Canada Expels Indian diplomat after accusing India of killing their citizen on Canadian Soil

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Canada is a weak and woke country under trudeau.

God you sound so stupid. Go live in India if Canada is too woke for you. Maybe I can take your place in Canada so its wokeness can protect me from based anti woke nationalists in my country.

That sounds like a plan to me I'd much rather be a US citizen. That however is not in the cards for me. So as OSR posted, I look forward to a return to Stephen Harper tier Canada when the country was much better off economically and we actually took a stand in the world. 1. strong supporters of israel 2. Told putin to eat crow and get out of ukraine and g8 3. Closer ties to India, free trade deal finalized with the EU in 2014

He got his citizenship in 2015. I wonder who was the Prime Minister for most of 2015...

In the United States, the party of the President (particularly when the president is a Republican) has virtually no bearing on the majority party among medium- and low-level federal government bureaucrats who would be responsible for making decisions such as approving citizenship requests. I know that the Canadian PM has more power over his country's government as a whole than the POTUS does, but nonetheless I imagine that the situation in Canada is like the US, in that the head of government's party does not impact the partisan leanings of the federal bureaucracy, and that the Canadian bureaucracy is disproportionately filled with individuals who lean towards the Liberal Party and who ideologically lean left-liberal, even when a Conservative PM is incumbent, considering

1) Leftists and liberals, at least in the Anglosphere and in the modern-day (dating back to the 70s if not earlier), are more "nepotistic" than conservatives in that they are more likely to fire or hire someone based on politics or party, or otherwise take politics into account when making hiring decisions.

2) IIRC All high-level and most medium-level (if not also many or most low-level) Canadian federal bureaucrats are required to be bilingual, which naturally creates an unfair advantage for Liberals at the expense not only of Conservatives, but also of NDPers, Quebecois-nationalist partisans, Greens, and independents.

As far as I know, the fact that Harper was the PM in 2015 does not mean that Harper had anything to do with Nijjar obtaining citizenship. Then again, the Canadian Prime Minister has more domestic intra-national power than does the POTUS, so if I'm completely wrong you can enlighten me.

[MaxQue]

Canada is a weak and woke country under trudeau.

God you sound so stupid. Go live in India if Canada is too woke for you. Maybe I can take your place in Canada so its wokeness can protect me from based anti woke nationalists in my country.

That sounds like a plan to me I'd much rather be a US citizen. That however is not in the cards for me. So as OSR posted, I look forward to a return to Stephen Harper tier Canada when the country was much better off economically and we actually took a stand in the world. 1. strong supporters of israel 2. Told putin to eat crow and get out of ukraine and g8 3. Closer ties to India, free trade deal finalized with the EU in 2014

He got his citizenship in 2015. I wonder who was the Prime Minister for most of 2015...

In the United States, the party of the President (particularly when the president is a Republican) has virtually no bearing on the majority party among medium- and low-level federal government bureaucrats who would be responsible for making decisions such as approving citizenship requests. I know that the Canadian PM has more power over his country's government as a whole than the POTUS does, but nonetheless I imagine that the situation in Canada is like the US, in that the head of government's party does not impact the partisan leanings of the federal bureaucracy, and that the Canadian bureaucracy is disproportionately filled with individuals who lean towards the Liberal Party and who ideologically lean left-liberal, even when a Conservative PM is incumbent, considering

1) Leftists and liberals, at least in the Anglosphere and in the modern-day (dating back to the 70s if not earlier), are more "nepotistic" than conservatives in that they are more likely to fire or hire someone based on politics or party, or otherwise take politics into account when making hiring decisions.

2) IIRC All high-level and most medium-level (if not also many or most low-level) Canadian federal bureaucrats are required to be bilingual, which naturally creates an unfair advantage for Liberals at the expense not only of Conservatives, but also of NDPers, Quebecois-nationalist partisans, Greens, and independents.

As far as I know, the fact that Harper was the PM in 2015 does not mean that Harper had anything to do with Najjar obtaining citizenship. Then again, the Canadian Prime Minister has more domestic intra-national power than does the POTUS, so if I'm completely wrong you can enlighten me.

The Immigration Minister has the power to overrule its servants on some questions, and it's a power that is used multiple times a year to expel or reprieve people.

The Government and Minister also decide on the operationnal polities to be followed.

It was part of the Conservative strategy in Toronto ethnosurburbia during the 2008-2011 Parliament to designate the future candidates in Liberal seats well in advance and give that candidate a wide access to the Immigration Minister.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Why do members of the diaspora love justifying insane actions by their home countries?

Because members of diasporas (read as "citizens or nationals of one country who maintain an open or internalized identification with and attachment to their foreign country of origin to the point of remaining 'hyphenated'") generally still wish for their "home" countries, and the "resident" populations thereof, to be prosperous and safe, and are not eager to condemn or hate their ancestral homeland and/or its government in the name of their adopted country. The incumbent government of every country always on some level represents the people of that country, for better or for worse, and is always the entity which happens to be responsible for protecting them. Like it or not, it is almost always very hard to completely divorce opposition to a country's government from some level of ill will toward that country's people, because actions taken against any country's government usually have some degree of negative consequences for the people under the jurisdiction of that government.

During the First and Second World Wars, German-Americans (especially the "less assimilated"; German-speaking and/or first- and second-gen) were, relative to the US population at-large, uneager to support American entry into the war against Germany. Self-identified Irish-Americans have always been inclined to sympathize with militant Irish independence groups against the British. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant New Englanders (who, relative to non-New England WASPs, were and are not only disproportionately likely to identify as "British-" or "English-American", but also maintained much stronger socioeconomic ties to Britain) largely opposed the War of 1812. I could go on with many more examples.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

The Khalistan movement is absolutely dead. There is no chance in hell there will ever be a Khalistan, so why did India feel it needed to do this?

There was and is also "no chance in hell" that America would ever become a Salafi Jihadist Islamic theocracy ruled by Al-Qaeda (at least if we only take secular and scientific evidence into account and ignore what any religious beliefs may dictate is likely to happen), yet we still felt compelled to kill Bin Laden in 2011.

Just because the Khalistan movement is "dead" in the sense that it will never feasibly become supported by a majority or near-majority of Punjabi Sikhs, let alone ever achieve its goals, the Khalistan movement can still inspire the occasional bombing or killing from time to time, something which furthermore makes India as a whole look like less functional as a multiethnic unified state in the eyes of both its own people and the World.

Quebec will never be an independent Marxist-Leninist single party state. Yet, if some Indian socialist mid-level bureaucrat approved the citizenship request of a former or current FLQ bigwig whom the Canadian government reasonably believed was still capable of inspiring terrorism, then I'm inclined to believe that the Canadian state - not to mention Britain and likely also the USA - would likely pursue an extrajudicial assassination of this "Indian citizen," even on Indian soil if necessary, and Canada would be completely justified in doing so in the case that this person was responsible for past FLQ attacks.

[2952-0-0]

I would frame it as: It is easy for two states with similar civilizational worldviews to come up with a process (which embeds those civilization assumptions) to resolve such matters.  When two states with different civilizational worldviews have to deal with something like this it is hard for such a process, which embeds civilization assumptions, to work.  In such cases resorting to tactics outside said processes might be necessary.  The ability of such a state to get aways with such outside-the-process tactics is a function of said state's relative power to the target state.

...but, aren't the most vicious state-to-state conflicts between those of a similar cultural background? They speak the same language, eat the same food, read the same books, but what sets them apart is framed as an existential conflict. Russia vs. Ukraine, Taiwan vs. PRC, India vs. Pakistan, the Koreas, the Balkans, etc etc??

[Republican Party Stalwart]

I would frame it as: It is easy for two states with similar civilizational worldviews to come up with a process (which embeds those civilization assumptions) to resolve such matters.  When two states with different civilizational worldviews have to deal with something like this it is hard for such a process, which embeds civilization assumptions, to work.  In such cases resorting to tactics outside said processes might be necessary.  The ability of such a state to get aways with such outside-the-process tactics is a function of said state's relative power to the target state.

...but, aren't the most vicious state-to-state conflicts between those of a similar cultural background? They speak the same language, eat the same food, read the same books, but what sets them apart is framed as an existential conflict. Russia vs. Ukraine, Taiwan vs. PRC, India vs. Pakistan, the Koreas, the Balkans, etc etc??

Thing is this topic has nothing to do with "vicious state-to-state conflicts" to begin with.

[jaichind]

I would frame it as: It is easy for two states with similar civilizational worldviews to come up with a process (which embeds those civilization assumptions) to resolve such matters.  When two states with different civilizational worldviews have to deal with something like this it is hard for such a process, which embeds civilization assumptions, to work.  In such cases resorting to tactics outside said processes might be necessary.  The ability of such a state to get aways with such outside-the-process tactics is a function of said state's relative power to the target state.

...but, aren't the most vicious state-to-state conflicts between those of a similar cultural background? They speak the same language, eat the same food, read the same books, but what sets them apart is framed as an existential conflict. Russia vs. Ukraine, Taiwan vs. PRC, India vs. Pakistan, the Koreas, the Balkans, etc etc??

I did not mean to indicate that states with similar civilizational worldviews cannot be in conflict which is clearly not true.  What I mean to suggest that is states with similar civilization worldviews will have similar assumptions on rules of engagements where there are not going to be asymmetrical misunderstandings of intentions and expectations regardless if the relationship is peaceful or in conflict.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

I would frame it as: It is easy for two states with similar civilizational worldviews to come up with a process (which embeds those civilization assumptions) to resolve such matters.  When two states with different civilizational worldviews have to deal with something like this it is hard for such a process, which embeds civilization assumptions, to work.  In such cases resorting to tactics outside said processes might be necessary.  The ability of such a state to get aways with such outside-the-process tactics is a function of said state's relative power to the target state.

...but, aren't the most vicious state-to-state conflicts between those of a similar cultural background? They speak the same language, eat the same food, read the same books, but what sets them apart is framed as an existential conflict. Russia vs. Ukraine, Taiwan vs. PRC, India vs. Pakistan, the Koreas, the Balkans, etc etc??

I did not mean to indicate that states with similar civilizational worldviews cannot be in conflict which is clearly not true.  What I mean to suggest that is states with similar civilization worldviews will have similar assumptions on rules of engagements where there are not going to be asymmetrical misunderstandings of intentions and expectations regardless if the relationship is peaceful or in conflict.

Case in point: the issue of American draft dodgers hiding in Canada, although contentious, was certainly less problematic and less of a source of national pain, for both America and Canada, than the issue of American draft dodgers hiding in an Eastern-Bloc or Third-World country.

[2952-0-0]

Just because the Khalistan movement is "dead" in the sense that it will never feasibly become supported by a majority or near-majority of Punjabi Sikhs, let alone ever achieve its goals, the Khalistan movement can still inspire the occasional bombing or killing from time to time, something which furthermore makes India as a whole look like less functional as a multiethnic unified state in the eyes of both its own people and the World.

Quebec will never be an independent Marxist-Leninist single party state. Yet, if some Indian socialist mid-level bureaucrat approved the citizenship request of a former or current FLQ bigwig whom the Canadian government reasonably believed was still capable of inspiring terrorism, then I'm inclined to believe that the Canadian state - not to mention Britain and likely also the USA - would likely pursue an extrajudicial assassination of this "Indian citizen," even on Indian soil if necessary, and Canada would be completely justified in doing so in the case that this person was responsible for past FLQ attacks.

https://theintercept.com/2023/09/23/sikhs-fbi-canada-india-nijjar/

“The Khalistan movement today enjoys very little support in Punjab,” said Arjun Sethi, a human rights lawyer and law professor at Georgetown University. “Yet the Indian government continues to inflate its significance in order to galvanize their voter base, distract from their domestic failings, and further their national security agenda.”

So it's about hyping up an imagined threat from outside.

What I mean to suggest that is states with similar civilization worldviews will have similar assumptions on rules of engagements where there are not going to be asymmetrical misunderstandings of intentions and expectations regardless if the relationship is peaceful or in conflict.

But why is that relevant, if their common understanding of intentions means precisely they will be more willing to fight viciously?

Case in point: the issue of American draft dodgers hiding in Canada, although contentious, was certainly less problematic and less of a source of national pain, for both America and Canada, than the issue of American draft dodgers hiding in an Eastern-Bloc or Third-World country.

That's because the US and Canada are rule-of-law states, and they are overall geopolitically allied.

Defectors between West and East Germany, North and South Korea, or Taiwan and mainland China were denounced as worse than traitors: they delegitimized the very idea of the nation, which was exclusively represented by the state they defected from. Conversely, these same states were generous to defectors from the other side, for the same reason. They gave instant citizenship, cash handouts, even military promotions to successful defectors. Taiwan even gave defectors who served in the PLA their weight in gold.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Rogue state behavior. Ultimately not too surprising considering the nature of the curreent Indian regime, but we live in the era of brazenness.

[Sbane]

The Khalistan movement is absolutely dead. There is no chance in hell there will ever be a Khalistan, so why did India feel it needed to do this?

There was and is also "no chance in hell" that America would ever become a Salafi Jihadist Islamic theocracy ruled by Al-Qaeda (at least if we only take secular and scientific evidence into account and ignore what any religious beliefs may dictate is likely to happen), yet we still felt compelled to kill Bin Laden in 2011.

Just because the Khalistan movement is "dead" in the sense that it will never feasibly become supported by a majority or near-majority of Punjabi Sikhs, let alone ever achieve its goals, the Khalistan movement can still inspire the occasional bombing or killing from time to time, something which furthermore makes India as a whole look like less functional as a multiethnic unified state in the eyes of both its own people and the World.

Quebec will never be an independent Marxist-Leninist single party state. Yet, if some Indian socialist mid-level bureaucrat approved the citizenship request of a former or current FLQ bigwig whom the Canadian government reasonably believed was still capable of inspiring terrorism, then I'm inclined to believe that the Canadian state - not to mention Britain and likely also the USA - would likely pursue an extrajudicial assassination of this "Indian citizen," even on Indian soil if necessary, and Canada would be completely justified in doing so in the case that this person was responsible for past FLQ attacks.

The difference between this and Bin Laden is that we know Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the killing of thousands of Americans and other on 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. What exactly Nijjar has done is a little unclear. Obviously he is a separatist who organized a vote on whether Khalistan should be formed and was the leader of a separatist group. But how involved was he in terror attacks/murders?

I am not one of those who is too concerned about this. Should India have done this in this manner? Probably not. Am I going to lose any sleep over them killing this likely terrorist though? Probably not.

[CumbrianLefty]

The Khalistan movement is absolutely dead. There is no chance in hell there will ever be a Khalistan, so why did India feel it needed to do this?

There was and is also "no chance in hell" that America would ever become a Salafi Jihadist Islamic theocracy ruled by Al-Qaeda (at least if we only take secular and scientific evidence into account and ignore what any religious beliefs may dictate is likely to happen), yet we still felt compelled to kill Bin Laden in 2011.

Just because the Khalistan movement is "dead" in the sense that it will never feasibly become supported by a majority or near-majority of Punjabi Sikhs, let alone ever achieve its goals, the Khalistan movement can still inspire the occasional bombing or killing from time to time, something which furthermore makes India as a whole look like less functional as a multiethnic unified state in the eyes of both its own people and the World.

Quebec will never be an independent Marxist-Leninist single party state. Yet, if some Indian socialist mid-level bureaucrat approved the citizenship request of a former or current FLQ bigwig whom the Canadian government reasonably believed was still capable of inspiring terrorism, then I'm inclined to believe that the Canadian state - not to mention Britain and likely also the USA - would likely pursue an extrajudicial assassination of this "Indian citizen," even on Indian soil if necessary, and Canada would be completely justified in doing so in the case that this person was responsible for past FLQ attacks.

The difference between this and Bin Laden is that we know Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the killing of thousands of Americans and other on 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. What exactly Nijjar has done is a little unclear. Obviously he is a separatist who organized a vote on whether Khalistan should be formed and was the leader of a separatist group. But how involved was he in terror attacks/murders?

I am not one of those who is too concerned about this. Should India have done this in this manner? Probably not. Am I going to lose any sleep over them killing this likely terrorist though? Probably not.

You just posted before then that you didn't know this!

[MaxQue]

The Khalistan movement is absolutely dead. There is no chance in hell there will ever be a Khalistan, so why did India feel it needed to do this?

There was and is also "no chance in hell" that America would ever become a Salafi Jihadist Islamic theocracy ruled by Al-Qaeda (at least if we only take secular and scientific evidence into account and ignore what any religious beliefs may dictate is likely to happen), yet we still felt compelled to kill Bin Laden in 2011.

Just because the Khalistan movement is "dead" in the sense that it will never feasibly become supported by a majority or near-majority of Punjabi Sikhs, let alone ever achieve its goals, the Khalistan movement can still inspire the occasional bombing or killing from time to time, something which furthermore makes India as a whole look like less functional as a multiethnic unified state in the eyes of both its own people and the World.

Quebec will never be an independent Marxist-Leninist single party state. Yet, if some Indian socialist mid-level bureaucrat approved the citizenship request of a former or current FLQ bigwig whom the Canadian government reasonably believed was still capable of inspiring terrorism, then I'm inclined to believe that the Canadian state - not to mention Britain and likely also the USA - would likely pursue an extrajudicial assassination of this "Indian citizen," even on Indian soil if necessary, and Canada would be completely justified in doing so in the case that this person was responsible for past FLQ attacks.

Canada would certainly not do that, considering every member came back from exile and were mostly condemned to jail terms of less an 1 year.

Two two leaders were found guilty and condemned to a live term, but they appealed, a second trial was done where was was found not guilty and the other condemned to 30 months in jail.

[Red Velvet]

Woah. India now calls Canada a sanctuary for terrorists, extremists and organized crime:

https://twitter.com/Chellaney/status/1705516718372642846

Amazing how India-Canada relations have collapsed in just a matter of a few days.

[jaichind]

Woah. India now calls Canada a sanctuary for terrorists, extremists and organized crime:

https://twitter.com/Chellaney/status/1705516718372642846

Amazing how India-Canada relations have collapsed in just a matter of a few days.

To be fair, the exact text refers to Canada having a "reputation" of being a sanctuary so it is not a direct designation

[Sbane]

The Khalistan movement is absolutely dead. There is no chance in hell there will ever be a Khalistan, so why did India feel it needed to do this?

There was and is also "no chance in hell" that America would ever become a Salafi Jihadist Islamic theocracy ruled by Al-Qaeda (at least if we only take secular and scientific evidence into account and ignore what any religious beliefs may dictate is likely to happen), yet we still felt compelled to kill Bin Laden in 2011.

Just because the Khalistan movement is "dead" in the sense that it will never feasibly become supported by a majority or near-majority of Punjabi Sikhs, let alone ever achieve its goals, the Khalistan movement can still inspire the occasional bombing or killing from time to time, something which furthermore makes India as a whole look like less functional as a multiethnic unified state in the eyes of both its own people and the World.

Quebec will never be an independent Marxist-Leninist single party state. Yet, if some Indian socialist mid-level bureaucrat approved the citizenship request of a former or current FLQ bigwig whom the Canadian government reasonably believed was still capable of inspiring terrorism, then I'm inclined to believe that the Canadian state - not to mention Britain and likely also the USA - would likely pursue an extrajudicial assassination of this "Indian citizen," even on Indian soil if necessary, and Canada would be completely justified in doing so in the case that this person was responsible for past FLQ attacks.

The difference between this and Bin Laden is that we know Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the killing of thousands of Americans and other on 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. What exactly Nijjar has done is a little unclear. Obviously he is a separatist who organized a vote on whether Khalistan should be formed and was the leader of a separatist group. But how involved was he in terror attacks/murders?

I am not one of those who is too concerned about this. Should India have done this in this manner? Probably not. Am I going to lose any sleep over them killing this likely terrorist though? Probably not.

You just posted before then that you didn't know this!

I don't know for sure which is why I said "likely". He associates with some shady characters with a history of violence.

[Red Velvet]

Woah. India now calls Canada a sanctuary for terrorists, extremists and organized crime:

https://twitter.com/Chellaney/status/1705516718372642846
Amazing how India-Canada relations have collapsed in just a matter of a few days.

To be fair, the exact text refers to Canada having a "reputation" of being a sanctuary so it is not a direct designation

After Canadian politicians, including Trudeau himself, invited an actual WW2 era nazi from Ukraine and clapped the hell out of his speech of “fighting Russia since then for our independence” then India gets a lot more power for claiming they have this reputation lol

You could not invent this s***. Terrible week for being Canadian in terms of global visibility. If those two things weren’t happening simultaneously, I doubt the bad impression would last.

[jaichind]

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/trudeau-honours-nazi-division-veteran-parliament-speaker-issues-apology-to-jews-2440028-2023-09-25

"'Trudeau's appalling judgement error': Row as Nazi veteran feted, then apology"

Indian media having a field day saying "See, not only does Canada harbor and support Khalistan terrorists they seem to also harbor and support (including applaud) Nazis.  See how we were right about Trudeau and Canada the whole time " 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not sure if that one really sticks given some of the people the present Indian government like to lavish praise on.

[jaichind]

https://www.opindia.com/2023/09/congress-leader-ravneet-singh-bittu-lashes-out-canada-lok-sabha/

"‘Canada is CIA’s puppet’ – Congress leader Ravneet Singh Bittu, whose grandfather CM Beant Singh was killed by Khalistanis, lashes out at Canada in Lok Sabha"

INC MP from Punjab Ravneet Singh whose grandfather was the INC CM of Punjab was assassinated by a Khalistan suicide bomber says that the CIA is behind Canada's embrace of Khalistan terrorists.   He indicated that this current crisis is manufactured by the USA to pressure India on its stance on the Russia-Ukraine war.

There are a lot of pro-BJP social media posts saying that Ravneet Singh Bittu should be invited to join BJP.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://www.opindia.com/2023/09/congress-leader-ravneet-singh-bittu-lashes-out-canada-lok-sabha/

"‘Canada is CIA’s puppet’ – Congress leader Ravneet Singh Bittu, whose grandfather CM Beant Singh was killed by Khalistanis, lashes out at Canada in Lok Sabha"

INC MP from Punjab Ravneet Singh whose grandfather was the INC CM of Punjab was assassinated by a Khalistan suicide bomber says that the CIA is behind Canada's embrace of Khalistan terrorists.   He indicated that this current crisis is manufactured by the USA to pressure India on its stance on the Russia-Ukraine war.

There are a lot of pro-BJP social media posts saying that Ravneet Singh Bittu should be invited to join BJP.

Congress trying to out-nationalist the BJP?

[CumbrianLefty]

Not sure if that one really sticks given some of the people the present Indian government like to lavish praise on.

<cough> Indian National Army <cough>

[jaichind]

https://www.opindia.com/2023/09/congress-leader-ravneet-singh-bittu-lashes-out-canada-lok-sabha/

"‘Canada is CIA’s puppet’ – Congress leader Ravneet Singh Bittu, whose grandfather CM Beant Singh was killed by Khalistanis, lashes out at Canada in Lok Sabha"

INC MP from Punjab Ravneet Singh whose grandfather was the INC CM of Punjab was assassinated by a Khalistan suicide bomber says that the CIA is behind Canada's embrace of Khalistan terrorists.   He indicated that this current crisis is manufactured by the USA to pressure India on its stance on the Russia-Ukraine war.

There are a lot of pro-BJP social media posts saying that Ravneet Singh Bittu should be invited to join BJP.

Congress trying to out-nationalist the BJP?

No, it is localized to this one INC MP whose family history makes him ultra-anti-Khalistan.

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-25/modi-s-party-linked-with-most-hate-speech-in-india-report-finds

"Modi’s Party Linked With Most Hate Speech in India, Report Finds"

Collective West MSN to Modi: Play ball or you will soon be lumped in with Trump, Putin, and other undesirables

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-25/modi-s-party-linked-with-most-hate-speech-in-india-report-finds

"Modi’s Party Linked With Most Hate Speech in India, Report Finds"

Collective West MSN to Modi: Play ball or you will soon be lumped in with Trump, Putin, and other undesirables

Probably good for the media to back off at this point. Modi is only going to profit from escalating this.