| > 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. |
By the entire international community. Including Americans (though the US officially is trying to stay out of it): https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/09/ca...
> 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.
By India and only India.
You can keep saying that the Khalistan movement is a terrorist movement but that seems to be only one facet of the equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement
> False equivalence.
I wasn't drawing an equivalence. You were trying to trap me with Whataboutism, and I was saying I agree with your criticisms. It's not a gotcha.
> 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.
I can't find a clear confirmation for this but my understanding is Nijjar had to give up his Indian citizenship when he got Canadian. So that he's "foreign" to India is a diplomatic technicality.
> 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.
Even if Canada, as a matter of international policy, was "supporting" this movement (which it isn't), how would this be a valid equivalence? Canada is not trying to annex any territories for itself...
Allowing human beings to express an opinion is not a tacit endorsement of them.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Canada
You could've just said Afghanistan and laid the responsibility of the re-conquering of that nation by the Taliban under Canada's responsibility rather than gish-galloping with a list of every single conflict since 1002 AD.
But keep in mind your point was that Canada has no credibility as a free and democratic institution because of it. I don't know what is the actual example but Afghanistan was controlled by the terrorist Taliban before the invasion, and it still is.