• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sikh & India (Alleged) Shenanigans in Canada (split fm Non-Muslim terr thread)

So, if India knew that they were criminals then why did they let them leave the country?

Generally, unless the "criminals" were under travel restrictions by the Indian government or the subject of active arrest warrants, they would be free to leave and re-enter India.

How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
 
Generally, unless the "criminals" were under travel restrictions by the Indian government or the subject of active arrest warrants, they would be free to leave and re-enter India.

How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
A quick way to deal with criminals is to let them emigrate and now they are someone else’s problem.

Vince Li. China

Now these three.
 
Generally, unless the "criminals" were under travel restrictions by the Indian government or the subject of active arrest warrants, they would be free to leave and re-enter India.

How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
Disappointing. I missed out on a Grande Mothers show because Napoleon Murphy Brock couldn't cross the border due to an old drug-related thing.
 
I worry less about India's meddling than China. india does not want Canada as a vassal state, but China sure does. India just wants us to control the nutbars on our soil more.
Same here - but we (Canada) should do the utmost to prevent this crap. Is that not why we have diplomats?

"Mr Ambassador our nation is troubled by some of the cranks you've let emigrate here. How can we work together to solve this?"

"I know a guy, who knows a guy or two...."
 
How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
I think this is key. Calling somebody a "criminal" and actually being one are two different things, and sometimes the scope of "criminal" is a tad elastic.

This is a country that, every time they have a train wreck, the first thing they do is arrest the crew.
 
What is the difference between Free Khalistan and Free Palestine?

Or for that matter Free Scotland?

Free Quebec?
 
Scots don’t invade England and murder English people, not in this century nor the last.
The FLQ - they tried and failed miserably,

You want to try Erin Go Bragh then?

Or how about Khomeini being granted refuge in France prior to overthrowing the Shah?

France[edit]​

On September 24, 1978, according to a meeting held in New York City between Iraqi and Iranian foreign minister,[38] Khomeini was forced by Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein to leave Najaf, although the Shah and Hussein had begun plans to expel Khomeini as early as 1975.[39] Khomeini preferred to go to another Muslim country, and obtained a visa for Kuwait,[40] but was turned back at the border because he had obtained the visa under the name “Ruhollah Mustafavi”.[41] Khomeini's next preference was to go to Syria – where some sources say he had intended to permanently reside even when he attempted to enter Kuwait[42] – but the lingering influence of Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr in Iraqi and Syrian politics meant that Syrian government would not accept him.[43] Khomeini then considered going to Bahrain, India, Pakistan or Algeria,[40] but his US-educated nationalist aide, Ebrahim Yazdi, argued that Khomeini should move to the West because of the greater communication opportunities offered there, with Paris offering the best option for communication with the world of his revolutionary message.[44]

On October 11, 1978, after Khomeini was moved to Neauphle-le-Château outside Paris, France. From the advantages this decision was to keep faraway clerics and Ulama.[45] Citiation in France such as some communication facilities and political atmosphere make more efficient relation with people in Iran. In France, because of journalists and the press, and support and approval of the UK and the US foreign policies and their lack of trust in Shah to support their long-term interest, Khomeini's speeches were published rapidly in global media.[28] Khomeini wanted to people that continued protests against the government.[46] Between August and December 1978, strikes and demonstrations paralyzed Iran, so that the Shah left the country for exile on 16 January 1979, as the last Persian monarch, leaving his duties to a regency council and an opposition-based prime minister, Shapour Bakhtiar.


Our freedoms of speech and association are exploitable.

They were designed to permit us to criticize our governments.

Not to create safe havens from which malcontents can disrupt other nations. That power of disruption exists solely as a governmental power.
 
I think this is key. Calling somebody a "criminal" and actually being one are two different things, and sometimes the scope of "criminal" is a tad elastic.
When assessing admissibility of a foreign national who was convicted of a "crime" in their home country, a comparison is made against our laws. A person seeking entry who was convicted of the crime of "homosexuality" in their home country of "Westovia" could be admissible as homosexuality is not a crime in Canada. Conversely, a convicted murderer from "Figuroia" would be inadmissible as murder is a crime here as well.
 
When assessing admissibility of a foreign national who was convicted of a "crime" in their home country, a comparison is made against our laws. A person seeking entry who was convicted of the crime of "homosexuality" in their home country of "Westovia" could be admissible as homosexuality is not a crime in Canada. Conversely, a convicted murderer from "Figuroia" would be inadmissible as murder is a crime here as well.
Yes, and it seems the Indian government has criminalized advocating separatism.
 
Generally, unless the "criminals" were under travel restrictions by the Indian government or the subject of active arrest warrants, they would be free to leave and re-enter India.

How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
Absolutely. But I’m assuming that India hasn’t done the above if they were free to leave.

If India didn’t tell Canada prior to them coming and then said “hey you’re harbouring criminals”, it’s a bit late…
 
Yes, and it seems the Indian government has criminalized advocating separatism.
The Indian government is slowly working towards a dictatorship so I wouldn’t put a ton of faith in them. 100 politicians charged with corruption. Only two from the ruling party. 23 switched to the ruling party from the opposition and suddenly the charges were dropped or stayed.

 
Generally, unless the "criminals" were under travel restrictions by the Indian government or the subject of active arrest warrants, they would be free to leave and re-enter India.

How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
🤣Really Haggis, is that a serious question or are you pining for the days of a secure border and actual immigration checks?🤣
 
🤣Really Haggis, is that a serious question or are you pining for the days of a secure border and actual immigration checks?🤣
Historically, “secure border” was a myth.

looks at land border between Canada and US

And as @Haggis previously said, it’s one thing for India to say one is a criminal, but Canada may not think the same. Some countries consider homosexuality a criminal offense - should Canada then also label homosexuals from said country criminals?
 
Historically, “secure border” was a myth.

looks at land border between Canada and US

And as @Haggis previously said, it’s one thing for India to say one is a criminal, but Canada may not think the same. Some countries consider homosexuality a criminal offense - should Canada then also label homosexuals from said country criminals?


In June 25, 1876, just a few days later, the chief led a successful battle against American forces in the Battle of the Rosebud. A week later he was engaged in battle again, this time against General George Armstrong Custer in the now famous Battle at Little Bighorn. There, Sitting Bull led thousands of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors against Custer’s undermanned force, wiping out the American general and 262 of his men.

For the U.S. government the defeat was an embarrassment, and the Army doubled down its efforts to wrest control of the territory from Native American tribes. To escape its wrath, Sitting Bull led his people into Canada, crossing near Wood Mountain SK which was then part of the North-West Territories. Sitting Bull and his tribe of Sioux came to the Wood Mountain and Willow Bunch area in November of 1876. Initially, Sitting Bull and his people, by May 1877 numbering 800 lodges with 4,000 people, traded with Jean-Louis Légaré, co-founder of Willow Bunch. However, with the severe depletion of the Buffalo, the Sioux faced starvation and required more assistance. By 1881, both the Canadian and American governments wanted Sitting Bull and his people to return to their native land and establish a reserve. Both federal governments entered into an agreement with Jean-Louis Légaré to enlist his help in the matter. With the aid of Légaré and his Métis scouts, Sitting Bull returned to Fort Buford, where he surrendered to U.S. authorities in July of 1881.

 

And let's not forget this Nobel Peace Prize laureate and "leader of a notorious terrorist organisation" as described by the British Government who continued to refuse him a visa to enter the UK until the 1970s, only a few short years before he became the PM of Israel.

1715145618231.png


Also not well liked by the Soviets in 1940, as evidenced by his NKVD mugshot and a stay in the Gulags.

1715145919065.png
 
Back
Top