> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country
Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content.
Not sure whether 'free democracy' allows for anything and everything.
BBC - Who was 'Nijjar ..in India, he was wanted under India's Terrorist Act for several cases, including a 2007 cinema bombing in Punjab that killed six people and injured 40, and the 2009 assassination of Sikh Indian politician Rulda Singh.. In 2020, a statement by the Indian government accused him of being actively involved in "operationalising, networking, training and financing" KTF members. He had also been accused of running terrorist training camps in British Columbia for supporters ready to carry out attacks in India.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66860510#
Canada has a terrible track record in dealing with Khalistani terrorist activities. The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime. There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech' - simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world. At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity. Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis.
> If he was convicted, then he should've been extradited.
That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above?
> I don't have a lot of faith in India's Hindu-Nationalist government's judgement of Sikh separatists.
Then don't. But judging the stance of the Canadian government doesn't require you to depend on the opinions of the Hindu nationalist government. Canada's own actions speak loud enough.
I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.
> The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime.
The Air India trial was a travesty of a prosecution, but it was a fuck-up of royal proportions, not a top-down conspiracy theory from "Canada".
This is what people who don't live in a democracy don't understand. The trial embarrassed everyone in Canada, from the people involved, to the other Canadians who saw justice not being achieved. But "Canada" could not have guaranteed a conviction, nor could it have done anything to prevent one from happening.
> There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech'
Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression, but that is exactly what that is.
> simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world
I think we would have to first agree on what is the definition of "challenging the sovereignty of another nation", then whether allowing people to demonstrate for it is the same as challenging, then whether internal border/disputes qualify. And even if we agreed the most extreme version of each of these questions (which we wouldn't), I still would like to see a source for this claim. I don't think it's true?
> At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity.
Agreed. And again, permissible under free speech. You don't have to like it. You are free to counter-protest. You are free to react even stronger (Freedom of Speech vs Freedom From Consequences). But this is not something for the GOVERNMENT to get involved in.
> Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis.
> That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above?
> A summary of the case said Nijjar’s name had surfaced following the 2007 bombing of the Shingar Cinema in Punjab.
> Suspects arrested for the blast confessed they were “acting under the instruction of Hardeep Singh Nijjar,” according to the summary.
> Pannun, a Canadian lawyer and activist, said Nijjar was accused of conspiracy in the cinema bombing but all the other suspects were acquitted.
> I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.
George W. Bush: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Even the most powerful military on the planet couldn't hold to this line else they would've invaded Saudi Arabia, or then invaded Canada for not helping them invade Iraq.
You cannot lobby accusations of terrorism at someone, offer weak evidence, carry out no judicial examination, then violate another country's territory to kill one of their citizens on their soil. For you to even begin to try to consider these analogous is ludicrous.
And let's be clear. It only even happened because India does not consider Canada strong. If he was in the US, India would've never had the gall.
CSIS agent was a co-conspirator of bombing Air India flight, that's why CSIS destroyed tapes under the guise that RCMP wouldn't protect anonymous informants. Of course, Canada can preach about "rule of law", "freedom of speech". The people who lost lives on that flight were brown people, that's why their lives are less worthy. Almost 300 times less worthy, according to the Canadian govt in the name of 'we f*cked it up'.
Another instance: the chief culprit Parmar behind that bomb blast was not extradited even before that blast. You know why? Trudeau's dad's reason: India was not deferential to the Queen.
TIL about the Parmar extradition, that definitely seems egregious from rudimentary looking around. Though I can't find any examples of "deferential" point. It seems more likely Trudeau just didn't want to and then used a loophole to deny that commonwealth extradition protocol should apply.
> The Governor General-in-Council in 2006 appointed the former Supreme Court Justice John C. Major to conduct a commission of inquiry. His report, which was completed and released on 17 June 2010, concluded that a "cascading series of errors" by the Government of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had allowed the terrorist attack to take place.
Note: nuanced phrasing here - "had allowed the terrorist attack to take place" means that their negligence and incompetence led to it not being stopped. Not that they knew it was going to happen and allowed it.
> "The CSIS investigation was so badly bungled that there was a near mutiny by CSIS officers involved in the probe," said the agent who destroyed the tapes once he had been granted anonymity in January 2000 by Globe and Mail journalists.[143] One agent "said he felt compelled to destroy the tapes (that were in his possession) because he was morally obliged to do everything in his power to protect the safety of his sources. '[I] decided it was a moral issue... If their identity had become known in the Sikh community, they would have been killed. There is no doubt in my mind about that.'"
I ultimately don't know what I would do in this situation. These moral choices are not black-and-white. Do you seek to improve the likelyhood of convicting someone of murder by X%, if it increases the likelyhood of more deaths by Y%?
I genuinely don't know. If you read on, the CSIS connection is also tenuous.
Again, the CSIS fucked up royally. Just like the CIA, FBI, and all the american intelligence agencies fucked up royally when they failed to prevent 9/11. These things do happen, but I do not believe for a second that it was a conspiracy.
Would the investigation have gone differently if the victims were white? Honestly, probably, yes. But to be clear, that is a problem of institutional racism within western democracies - not a geopolitical stance Canada has against India, Punjab, or Khalistan.
The distinction does matter. Because you're using Canadian incompetence in getting convictions in the Air India bombing to suggest that they have a vested desire to somehow protect, or enable Sikh terrorists.
But if you're saying that they fucked up the Air India trial is because of racism, then why would they want to protect Nijjar from India? Just throw him over the fence and make him India's problem.
Two descriptions of same phenomenon wrt CSIS and Air India: You and others claim that it is a fuc*k up; people in the deep say it is a malice, because CSIS wanted to protect its agent Surjan Singh Gill [0]
> This is what people who don't live in a democracy don't understand.
> Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression
Oh! Please! Get off your high horse! It's tiring to see you pretending to be in some sort of democratic utopia. You are talking about countries which invaded other nations on very shaky grounds and left them under terrorist rule. And while the Khalistanis were getting a free reign, how much 'free speech' and 'free expression' were the indigenous people there allowed? From relocation of populations, to treatment of those who oppose oil sands mining and deforestation of heritage land, to residential school graves? The government supported cultural and literal genocide - by UN definitions. The freedoms that you are flexing about are applied selectively at best, and often misrepresented in cases like with the Khalistanis.
You're just deluding yourself with a grandeur and misguided western moral superiority complex. You might want to reflect on the humans rights records of your own country before lecturing others about free expression. You wouldn't be flexing here if you were one of those affected populations.
> not a top-down conspiracy theory from "Canada".
Canada is known to neglect very insidious activities due to political biases. In this case, it would have been easy to punish the perpetrators if it weren't for such biases. But again - keep deluding yourself.
> Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression, but that is exactly what that is.
Repeating falsehood doesn't make it correct. There is no definition of democracy and 'free expression' that tolerates separatism and violence in another country. Your condescending arguments are in very bad faith.
> I think we would have to first agree on what is the definition of "challenging the sovereignty of another nation", then whether allowing people to demonstrate for it is the same as challenging, then whether internal border/disputes qualify. And even if we agreed the most extreme version of each of these questions (which we wouldn't), I still would like to see a source for this claim. I don't think it's true?
I have given two examples of what is considered unacceptable. But you reject them under your self-defined standards that are not accepted internationally.
Ok then - I guess by your standards, the conspiracy that led to 9-11 in US was just an expression of 'free speech' in their country and that the same applies to Chinese interference in Canada.
> Agreed. And again, permissible under free speech. You don't have to like it.
Your 'free speech' has no limits. Hello! Real world doesn't work like that. It comes with consequences when it crosses a limit - when it affects the safety of others.
> If he was in the US, India would've never had the gall.
US for all its faults is not known to bend their political spine to separatists in another nation. (If you think Khalistanis are not terrorists and should be given full rights, have a look at your own government's list of terrorist entities). Heck! Even India's arch-rival Pakistan shows much more dignity in many of these matters. Canada on the other hand, is soon going to have a nice international label of being an offshore haven for separatists, saboteurs and terrorists. Enjoy your rep.
> You cannot lobby accusations of terrorism at someone, offer weak evidence, carry out no judicial examination,
Keep neglecting what is brewing in your backyard. Trust me, you will feel the consequences soon. At that time, remember all your 'free-speech' arguments here. If there is one thing Canada is well known for, it's for feeding snakes like these that come back later and bite.
> You are talking about countries which invaded other nations on very shaky grounds.
Who did Canada invade on shaky grounds?
> While the Khalistanis were getting a free reign, shall we talk about how Canada treats its indigenous people? From residential school graves to those who oppose land encroachment for oil mining?
Would love to. It's horrific, and Canada hasn't done enough to issue financial and societal reparations to it's first nations. I believe firmly that Canada should return significant "Crown Land" to first nations group (aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Back). Should honor treaties, and never encroach on first nations land for mining or pipelines.
And if a Canadian First Nations Nijjar equivalent was in hiding in India while fighting for the rights of Indigenous Canadians and Canada killed him, there would be protests in the streets of Canada and I would be there with them.
OK, your turn.
> Canada is known to neglect very insidious activities due to political biases.
Non-Indian Citation Needed
> Ok then - I guess by your standards, the conspiracy that led to 9-11 in US was just an expression of 'free speech' in their country and that the same applies to Chinese interference in Canada.
I actually don't know enough about what the Chinese justification is for electoral interference. My possibly uninformed opinion is that China is attempting to dominate the 21st century politically, and in order to do so it attempts to influence the governments of every country in the world much as the US has in the 20th. I don't believe this is a good thing, but I also suspect they'll get away with it. As far as I know this is State-on-State brinksmanship. We're talking about the actions of individuals.
I don't know what you mean when you talk about the 9-11 conspiracy, however the historical narrative that 9-11 was in many ways a response to decades of US interventionism is pretty clear.
The rest of your post shows there is no point us continuing to go back and forth. You stated something is unacceptable to international norms and goes beyond freedom of expression. I asked you for evidence that it violates international norms which you did not. And I don't think my criteria for freedom of expression is unusual.
> US for all its problems is not known to bend their political spine to separatists in another nation. Canada on the other hand, is soon going to have a nice international label of being an offshore haven for separatists, saboteurs and terrorists. Enjoy your rep.
The US is not the bar for hypocrisy or morality. Canada does not have this reputation from anyone except India.
Let's see how many of those had a good reason. I'm pretty sure that defense contractors in Canada consider it as a good enough reason.
> OK, your turn.
False equivalence. The Khalistanis in your country are your citizens fighting for a secession in another country. Foreign terrorists at best. The so-called Khalistani movement is not as popular in India as it is in Canada. It's basically an overseas separatist movement supported by Canada. Let's see how Canada reacts if another country - say China- wants to annex its territories.
> Non-Indian Citation Needed
No. Just common sense needed. Canada fucked up hard in the AI182 bombings case. Did the political leadership do anything to correct it? Did it atleast try to curb the activities that supported it? Do you think your fav US would allow similar activities to happen against them on your land?
> The rest of your post shows there is no point us continuing to go back and forth.
I have reached the same conclusion - because of you insistence that anything is justified in the name of 'freedom of expression'. Your entire argument on the other hand is based on that flaky, false and bad-faith premise. It's fundamentally accepted that freedoms are not absolute - they end where they start infringing on others' rights.
> Canada does not have this reputation from anyone except India.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. Canada is a PR disaster on the scale of a country. Have a look at its recent diplomatic relations. And in this case - India is accused of killing one person. Canada is accused of supporting terrorism by its citizens on Indian soil with causalities in the hundreds. Let's not neglect that part of this row.
I wasn't drawing an equivalence. You were trying to trap me with Whataboutism, and I was saying I agree with your criticisms. It's not a gotcha.
> The Khalistanis in your country are your citizens fighting for a secession in another country. Foreign terrorists at best. The so-called Khalistani movement is not as popular in India as it is in Canada.
I can't find a clear confirmation for this but my understanding is Nijjar had to give up his Indian citizenship when he got Canadian. So that he's "foreign" to India is a diplomatic technicality.
> It's basically an overseas separatist movement supported by Canada. Let's see how Canada reacts if another country - say China- wants to annex its territories.
Even if Canada, as a matter of international policy, was "supporting" this movement (which it isn't), how would this be a valid equivalence? Canada is not trying to annex any territories for itself...
Allowing human beings to express an opinion is not a tacit endorsement of them.
You could've just said Afghanistan and laid the responsibility of the re-conquering of that nation by the Taliban under Canada's responsibility rather than gish-galloping with a list of every single conflict since 1002 AD.
But keep in mind your point was that Canada has no credibility as a free and democratic institution because of it. I don't know what is the actual example but Afghanistan was controlled by the terrorist Taliban before the invasion, and it still is.
Rather than take action, Canadian authorities put terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on ‘no-fly list’ in 2017-18, after New Delhi shared with them the details of over a dozen criminal cases of murder and other terrorist activities against him in India
Having cases against someone doesn't make them guilty. Having "dozens" of cases against someone doesn't make them any more guilty. Especially when the government has demonstrated repeatedly that they will optimize for Hindu nationals at the expense of any other racial/religious minority in the country.
If the Government of Canada believed that he was being unfairly targeted, what would you expect them to do with one of their citizens? Even an extradition discussion can't occur until he's CONVICTED of these cases.
Instead India has done things like designating him a terrorist under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Preventio..., which is an extra-judicious approach much like the US Patriot Act. It allows the government to designate someone here without a trial.
So I ask you, what would you have expected Canada to do here?
> So I ask you, what would you have expected Canada to do here?
Cooperate for deeper investigation? I'm not able to understand in a democracy with free expression how does someone gets on a 'No-Fly' list without having done anything.
On 3 January 2020, Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike.. [1]
This major general perhaps was the most upright citizen of Iran.
> how does someone gets on a 'No-Fly' list without having done anything.
A diplomatic compromise to demonstrate to India that Canada is not doing "nothing" while not actually punishing him judiciously.
> Cooperate for deeper investigation?
India should have plenty of evidence to be able to charge him, try him, and convict him in absentia, then demand Canada extradite him. That they haven't done so is a strong hint that they don't have enough evidence that would hold up in a modern justice system.
> On 3 January 2020, Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike.. [1]
I in no way defend or excuse the United States' history of extra-judicial killings around the world. The US is absolutely hypocritical when it comes to international relations, has done much to destabilize democratic institutions in the world (mostly to keep them from embracing more leftist/communist ideologies that would threaten American Capitalist economic interests)
The assassination of this general will be remembered as an egregious act of the Trump administration, however it is only the latest in a long line of these kind of actions under the administrations of both political parties.
The US gets away with it because it's the most powerful economy and military in the world. Noone else does, nor should they.
> India should have plenty of evidence to be able to charge him, try him, and convict him in absentia, then demand Canada extradite him. That they haven't done so is a strong hint that they don't have enough evidence that would hold up in a modern justice system.
You really need to read up on Indian laws and history. In absentia conviction isn't a thing in Indian law.
But this is just smoke and mirrors. People in the West don't care for Indian legal system. Because "freedom of expression", "Hindu nationalists" and what not. So, this isn't going to help anyways.
But I also think you underestimate the West's perception of India. By and large, people do see the country as a democratic, powerful, diverse, proud empire.
I'm not speaking for the racists, but those are the same everywhere.
What people DON'T care for is Modi's Hindutva, his populist movement that makes people so angry online, or the extra-judicial policies that they've followed to just name certain people (like Nijjar) as terrorists, and then make no other effort to prove their guilt.
It is pretty much clear how India is perceived from your comments. Someone who is doesn't know Indian laws but trying to make assured judgments about India's justice system and telling people how they should approach situations.
At least that is how things are perceived in India. Racist or not. That is the line which is being toed by Modi.
Consider this - If this whole situation was such a perceived issue, India wouldn't have taken this strong stance. If these online angry people were the majority - India wouldn't have taken this stance.
As for the whole Modi's Hindutva agenda, no one seems to ask a basic question - Why does his populist movement which apparently is so hated online, I mean even Trump's right wing agenda isn't hated as much, is so successful? He won the elections. Twice. Not even Trump's right wingers could do that. Why do the majority still side with him?
Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content.
Not sure whether 'free democracy' allows for anything and everything.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#:~:text=Treason%20agai....
BBC - Who was 'Nijjar ..in India, he was wanted under India's Terrorist Act for several cases, including a 2007 cinema bombing in Punjab that killed six people and injured 40, and the 2009 assassination of Sikh Indian politician Rulda Singh.. In 2020, a statement by the Indian government accused him of being actively involved in "operationalising, networking, training and financing" KTF members. He had also been accused of running terrorist training camps in British Columbia for supporters ready to carry out attacks in India. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66860510#