Les Armstrong's racist FB post

[tomh009]

Alas, I don't think any recall mechanism exists for elected municipal officials. If he feels no shame, he won't resign and he'll hang in until the next municipal election.

And possibly be re-elected with a plurality. Thank you, First Past the Post!

He barely got elected last time, so I don't think his re-election chances look very good.

[jeffster]

It doesn’t make him racist though, it simply makes him tone deaf and ignorant.

There's this thing going on where being called racist is perceived as a massive insult. We need to stop that.

I'm racist, and willing to bet everyone born and raised in this part of the world at the same time I was is, and before, and almost certainly today. My kids are almost certainly racist.

I don't say that to insult us all, I say it because that's what systemic racism does. We are all living it and acclimatized to a racist society. We don't see all the ways in which we're racist, and that ignorance of our selves makes it really hard to make change.

I view it sort of like acknowledging that you're an addict. Acknowledging that you hold racist beliefs and perform racist actions is the first step towards change. It's the exact same situation with Jagmeet Singh and that Bloc MP. The act of being called racist is perceived as a far greater offence than whatever racist actions we did.

We are all racist. We are all sexist, too, and ableist. Our society programs prejudice into us.

Can’t argue there. It’s something we all need to work on.

As for Jagmeet Singh, regardless if he’s right or wrong, he shouldn’t have done what he did. Our Parliament has certain rules, and Jagmeet disrespected our system by what he did. And it always reminds me how out of touch with reality the NDP can be at times. I recall the 2015 election and the NDP said if they won the election, they’d do away with the Senate. This excited some people. No matter how you feel about it, though, no government can simply get rid of certain functions of our Parliament. Getting rid of the Senate would require the agreement of the provinces. In Jagmeet’s circumstance, you’re not allowed to do what he did. If it was outside of Parliament, that is different. You have to hold MP’s, and indeed the leaders, to higher standards, especially when they’re on the job and inside Parliament.

[robdrimmie]

As for Jagmeet Singh, regardless if he’s right or wrong, he shouldn’t have done what he did. Our Parliament has certain rules, and Jagmeet disrespected our system by what he did.

You mean the system that promotes and encourages white supremacy? Nah man, I can't agree with you on this. Just because rules exist doesn't mean they should be blindly followed.

I agree that he had to be expelled, and that expulsion was the action the Speaker had to take, because yes you're correct: Those are the rules. But rules that prevent members of our parliament from calling out racist behaviour (and that of other systemic prejudices) are imperfect rules.

You have to hold MP’s, and indeed the leaders, to higher standards, especially when they’re on the job and inside Parliament.

Singh's actions clearly prove that he does hold our parliament to a higher standard. Our parliament does not meet that standard.

[danbrotherston]

There's this thing going on where being called racist is perceived as a massive insult. We need to stop that.

I'm racist, and willing to bet everyone born and raised in this part of the world at the same time I was is, and before, and almost certainly today. My kids are almost certainly racist.

I don't say that to insult us all, I say it because that's what systemic racism does. We are all living it and acclimatized to a racist society. We don't see all the ways in which we're racist, and that ignorance of our selves makes it really hard to make change.

I view it sort of like acknowledging that you're an addict. Acknowledging that you hold racist beliefs and perform racist actions is the first step towards change. It's the exact same situation with Jagmeet Singh and that Bloc MP. The act of being called racist is perceived as a far greater offence than whatever racist actions we did.

We are all racist. We are all sexist, too, and ableist. Our society programs prejudice into us.

Can’t argue there. It’s something we all need to work on.

As for Jagmeet Singh, regardless if he’s right or wrong, he shouldn’t have done what he did. Our Parliament has certain rules, and Jagmeet disrespected our system by what he did. And it always reminds me how out of touch with reality the NDP can be at times. I recall the 2015 election and the NDP said if they won the election, they’d do away with the Senate. This excited some people. No matter how you feel about it, though, no government can simply get rid of certain functions of our Parliament. Getting rid of the Senate would require the agreement of the provinces. In Jagmeet’s circumstance, you’re not allowed to do what he did. If it was outside of Parliament, that is different. You have to hold MP’s, and indeed the leaders, to higher standards, especially when they’re on the job and inside Parliament.

He did? I'm not familiar with the specific rules of parliamentary proceedings, but "racist" isn't an obscene word. So which rule did he actually break? I also do recall seeing a citation (mind you from the early 70s), showing a white MP called another MP racist, without being punished for it. Now, I cannot locate it, but it's a question at least worth asking.

I would guess, that at best, this is a matter of interpretation of the rules, and it is being interpreted in a way which benefits the status quo white dominance of our country.

There are similarities to the situation with the statue in Baden. Under a reasonable interpretation of the laws, those who cleaned the paint off the statue in contravention of the stated policy of the Wilmot Council (that the paint remain) are EQUALLY guilty of the crime of vandalism as those who threw paint on the statue in contravention of the implied policy of the same council (that there should not be paint on the statue). Yet, WRPS, the newspaper, and the vast majority of the public take these actions as completely different.

Interpretation is part of every system of rules, it cannot be separated, and it is something that is entirely context dependent, and our context is racist. Only by facing and questioning how the context is applied can we improve. When the system seeks to prevent that questioning, as did with Jagmeet's statement, that is an assertion of the status quo against progress...a self defense mechanism.

[tomh009]

There is a fairly long list of words that have been ruled unparliamentary in the past, and most are not obscene. For example, "liar". "Racist" has been ruled unparliamentary multiple times in the past, so there is precedent for the speaker to do the same now.

And this post is commenting ONLY on the parliamentary rules, not on anything else.

[danbrotherston]

There is a fairly long list of words that have been ruled unparliamentary in the past, and most are not obscene. For example, "liar". "Racist" has been ruled unparliamentary multiple times in the past, so there is precedent for the speaker to do the same now.

And this post is commenting ONLY on the parliamentary rules, not on anything else.

Fair enough...like I said, I have no knowledge of the history...and things may have changed since the 70s.

[ijmorlan]

Singh's actions clearly prove that he does hold our parliament to a higher standard. Our parliament does not meet that standard.

Actually I checked Hansard and here is what happened. Singh moved a motion:

Mr. Jagmeet Singh:

Mr. Speaker, I also have a unanimous consent motion.

There have been discussions and I hope if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, the House recognize that there is systemic racism in the RCMP as several indigenous people have died at the hands of the RCMP in recent months, and call on the government to do the following: a) review the nearly $10 million per day RCMP budget and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, increase non-police investments in non-violent intervention, de-escalation, and mental health and addictions supports; b) ensure that the RCMP is truly accountable to the public; c) release all RCMP incidents of use-of-force reports and the associated settlement costs; and d) immediately launch a full review of the use of force by the RCMP, including reviewing the tactics and the training that is given to RCMP officers in dealing with the public.

The Speaker then asked the house if there was unanimous consent; there was not.

Then another member raised a point of order to complain about what Singh said; the Deputy Chair (having taken over from the Speaker) discussed with the member briefly, then:

The Deputy Chair:

I did not personally hear that comment.

We will listen to the recording and then discuss it.

Does the NDP leader wish to comment?

At which point Singh confirmed the facts of the complaint.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP):
Madam Speaker, yes, I did call him a racist, and I do believe he is.

So if I understand correctly, Singh called another member a racist because they did not grant unanimous consent to his motion.

This is a very questionable basis on which to consider someone racist. It is called Parliament because it is where things are discussed and debated, not simply agreed to.

That being said, he may well have reason to consider the member in question racist based on other words or actions; and I do not blame him if he acted out of frustration. And it’s entirely possible the member who withheld consent (incidentally, reported in Hansard as “Some hon. members: No.”; I suspect it always says “some” no matter how many there are) has racist attitudes and racist reasons for withholding consent.

So what I would say is that the ejection was correct and Singh should not have said what he said, but it doesn’t affect my generally positive view of him.

Edit: above quotations from Hansard for 2020-06-17. I would provide an exact URL but the Hansard site doesn’t obviously make that easy (I haven’t searched thoroughly but the site I found seems at first look to be doing this completely wrong).

[panamaniac]

Singh's actions clearly prove that he does hold our parliament to a higher standard. Our parliament does not meet that standard.

Actually I checked Hansard and here is what happened. Singh moved a motion:

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: 

Mr. Speaker, I also have a unanimous consent motion.

There have been discussions and I hope if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, the House recognize that there is systemic racism in the RCMP as several indigenous people have died at the hands of the RCMP in recent months, and call on the government to do the following: a) review the nearly $10 million per day RCMP budget and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, increase non-police investments in non-violent intervention, de-escalation, and mental health and addictions supports; b) ensure that the RCMP is truly accountable to the public; c) release all RCMP incidents of use-of-force reports and the associated settlement costs; and d) immediately launch a full review of the use of force by the RCMP, including reviewing the tactics and the training that is given to RCMP officers in dealing with the public.

The Speaker then asked the house if there was unanimous consent; there was not.

Then another member raised a point of order to complain about what Singh said; the Deputy Chair (having taken over from the Speaker) discussed with the member briefly, then:

The Deputy Chair: 

    I did not personally hear that comment.

    We will listen to the recording and then discuss it.

    Does the NDP leader wish to comment?

At which point Singh confirmed the facts of the complaint.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): 
    Madam Speaker, yes, I did call him a racist, and I do believe he is.

So if I understand correctly, Singh called another member a racist because they did not grant unanimous consent to his motion.

This is a very questionable basis on which to consider someone racist. It is called Parliament because it is where things are discussed and debated, not simply agreed to.

That being said, he may well have reason to consider the member in question racist based on other words or actions; and I do not blame him if he acted out of frustration. And it’s entirely possible the member who withheld consent (incidentally, reported in Hansard as “Some hon. members: No.”; I suspect it always says “some” no matter how many there are) has racist attitudes and racist reasons for withholding consent.

So what I would say is that the ejection was correct and Singh should not have said what he said, but it doesn’t affect my generally positive view of him.

Edit: above quotations from Hansard for 2020-06-17. I would provide an exact URL but the Hansard site doesn’t obviously make that easy (I haven’t searched thoroughly but the site I found seems at first look to be doing this completely wrong).

There are reasons why Quebec nationalists get heartburn over the concept of "systemic racism".  Singh's comment was, arguably, accurate but it was also unparliamentary language.  Singh surprised me at the time when he doubled down outside the House and implied that the Speaker's rulling was itself tainted by racism.  Afaik, the episode is now over, although the Bloc tried to make an issue of it in the House the next day.

[jeffster]

You have to hold MP’s, and indeed the leaders, to higher standards, especially when they’re on the job and inside Parliament.

Singh's actions clearly prove that he does hold our parliament to a higher standard. Our parliament does not meet that standard.

It's up to the constituents to decide whether or not a racist MP's should be elected (or re-elected), not for an MP to try to set a different standard that violates Parliament. Mind you, the MP is from Quebec, so what he did (voting against the motion) isn't shocking. Either way, Jagmeet didn't take the moral high road on this issue. If he felt that way, he can go on record, outside of Parliament, and call it as he sees it.

I just feel that what he did *inside* Parliament takes away from the moment, and isn't helpful to the cause. Ottawa is already toxic enough, no need to make it more toxic.

[MidTowner]

Singh very clearly stated his position (as reported in this CBC article):

"Yes. I've said it really clearly. I repeat it really clearly," Singh said. "Anyone who votes against a motion that recognizes the systemic racism in the RCMP and that calls for basic fixes for the problem … is a racist, yes."

That is clear- Singh referred to another member as a "racist" because he did not vote the way Singh wanted on a particular motion.

The Bloc voted against the motion not because the party is racist, the member is racist, or because the member is "from Quebec." It's not even because the Bloc believes that there is not systemic racism in the RCMP, but rather because there is a parliamentary committee studying that systemic racism, and they did not feel that parliament should impose findings on the committee.

[panamaniac]

Singh very clearly stated his position (as reported in this CBC article):

"Yes. I've said it really clearly. I repeat it really clearly," Singh said. "Anyone who votes against a motion that recognizes the systemic racism in the RCMP and that calls for basic fixes for the problem … is a racist, yes."

That is clear- Singh referred to another member as a "racist" because he did not vote the way Singh wanted on a particular motion.

The Bloc voted against the motion not because the party is racist, the member is racist, or because the member is "from Quebec." It's not even because the Bloc believes that there is not systemic racism in the RCMP, but rather because there is a parliamentary committee studying that systemic racism, and they did not feel that parliament should impose findings on the committee.

And especially not on the issue of systemic racism ...

By the way, I see in this evening’s news that the First Ministers we’re unable to reach unanimous agreement on a declaration condemning systemic racism.  No prizes for correctly guessing who the holdout was.

[MidTowner]

And especially not on the issue of systemic racism ...

By the way, I see in this evening’s news that the First Ministers we’re unable to reach unanimous agreement on a declaration condemning systemic racism.  No prizes for correctly guessing who the holdout was.

If you remember a case where a committee was working away investigating an issue, and the Bloc wanting to pass a motion declaring the results of the investigation in advance, then you may have something. But that is their logic- other parliamentarians can give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that they do not support this particular motion, or they can call them names and potentially ruin the possibility of working with them in parliament in the future.

I agree with the notion that it is ridiculous that being called a racist is by many people viewed as worse than racism itself. But since that exchange between Therrien and Singh, I have heard and read people referring variously to all Bloc members, all Quebec Nationalists, or even all French Canadians or Quebecers as racist or similar. That seems ridiculous to me.

[robdrimmie]

I'm wrong about an awful lot of things, and I'm very grateful for the contrasting opinions being posted here. I think a lot of very clear and accurate things were said, but this particular quote seems to me like the core place where my thinking differs from a few others.

This is a very questionable basis on which to consider someone racist.

Being a white person in a white-colonized society, I do not experience racism and am therefore unqualified in this matter. If a person of colour in a predominantly white society says that something is racism, they are in a much better position to determine that, and therefore I'm going to defer to them as a default position.

When Singh says a person or action is racist I immediately trust he is correct. It's absolutely the case that there will be some false positives in that scenario. Is is also absolutely the case that if I apply my knowledge and expertise and decide that something isn't racist, I will end up with false negatives. My preference in this scenario is to prefer false positives from BIPOC over false negatives from me. I think society would be better if white people listened to those who aren't as a default position. If men listened to those who aren't as a default position. If able-bodied people listened to those who aren't. Etc, etc. That policy may get exploited on occasion, but I prefer those exploits over the far greater amount of harm I see being done by those with privilege - in all sorts of scenarios - to those without.

It feels to me like there are a lot of people in this thread who might think that Singh's actions in parliamentary are inappropriate because he could be wrong, or that he took this position for political advantage, and that there isn't enough evidence to know. I think that's an understandable position, and I have a lot of respect and a high preference for fact-based arguments. I can't know all the facts here though, so I defer to those I consider experts.

I do think he gains political advantage from this position, but I don't think that's the underlying motivation. He didn't call another MP racist to get screen time, he did it because he saw a racist act and called it out. I think someone who isn't racist, upon being called racist, will think "oh shit, I'm sorry I'm going to spend some time learning about how I fucked up so I don't do it again?" and not "how dare you describe me as such!".

I'm grateful for the opposing points of view shared in this thread, I've learned a lot. Thank you all.

[robdrimmie]

But since that exchange between Therrien and Singh, I have heard and read people referring variously to all Bloc members, all Quebec Nationalists, or even all French Canadians or Quebecers as racist or similar. That seems ridiculous to me.

Everyone who lives in a racist society holds racist points of view. Black people can perform anti-Black racism. Canada is a racist society. All Canadians are racist.

[ijmorlan]

Everyone who lives in a racist society holds racist points of view. Black people can perform anti-Black racism. Canada is a racist society. All Canadians are racist.

When Singh accused the Bloc member of being racist, he meant racist … in a way that is different from the way in which everyone is racist.

As an aside, I don’t think it is true that everyone is racist, and I think it devalues the meaning of the word to say so. At the same time, I acknowledge that I’m not perfect and I probably do unconsciously include a person’s skin colour or other attributes into judgements; although in many cases I think I’ve actually reversed that, so that I view minorities sufficiently positively that I’m probably more likely to unconsciously discriminate against WASPs than against other groups.

That being said, in the context of this discussion, when I talk about somebody being racist, I mean that they are measurably worse than the people around them. It is indisputable that this is also what Singh meant; he said the one member was racist, not that all the MPs including himself were racist (and in that view, repeating it wouldn’t be adding any new information).

If I understand correctly, he also later clarified that it was specifically because the MP refused unanimous consent on a motion. As I said above, Parliament is named for the fact that is the place where issues are discussed as part of making law and policy. As others have pointed out, the motion seemed to be pre-determining the outcome of a committee investigation; it is completely reasonable to oppose the motion on those grounds. So unless Singh had some other reason to consider that Bloc member especially racist, I consider his comment entirely inappropriate and I am now starting to consider that my opinion of him may need to drop.

As a final aside, while the fact that minorities have lived experience does mean they speak with a certain authority that comes from direct knowledge, it doesn’t override science and logic. So I feel comfortable asserting that Singh’s logic is wrong in this case; there is no conceivable lived experience he could have that means that opposing a single motion is by itself evidence of racism.

This comes up in other areas too. For example, I believe that the indigenous occupants of an area of land will almost certainly know details of the biology of that area that are unknown to the worldwide scientific enterprise; but it is still a fact that those species evolved over millions of years and were not individually created. And while I actually appreciate the mythic understanding of North America as being Turtle Island, it is a fact that the continent arose as a result of geologic forces, also over millions of years.