Trudeau says intelligence shows India was behind slaying of Sikh leader in Surrey, B.C.

[QuebecOverCanada]

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Partition is a nasty, nasty business. I'd never advocate for it. 

Czechoslovakia split and there was not even a single drop of blood.

It made both countries, Czech Republic and Slovakia, both richer, safer and it protected their identity.

It's when one party wants to control the other and forces the domination that it creates issues. In this case, Hindus in India want to dominate the Sikhs, and guess what, the union is as bad or may be worse as if there was a separation. 

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The fact that we're harbouring terrorists is what makes us look weak. 

Did the Gov't of India admit that they killed him? 

A terrorist for one is a hero or a martyr for another.

Edited September 19, 2023 by QuebecOverCanada

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

I'm not saying, send them packing.

I'm saying - shouldn't we have rules about this? 

 

Do we make any political issue in another country - like, an ideology that doesn't agree with us - our own battle?

 

It's one thing to say "respect our sovereignty"......and yet, we somehow meddle - in an underhanded way - in other nation's own sovereignty.  We "poke" others we don't agree with.....and we cry foul when we catch their attention and they respond the way they know how.

OK well I AM saying 'send them all packing'. 500,000 "refugees". 500,000! And most of them have no interest in being "Canadian" as far as I can tell.

[SpankyMcFarland]

32 minutes ago, betsy said:

I've just read this about the murdered individual:

 

 

 

 

In 1997, Nijjar came to Canada, claiming he had been beaten and tortured by Indian police. In 1998, his refugee claim was denied. According to his immigration records, he used a fraudulent passport that identified him as “Ravi Sharma.”

“I know that my life would be in grave danger if I had to go back to my country, India,” he wrote in his affidavit, dated June 9, 1998.

His application was rejected, and 11 days later Nijjar married a B.C. woman who sponsored him to immigrate as her spouse.

On his application form, he was asked whether he was associated with a group that used or advocated “armed struggle or violence to reach political, religious or social objectives.”

 

He said “no,” but immigration officials considered it a marriage of convenience and rejected Nijjar’s application. Nijjar appealed to the courts and lost in 2001, but he later identified himself as a Canadian citizen.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada declined to comment to Global News at the time of that report, citing privacy legislation.

 

In 2014, a few months after India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist, took office, Indian authorities issued an arrest warrant for Nijjar. New Delhi described Nijjar as the “mastermind” of the militant group Khalistan Tiger Force.

 

He was accused of being involved in the 2007 bombing of a cinema in Punjab. A 2016 Interpol notice against him alleged he was a “key conspirator” in the attack. He was accused of recruiting and fundraising, a charge that Nijjar vehemently denied.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/9969537/who-is-hardeep-singh-nijjar/

His immigration travails are irrelevant. On the terrorism accusation, that’s harder to determine. However, India has imprisoned many critics of its brutal, sectarian, casteist  regime who are clearly not terrorists at all. 

https://www.article-14.com/post/the-sudha-bharadwaj-the-govt-doesn-t-want-you-to-know

If he isn’t a terrorist as we understand it, India could still regard him as such because he is a separatist. Imagine if the UK assassinated Canadians who believed in an independent Scotland or Wales? 

We have a problem with Sikh militancy but what India has done to combat it is utterly outrageous. Canada is a testing ground for illiberal regimes. They try out policies here they may then go on to use against bigger fish, ultimately the US. Like the tyrants of the Arab world, demagogues like Modi and Erdogan hate our pluralistic, tolerant system of government. 

 

 

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

27 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

It's when one party wants to control the other and forces the domination that it creates issues. In this case, Hindus in India want to dominate the Sikhs, and guess what, the union is as bad or may be worse as if there was a separation. 

It’s worse than that. Upper caste supporters of the BJP want to dominate everybody else: Muslims, Christians, lower caste Hindus and those of no caste (Dalits and Tribals). India is a Dickensian nightmare for them with no access to the legal rights the country claims to offer all citizens. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[WestCanMan]

31 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Czechoslovakia split and there was not even a single drop of blood.

It made both countries, Czech Republic and Slovakia, both richer, safer and it protected their identity.

The Czechs are a mix of atheists and Christians, the Slovaks are predominantly Christians. You couldn't have a better religious background for a harmonious result.

This is more comparable to a Yugoslavian partition, and we know how that worked out.

Quote

It's when one party wants to control the other and forces the domination that it creates issues. In this case, Hindus in India want to dominate the Sikhs, and guess what, the union is as bad or may be worse as if there was a separation. 

A terrorist for one is a hero or a martyr for another.

1) How bad is it in India if they already had a Sikh elected PM twice?

2) Khalistan translates into "The land of the Khalsa", and Khalsa is like our word for 'pure'. If someone wants to create a country to be ruled by one religion, and they want to call it 'the land of the pure', that's alarming. 

I don't even support the Khalistan movement 1%, and they already have n extremely violent history. They've caused tens of thousands of deaths.

[QuebecOverCanada]

10 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It’s worse than that. Upper caste supporters of the BJP want to dominate everybody else: Muslims, Christians, lower caste Hindus and those of no caste (Dalits and Tribals). India is a Dickensian nightmare for them with no access to the legal rights the country claims to offer all citizens. 

It's been awhile since I started reading about geopolitics, History, etc.

There has always been a trend since the 2000s; many experts from any given year repeats that India will be the next superpower... but only by the next 10 years.

And in each decade, the 10 years is delayed to another 10 years. I call it the country with the eternal potential, because it never concretizes itself, as this country has always found a way to shoot itself in the foot, no matter the circumstance. Maybe ostracizing a huge chunk of your own population has something to do with it.

But good news, they installed toilets in many homes now. There seems to be some progress, in some areas, sometimes.

[QuebecOverCanada]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The Czechs are a mix of atheists and Christians, the Slovaks are predominantly Christians. You couldn't have a better religious background for a harmonious result.

This is more comparable to a Yugoslavian partition, and we know how that worked out.

The problem in this case is that India is trying to be an empire AND has a super weird caste system. It's not an issue that Sikhs want independence. If you were a minority in India and you were mistreated and you rebelled, you would be a what so called terrorist too.

Quote

 

1) How bad is it in India if they already had a Sikh elected PM twice?

2) Khalistan translates into "The land of the Khalsa", and Khalsa is like our word for 'pure'. If someone wants to create a country to be ruled by one religion, and they want to call it 'the land of the pure', that's alarming. 

I don't even support the Khalistan movement 1%, and they already have n extremely violent history. They've caused tens of thousands of deaths.

 

Point 1 - It's not like they have been going more inclusive over time, especially with Modi.

Point 2 - The Indian subcontinent as a whole is super violent and super caste-esque. What you're criticizing about Sikhs can be said about Indians.

How many Sikhs have died because of the conquests and occupation by the Hindus?

[Nefarious Banana]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah but at the end of the day we can't tolerate any other country doing 'hits' in our country regardless. Just makes us look weak weaker.

Canada has a tapeworm, a disgusting parasite - Justin Trudeau.  Election in the near future?   Politically lazy Canadians have a chance to take the medicine (vote), and sh!t this parasite out.

We Canadians look down our noses at everything around us . . . well, the world's laughing at us because we aren't aware of our bloated belly full of Justin the Tapeworm . . . 

Embarrassed to be a Canadian at this time.

[WestCanMan]

27 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

How many Sikhs have died because of the conquests and occupation by the Hindus?

That's a really weird question because the Sikhs and Hindus don't have a huge history of warring against each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_the_Sikh_Empire

In the vast majority of their battles, the Sikhs fought against muslims, and almost always won.

The Sikh religion isn't even that old. It's probably one of the newest major religions on earth.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

1) How bad is it in India if they already had a Sikh elected PM twice?

India is worse than it was in terms of religious intolerance. Sikhs are somewhat anomalous in this regard as they tend to be fairly prosperous, living in India’s bread basket, Punjab. Other groups have suffered more under Modi, e.g. Christians, Muslims and lower or no caste Hindus. Many Modi supporters in the West avert their gaze when anti-Christian acts are discussed. 

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

2) Khalistan translates into "The land of the Khalsa", and Khalsa is like our word for 'pure'. If someone wants to create a country to be ruled by one religion, and they want to call it 'the land of the pure', that's alarming. 

So is Israel alarming? It defines itself as a Jewish state. Most European countries started quite recently as ethnostates, highly homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and religion. It’s a natural human tendency. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[QuebecOverCanada]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's a really weird question because the Sikhs and Hindus don't have a huge history of warring against each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_the_Sikh_Empire

In the vast majority of their battles, the Sikhs fought against muslims, and almost always won.

The Sikh religion isn't even that old. It's probably one of the newest major religions on earth.

And it's still an identity, still an ethnic group that has endured a lot of discrimination. I truly do not know where you're getting at right now.

An independence movement can be legitimate, and the fact that you called the victim of a State sponsored murder a terrorist just because he supports independence is just wrong.

Canada did not recognize him as a terrorist. On April 2018, the RCMP detained him for a day and found absolutely nothing.

He was an enemy of the Indian State yes, because of his views. But a terrorist, no.

Saying that Canada is a harbour of terrorism is nuts. That's an accusation India has to prove, and India can not kill Canadians on our soil because they feel like they should. 

[Aristides]

Today's India and Pakistan are largely constructs of the British Empire and otherwise wouldn't exist as we know it. At the time independence of still over 500 semi independent princely states that were subject only to indirect rule by the British.

The Sikh Empire was subjugated by the Brits after two wars in the 1840's. It had only existed for about 60 years.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Aristides

[SpankyMcFarland]

I don’t know if this guy was really a terrorist as we would define it. Advocating for a Sikh country is not terrorism here, just as supporting an independent Scotland or Quebec isn’t either. As I posted earlier, India makes  ‘absurd’ (to use its own adjective) criminal accusations of terrorism against people it doesn’t like that take years to come to court. Conveniently, the evidence is kept secret because of national security concerns and, in the interim, the accused languishes in jail. I’m not saying he wasn’t a terrorist either but I wouldn’t believe one thing the Indian government alleges without corroboration. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[Aristides]

Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

I don’t know if this guy was really a terrorist as we would define it. Advocating for a Sikh country is not terrorism here, just as supporting an independent Scotland or Quebec isn’t either. As I posted earlier, India makes  ‘absurd’ (to use its own adjective) criminal accusations against people that take years to come to court. In the interim the accused languishes in jail. 

The Brits didn't assassinate Irish Americans who were providing support to the IRA during the troubles.

[SpankyMcFarland]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The Brits didn't assassinate Irish Americans who were providing support to the IRA during the troubles.

No, they had to be careful about jeopardizing the Special Relationship there which annoyed the hell out of them. India has no such qualms about upsetting us. We are like Lebanon to the Israelis. They think they can do what they want here.

Edited September 19, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Pixie-Dust IS weak. He's so embarrassing that his own wife left him. The guy...and I use the term "guy" laughingly...is a monumental failure.

I mean you're not wrong or anything, but i still think that we can't be letting foreign gov'ts bump off our citizens on our own tuft.

At LEAST wait till the guy travels  

2 hours ago, betsy said:

I've just read this about the murdered individual:

 

 

 

 

In 1997, Nijjar came to Canada, claiming he had been beaten and tortured by Indian police. In 1998, his refugee claim was denied. According to his immigration records, he used a fraudulent passport that identified him as “Ravi Sharma.”

“I know that my life would be in grave danger if I had to go back to my country, India,” he wrote in his affidavit, dated June 9, 1998.

His application was rejected, and 11 days later Nijjar married a B.C. woman who sponsored him to immigrate as her spouse.

On his application form, he was asked whether he was associated with a group that used or advocated “armed struggle or violence to reach political, religious or social objectives.”

 

He said “no,” but immigration officials considered it a marriage of convenience and rejected Nijjar’s application. Nijjar appealed to the courts and lost in 2001, but he later identified himself as a Canadian citizen.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada declined to comment to Global News at the time of that report, citing privacy legislation.

 

In 2014, a few months after India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist, took office, Indian authorities issued an arrest warrant for Nijjar. New Delhi described Nijjar as the “mastermind” of the militant group Khalistan Tiger Force.

 

He was accused of being involved in the 2007 bombing of a cinema in Punjab. A 2016 Interpol notice against him alleged he was a “key conspirator” in the attack. He was accused of recruiting and fundraising, a charge that Nijjar vehemently denied.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/9969537/who-is-hardeep-singh-nijjar/

So wait - was this guy a citizen or wasn't he?

[QuebecOverCanada]

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So wait - was this guy a citizen or wasn't he?

He was, according to Miller.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

He was, according to Miller.

Thanks - i was wondering based on that other post.

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Or...

We could elect a real man who will round up all these "refugees" and send them packing.

Or a real "woman", as Pixie-Dust is neither.

I hate to point this out, but our politicians don't have control over who stays and who goes. That is the judiciary. And the judiciary will not allow anyone to be deported to anywhere they might be mistreated. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Far be it for me to point this out, but our politicians don't have control over who stays and who goes. That is the judiciary. And the judiciary will not allow anyone to be deported to anywhere they might be mistreated. 

True.  And at the end of the day whatever our process is - that's OUR process.  Warts and all. And if we say someone is a canadian and they're on canadian soil, to have another gov't kill them is borderline an act of war.  If they're "terrorists" we should arrest them and if WE can't - then nobody can, never mind killing them.

Either we protect our sovereignty or we don't.

[I am Groot]

Just now, CdnFox said:

True.  And at the end of the day whatever our process is - that's OUR process.  Warts and all. And if we say someone is a canadian and they're on canadian soil, to have another gov't kill them is borderline an act of war.  If they're "terrorists" we should arrest them and if WE can't - then nobody can, never mind killing them.

Either we protect our sovereignty or we don't.

We have never protected our sovereignty. And I'm not all that interested in starting with this guy. He should have been deported decades ago.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I mean you're not wrong or anything, but i still think that we can't be letting foreign gov'ts bump off our citizens on our own tuft.

At LEAST wait till the guy travels  

Agreed.

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I hate to point this out, but our politicians don't have control over who stays and who goes. That is the judiciary. And the judiciary will not allow anyone to be deported to anywhere they might be mistreated. 

I think it would be possible to get him convicted of something while he remained here if there was enough evidence, and then Canada would seek an agreement where he wouldn't face the death penalty or torture if he was extradited.

I don't know much about the specifics of our extradition treaties with other countries, but India is part of the commonwealth, so I would assume that our deal with them is a pretty standard one. 

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I hate to point this out, but our politicians don't have control over who stays and who goes. That is the judiciary. And the judiciary will not allow anyone to be deported to anywhere they might be mistreated. 

Fine. Setup thousands of ATCO trailers up in the NWT and send them all there.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

We have never protected our sovereignty. And I'm not all that interested in starting with this guy. He should have been deported decades ago.

By getting rid of the judiciary too?  I'm betting if we did that we'd have an even harder time maintaining our sovereignty.