[screye]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

The Khalistani perpetrators of the worst terrorist act on Canadian soil, second only to 9/11 in deaths, walked free.

I can't comment on Canada's justice system broadly. But when it comes to holding terrorists accountable, Canada's track record is a joke.

[gruez]

>The Khalistani perpetrators of the worst terrorist act on Canadian soil, second only to 9/11 in deaths, walked free.

>I can't comment on Canada's justice system broadly. But when it comes to holding terrorists accountable, Canada's track record is a joke.

The wikipedia article says the Canadian government spent $130M prosecuting the accused, but was unable to secure a conviction. If these people can't be convicted, isn't the correct course of action "walked free"? I'm not sure what the alternative is here? Should we lock them up anyway? Is there any reason to doubt that their prosecution was botched?

[empyrrhicist]

Seeing people defending the most blatant kinds of authoritarianism online gives me the fucking creeps.

[ffgjgf1]

> prosecution was botched

Well… wasn’t it:

> In his verdict, Justice Ian Josephson cited "unacceptable negligence" by CSIS when hundreds of wiretaps of the suspects and other informants were destroyed.

But that’s just how due process and judicial systems work.

[screye]

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice

[tinuviel]

‘Unacceptable negligence by CSIS’ - how will this be perceived by countries like UK and India whose citizens were killed in the attack?

[renewiltord]

That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.

[EatingWithForks]

The rule of law made it so you cannot run kangaroo courts when you just personally believe someone is guilty. If the process is failing to prosecute the guilty, the process should be updated with... more laws, which themselves are passed through representative democratic governance. If one outcome is unsatisfactory to you, you can vote for someone who will tear down the system, you can become a prosecutor, you can run campaigns for people who will tear down systems for you, etc.

[VancouverMan]

> representative democratic governance

It's questionable if that exists in Canada given the system that's currently in place.

Look at the results of the most recent federal election, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

A party that received 32.62% of the popular vote got 160 seats in the House of Commons, while another party that received 33.74% of the vote got only 119 seats.

A party that received only 7.64% of the votes got 32 seats, while another party that received 17.82% of the vote got only 25 seats.

A party that received 2.33% of the votes got 2 seats, while another party that received 4.94% of the vote got no seats.

With a votes-to-seats situation like that, there are a lot of Canadians who don't have proper representation in the House of Commons, or in some cases, effectively none at all.

It's no surprise that the voter turnout wasn't even 63%; many Canadians are completely disillusioned with how the current system works, and don't feel that any of the parties can offer them meaningful representation.

[SuperNinKenDo]

I don't think there's many democracies that function on a purely national popular vote in allotting seats proportionally. I think maybe Israel does. Hardly disqualifies a country as democratic.

[eynsham]

I can't tell whether this is ironic, but, no, it is usually expected that the rule of law requires that the government can't obtain convictions just because it wants them.

[eganist]

> That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.

Seems like that's exactly what rule of law should entail: laws so strictly enforced that people can't be prosecuted when the prosecution is botched because doing so would... violate the rule of law.

So if anything, this further reinforces the idea that Canada hews closely to its laws than not.

[kelnos]

Quite the opposite. The bar for depriving someone of their freedom through force of law should be very high. Sure, the ideal is that all actual criminals are convicted, and all innocent people are acquitted (or aren't even charged in the first place). But until we have a magical system that can achieve perfection, I would much rather the occasional criminal goes free than an innocent person has their life ruined.

If the prosecution fails to make their case, either through incompetence, or simply being outwitted by the defense, that's life. That's how the system as a whole should function. That is rule of law.

[empyrrhicist]

What you're asking for isn't "rule of law" it's "absolute rule".

Fuck everything about that.

[__loam]

Utterly ridiculous assertion.

[Manuel_D]

As per your own link, many of the suspects are dead, on the run, in prison for decades (in the case of one suspect that provided testimony against the other perpetrators), or were found to have not had involvement in the plot. Saying the perpetrators "walked free" is a massive distortion at best.

[mabbo]

Hardeep Singh Nijjar was 7 years old at the time of that attack.

Are you suggesting that he was involved?

Or are you suggesting that all Sikhs who believe in an independent nation for their people are guilty of that crime?

Should we also hold all Quebecois who believe in an independent Quebec guilty for the murder of Pierre Laporte?

[ipnon]

Mr. Nijjar was not involved; he was 8 years old when this happened.

[rajup]

He was involved in other similar activities though.

[ipnon]

A man’s freedom to live in a liberal democracy is not dependent on his activity’s perceived similarity to crimes committed by other people. It’s determined by the law and the application of justice. The Canadian government guarantees this and the Indian government interfered with this sovereign right as alleged.

[epgui]

Agreed with everything except for this wording:

> The Canadian government guarantees this and the Indian government interfered with this sovereignty as alleged.

I would have said instead: "The Canadian government guarantees this and the Indian government is alleged to have interfered with its sovereignty."

[jessepasley]

Where does Canada stand with regards for her southern neighbor and his proclivity for extrajudicial killings and violations of sovereignty in the name fighting a War on Terror?

[eynsham]

Contemptibly silent. I prefer partial silence to complete silence though.

[empyrrhicist]

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

[lambdasquirrel]

And what of the murder of Sikhs that spurred that? Or the murder of muslims in India in general?

This issue is not something we want to be adjudicating. It is not a matter of black and white, good guys and bad guys. If India does not like the guy and wants him charged with terrorism, she needs to go through Canadian courts.

[screye]

The primary victims and perpetrators of the Khalistani movement in Punjab were fellow Sikhs. The vast majority of Sikhs were killed by Khalistanis during the years of terror.

> the murder of muslims in India in general?

Your accusations do not pan out in any statistics. India is a safer place for Shia Muslims than any non-Iran country in the middle east. India is the only country where Ahmediyyas are not prosecuted.

There is no 'murder of muslims in India in general'. India has communal tensions just as every heterogenous country has communal tensions. But other than uncontrollable riots where both sides are usually injured, Muslims are treated fairly in the Indian system. If anything, India practices affirmative action towards Muslims, allows islamic schools (madaras) and gives them fully independent management rights of all islamic institutions. None of these allowances are extended to the majority population.

[tinuviel]

Rightly put.