[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.

[deanCommie]

> It's tiring to see you pretending to be in some sort of human rights utopia.

Everything is relative. Objectively humans are shitty to other humans, and Those In Power get away with as much as they can without losing it.

Having said that:

According to the latest complete 2022 rankings of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World, Canada is the 5th freest country in the world. The United States is 61st. India is 87th.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index, Canada is 12th in the world. The United States is 30th. India is 46th.

> 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.

[zeusflight]

> Canada is the 5th freest country in the world. The United States is 61st. India is 87th.

Yeah! Free enough to carry out terrorist activity against another country. It matches very well with your misguided definition of freedom.

> Who did Canada invade on shaky grounds?

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

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.