August 30, 2017

Jagmeet Singh is Justin Trudeau's “kryptonite”

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

On last night's show, our BC Bureau Chief Christopher Wilson joined me to discuss the ongoing NDP leadership race.

The race appears to be dominated by media darling Jagmeet Sing, who needs to expand outside his Toronto base to win a national leadership election.

WATCH to see why Chris thinks Singh will be Trudeau's "kryptonite" by picking up Liberal voters disillusioned by his broken promise on electoral reform.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-08-31 11:13:10 -0400
“Drew Wakariuk commented 17 hours ago
Karan Singh thank you for the knowledge, and i agree , if he has not learned from the past where m-103 and the like is heading, he is insane. A Sikh should know better. "

As a visible minority, he would be very aware of the the necessity of inclusiveness. The entire reason they come to Canada is to leave behind the tribalism.
commented 2017-08-30 18:16:58 -0400
Karan Singh it would still be quite comical watching the Libs walk on eggshells campaigning against him though.
commented 2017-08-30 18:16:12 -0400
Karan Singh thank you for the knowledge, and i agree , if he has not learned from the past where m-103 and the like is heading, he is insane. A Sikh should know better.
commented 2017-08-30 18:05:11 -0400
Karan Singh, Thanks a bunch! That’s amazing information. Much appreciated, too.
commented 2017-08-30 17:22:30 -0400
Part 2:
As East India Co. took over the parts of existing sikh army so were their attire (including turban). At that time a system of irregular soldiers (called siladar in vernacular) was prevalent in the regional army, where a set amount is paid monthly to soldier & he provides with his own horse & accouterments while drilling & fighting in the same formation as regular army. This system was discontinued around 1870’s & dropped altogether in the reorganisation of the British Indian Army in 1895. But, by that time turban had become an integral part of the British Indian Army and all soldiers sikhs, hindus & muslims (exception being 11 regiments of gurkhas) wear it including their British officers as ceremonial dress. It still is a part of many older regiments of modern Indian Army.
commented 2017-08-30 17:22:05 -0400
Now, coming to the issue of turban in British Army; as aforementioned, turban has been a part of indian culture only since mohammedan times. Turban was not exclusive to sikhs it was worn by hindus, muslims & sikhs alike because it had its own benefits in the battlefield; like stopping the blow from a sword (remember it’s pre-firearms age). After the second anglo-sikh war of 1848-49 when the kingdom of ranjit singh (sikh ruler) came under East India Co. rule they took over the command of a part of the sikh army (it had many punjabi hindus, muslims & few gurkhas, besides sikhs) majority of the army was disbanded after the war & their generals retired on generous pension. The remaining sikh army was re-formed on Bengal Native Army arrangement. By late 1840’s Bengal Army had already gone under several re-organisational changes and 3 costly wars (first anglo-afghan war & 2 anglo-sikh wars) thus was reduced to half of it’s original strength. Govern General Lord Dalhousie & his advisor brothers John & Henry Lawrence prudently thought of keeping a portion of the local sikh army largely to guard the border with Afghanistan and control few rebellious factions still operating in punjab. Although there’s no doubt the sikh army fought two wars with valor against it’s adversary (Bengal & British Army) it had NOTHING to do with the ‘superior’ martial qualities of the sikh warriors as many historians want us to believe. A thorough study of contemporary accounts presents a quite different picture. During the rebellion of 1857 it were not only the sikhs who stayed loyal to their British officers but almost all men (hindu, sikh & muslim) from the old sikh kingdom (punjab region) remained loyal & fought bravely against rebels & marauders. More than pure loyalty they had another good reason for sticking with the British they wanted to avenge their defeat at second anglo-sikh war of 1849 which was largely made possible due to the men now revolting against their British officers. It’s worth noting here that the other two branches of East India co. Army, Bombay Presidency Native Army & Madras Presidency Native Army, weren’t disaffected & remain loyal the the British during this rebellion.
commented 2017-08-30 17:19:52 -0400
Janice Kay, you are correct turban is NOT a part of sikh religion however, the reasons are somewhat different than mentioned in your comment.
Turban has been a part of indian culture since mohammedan invasion of india (10th century). There has been no evidence of turban in hindu/buddhist culture before islamic invasion.
Sikhism (or, khalsa to be precise) started around 320 years ago and it begin as a revival of hindu martial attributes in defiance of tyrannical mohammedan rule of the era in india. Besides many other restrictions & taxes (Jizya) under mohammedan rule the common hindus were barred from carrying any weapon, ride a horse or have long unshorn hairs (a characteristic of hindu saints). With varying degrees it carried over for several centuries until the 17th century when a head of hindu religious sect (guru gobind singh) decided enough is enough so he appealed to his followers to defy all the constraints set upon hindu population by mohammedan rulers. His followers, now called themselves khalsa (a persian word meaning: belong to the highest authority, in this case the lord), donning a warrior attire complete with a sword, turban & riding a horse stared an armed resistance movement against the mohammedan authority. The five article of faith as commended in sikhism (by guru gobind singh) are: unshorn hair, a small dagger, a steel bracelet, a comb and a boxer briefs (don’t ask me why a comb & boxer briefs, because even after much research & talking to many sikh scholars I haven’t got any satisfactory answer), there’s no mention of turban being a part of sikhism.
commented 2017-08-30 14:52:03 -0400
@Karan Singh, From my understanding the turban was proscribed in India by the British after the Rebellion of 1857, when they designated Sikhs as a Warrior caste, to be part of their uniform. It had nothing to do with their religion.
commented 2017-08-30 14:43:09 -0400
jagmeet singh has already shown his true colours by voting in favour of motion M-103.
He opposed Quebec’s Bill 62, which would require anybody offering or receiving public services to do so with faces uncovered. He’s an absolute stupid not to discern that with his aid once islam takes over Canada he’ll be the first to lose his dear turban.
By the way I don’t understand why people take these ugly clowns so seriously?? He doesn’t even understands his own religion properly, the turban he’s wearing was never a part of his faith, it’s nothing more than a pretension, a political statement in secular & free countries like Canada and an effrontery to Canadian society.