor activity that I think we should be encouraging more of to be in good shape anyways. Is this particular outbreak a big threat to public health, or was the resort simply unlucky and the media is in "Oh-my-god-the-ski-resort-had-a-covid-outbreak" mode while new outbreaks in elder care homes are announced and merely swept under the rug because they are so common?

Yeah, I get that. But that gets to the crux of the debate about what is essential and what is not, and how that decision is made. I don't even ski myself, but I don't like having someone else decide for me what I can or can't do, so I'm not going to adovcate doing that for anyone else. I think one of the issues with resentment about the covid restrictions are about what is allowed and what isn't why are you allowed to do this but I'm not allowed to do that, and on it goes. And if someone likes to ski, then there's an argument that allowing it leads to better mental health, better overall health, yada yada yada. If people lived at the ski resort, then that is of course a risk in these times. Would there have been some way to mitigate that risk while still allowing things go to ahead?

Speaking of risks, why are we all of a sudden worried about covid, and yet traffic accidents of people on the way to or from the slopes or people being injured while on the slopes isn't a big deal or the subjet of days-long running news stories?

Speaking of risks, why are we all of a sudden worried about covid, and yet traffic accidents of people on the way to or from the slopes or people being injured while on the slopes isn't a big deal or the subjet of days-long running news stories?

Do you really need help with that question? These weak analogies and complete inability to understand what everyone else is saying make you sound like a child. Car crashes and ski accidents aren't contagious. And there have been lots of laws that have been passed to reduce deaths caused by traffic accidents which "tell people what to do or not do." Do you have the same problem with DUI, speeding and seat belt laws? This is high school debate club stuff completely divorced from the real world. 

If people lived at the ski resort, then that is of course a risk in these times. Would there have been some way to mitigate that risk while still allowing things go to ahead

Ski Resorts depend on low paid labour (often from other provinces/countries) with the trade off that that labour is in it for the lifestyle which includes access to the slopes and the aprez-ski lifestyle. It should have been obvous that this year was going to have to be different. Wages should have gone up significantly with the understanding that this was going to be a different year. I think that could have helped to create a different culture in worker behaviour this year instead of just dumping on workers.

But that gets to the crux of the debate about what is essential and what is not, and how that decision is made. I don't even ski myself, but I don't like having someone else decide for me what I can or can't do, so I'm not going to adovcate doing that for anyone else. I think one of the issues with resentment about the covid restrictions are about what is allowed and what isn't why are you allowed to do this but I'm not allowed to do that, and on it goes. And if someone likes to ski, then there's an argument that allowing it leads to better mental health, better overall health, yada yada yada.

Yeah I agree that is the crux. And I have a lot of sympathy for the need to balance Covid restrictions with policies that lead to better mental health. I don't believe that 'not liking being bossed around' is the most important political principle to take into account although like most people I don't like being bossed around. I have said before that I have appreciated Bonnie Henry's early approach (I say early because that was when I watched the press conferences.) She asked people to pull together and care about each other and when reporters pointed out someone that was doing something inappropriate, she usually answered that it's best not to get too judgemental about people we don't know. There could be good reasons for their actions and it's better to control what we do than go around shaming others. That's the approach I like. 

The Federal NDP didn't make that argument. They did their usual media managed poll chasing even though it's never worked for them.

melovesproles wrote:

Speaking of risks, why are we all of a sudden worried about covid, and yet traffic accidents of people on the way to or from the slopes or people being injured while on the slopes isn't a big deal or the subjet of days-long running news stories?

Do you really need help with that question? These weak analogies and complete inability to understand what everyone else is saying make you sound like a child. Car crashes and ski accidents aren't contagious. And there have been lots of laws that have been passed to reduce deaths caused by traffic accidents which "tell people what to do or not do." Do you have the same problem with DUI, speeding and seat belt laws? This is high school debate club stuff completely divorced from the real world.

First of all, the flu is contagious, and even during the pandemic of 2009-2010, we never went to these extreme lengths. As for your analogy to seatbelts and impaired driving, what happened in that case was we were presented with evidence for their harms, and collectively as a society we took action. With covid, what's happened is that we were suddenly innundated, by the media, with the idea that we need to massively change our lives. Everything was imposed on the top, without much discussion or input from the population at large. It's one thing to slightly modify your behaviour (i.e. a strap of fabric across your lap while you are in the car, or make sure you have a safe ride home when you go out to party) but a complete overhaul of every aspect of our daily lives needs more discussion, debate, scrutiny, and skepticim than has been permitted with covid.

melovesproles wrote:

If people lived at the ski resort, then that is of course a risk in these times. Would there have been some way to mitigate that risk while still allowing things go to ahead

Ski Resorts depend on low paid labour (often from other provinces/countries) with the trade off that that labour is in it for the lifestyle which includes access to the slopes and the aprez-ski lifestyle. It should have been obvous that this year was going to have to be different. Wages should have gone up significantly with the understanding that this was going to be a different year. I think that could have helped to create a different culture in worker behaviour this year instead of just dumping on workers.

One of the things that I have long advocated is to scrap the temporary foreign worker program completely. I disagree with immigration for economic reasons because it is simply a means for employers to exploit cheap labour. (Family reunification and refugee settlement are completely different things, both of which I support because they are more humane.) Maybe employers paying workers enough so that people will want to apply is part of the solution.

melovesproles wrote:

I have a lot of sympathy for the need to balance Covid restrictions with policies that lead to better mental health. I don't believe that 'not liking being bossed around' is the most important political principle to take into account although like most people I don't like being bossed around. I have said before that I have appreciated Bonnie Henry's early approach (I say early because that was when I watched the press conferences.) She asked people to pull together and care about each other and when reporters pointed out someone that was doing something inappropriate, she usually answered that it's best not to get too judgemental about people we don't know. There could be good reasons for their actions and it's better to control what we do than go around shaming others. That's the approach I like.

Your vantage point matters in how your views form, and I think we have had fundamentally different experiences because we live in different provinces. Dr. Henry, at least at the start, was more balanced and measured in her communication and tried to remind people to be kind throughout this crisis. I feel that approach by medical officials has, throughout the Western world, been the exception. All the press conferences are focused on covid, how you can stop covid, why you shouldn't give anyone else covid, and on it goes. Meanwhile, as I said upthread, imposing restrictions and fighting amongst ourselves leaves the politicians who allowed this mess off the hook. Manitoba had a deadly second wave this past fall, yet the Pallister government had not made any preparations. Meanwhile, he imposed restrictions that closed a great many public spaces which by now have been in effect for 2 and a half months. I don't think it's a coincidence that governments that don't help their people are also ready to impose restrictions. I did mention upthread that I appreciate that libraries and pools are open in BC, even though specific restrictions (i.e. sign up in advance, follow the arrows, maintain distancing) are too strict for my preferences.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Health care systems have been overwhelmed for a long time.

Covid is causing the mass cancellation of surgeries and requiring the construction of field hospitals. Mass cancellation of surgeries and the opening of field hospitals have not been happening before Covid. I think this COVID-19 "debate" has become pointless. This debate is like the pointless debate over climate change. Deniers  of climate change and deniers of COVID-19 are mostly impervious to rational argument.

Webgear wrote:

Head of Radio-Canada spent month of December in his Miami condo despite public health warnings | National Post

Of course the irony is that it's the CBC that has led the charge in branding the coronavirus as the new plague and cheering on lockdowns this entire time.

cco wrote:

Can we talk about Niki Ashton being stripped of her critic role in this thread, instead of making it the umpteenth thread to argue over whether COVID is a hoax?

Thank you.  Also, can we please let go of the ridiculous idea that the measures taken to reduce the COVID infection/transmission rate are the cause of every problem in Canada's healthcare system?  It's not as though every other communicable disease would be totally in hand if only it weren't for COVID?  Canada's healthcare system has been screwed up massively since at least the Mulroney era- COVID has essentially nothing  to do with that-  and there is especially no connection between the issues in the Canadian healthcare system and masking or social distancing, neither of which impose any real costs on the healthcare system at all.

Such outrage over stupid trips with all the huge betrayals going on. It's a distraction. Privileged people are privileged. I'm shocked. I'm shocked that anyone is shocked. But it shows what hypocrites they all are! you say.  We don't already know that?  This will have zero impact on the election and offers no new insights.

I mostly agree but think it could have some impact in reinforcing narratives in Provincial politics in Alberta and Ontario where the governments are seen as bungling the Pandemic response. 

It's not shocking the Federal NDP didn't have the guts to stand by their member and point out the difference between visiting a dying relative and going on a beach holiday. It is also not shocking that there were a lot of NDP partisans on here who thought this would benefit the party's support becaus it polled well in the media. For a while now the NDP has been less a political movement and more a marketing firm furiously studying polls to knoow what positions to take in the hope of growing the brand.

Well, well, well:

Quote:

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is apologizing after a video obtained by Global News shows him breaking COVID-19 restrictions and spending unmasked time in close quarters with an individual who is not from his household.

The footage, which the party confirmed seems “legitimate,” shows Singh exiting a car with Taranvir Dhaliwal, who works as an executive assistant for Singh’s brother Gurratan — a provincial NDP MPP.

Neither Singh nor Dhaliwal are wearing masks, and the two share a hug before walking away together.

Singh had been attending a drive-in Iftar event in Mississauga with Dhaliwal before driving back to Singh’s family home, where he has been living with his parents and siblings throughout the pandemic.

“Like most Canadians, I’ve done my best to follow public health advice. Coming back from this event, I did not do enough to follow that advice and I’m sorry,” Singh said in a statement emailed to Global News.

This after throwing under the bus one of his own MPs who chose to visit an ill family member at a difficult time. Not to mention also smearing as racist anyone who questions the covid restrictions, all the while not having lost a dime in pay throughout this pandemic. But it is all okay because he said, "sorry."

Voters of Burnaby South, please do the country a favour and vote this man out of office at the next available opportunity. It does not matter if this seat falls to the Liberals, considering that not only the NDP but the entire Parliament has rolled over and allowed the Liberals to do whatever they please without any real checks on their power.

This is a good thread for this story. I could care less that Singh hugged his friend but hypochrisy is never a good look. It also isn't good that the NDP's positions have been so substance-free and performative. That makes stories like this that are substance-free and performative more powerful. I doubt this will have huge legs but it will be referenced in the debates for sure.

lagatta4 wrote:

I'd prefer they found an actual socialist - or better yet, ecosocialist - to vote in. While not perfect, Ashton would be a lot better than Singh.

Yeah I agree. Ashton seems like one of the few MPs that has any connection with international politics outside of just parroting Liberal/Conservative positions.

melovesproles wrote:

lagatta4 wrote:

I'd prefer they found an actual socialist - or better yet, ecosocialist - to vote in. While not perfect, Ashton would be a lot better than Singh.

Yeah I agree. Ashton seems like one of the few MPs that has any connection with international politics outside of just parroting Liberal/Conservative positions.

Given the utter failure of Parliament as a whole to stand up to Justin Trudeau during the pandemic (including the NDP's capituation on the Internet Censorship Bill and enabling it to get to this point) I'm leaning towards the belief that none of the MPs currently serving deserve to be re-elected.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

melovesproles wrote:

lagatta4 wrote:

I'd prefer they found an actual socialist - or better yet, ecosocialist - to vote in. While not perfect, Ashton would be a lot better than Singh.

Yeah I agree. Ashton seems like one of the few MPs that has any connection with international politics outside of just parroting Liberal/Conservative positions.

Given the utter failure of Parliament as a whole to stand up to Justin Trudeau during the pandemic (including the NDP's capituation on the Internet Censorship Bill and enabling it to get to this point) I'm leaning towards the belief that none of the MPs currently serving deserve to be re-elected.

What's 'deserve' got to do with anything? I agree that the censorship bill was bad but its hardly the first bad position the NDP has taken. I would have voted for a Lascaris-led Green party but as it stands it looks like it is going to be the same story of trying to elect the best possible MP.

I don't see the NDP making or losing much ground. I think a Liberal majority would have been worse. I know people who wouldn't have been able to collect CERB under how the Liberals originally constructed it which completely missed the fact that a massive section of the workforce was juggling temp/part-time/contract work and was solely focused on their middle-class base.

Canadians don't 'deserve' a Liberal majority.

Sadly most Canadians deserve the people they elect.