[zeusflight]

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.

[deanCommie]

> 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?

Yes. If the case was solid. Or if India had a trial for him and convicted him. Which they didn't. According to https://globalnews.ca/news/9784316/hardeep-singh-nijjar-deat...

> 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.

[raincom]

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.

[achow]

> but it was a fuck-up of royal proportions

Bingo. Sometime in the future someone will say the exact same thing for the current situation.

[zeusflight]

> 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.