4 ms·

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182 The Khalistani perpetrators of the worst terrorist act

by screye 3y ago

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

ipnon 3y ago
Mr. Nijjar was not involved; he was 8 years old when this happened.
- rajup 3y ago
  He was involved in other similar activities though.
  - ipnon 3y ago
    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.
    - jessepasley 3y ago
      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?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - eynsham 3y ago
        Contemptibly silent. I prefer partial silence to complete silence though.
      - empyrrhicist 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - epgui 3y ago
      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."
gruez 3y ago
>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 3y ago
  Seeing people defending the most blatant kinds of authoritarianism online gives me the fucking creeps.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.
  - eynsham 3y ago
    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.
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    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 3y ago
Manuel_D 3y ago
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.
lambdasquirrel 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    Rightly put.
mabbo 3y ago
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?

by screye 3y ago

ipnon 3y ago

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

rajup 3y ago
He was involved in other similar activities though.
- ipnon 3y ago
  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.
  - jessepasley 3y ago
    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?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - eynsham 3y ago
      Contemptibly silent. I prefer partial silence to complete silence though.
    - empyrrhicist 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - epgui 3y ago
    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."

gruez 3y ago

>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 3y ago
Seeing people defending the most blatant kinds of authoritarianism online gives me the fucking creeps.
renewiltord 3y ago
That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.
- eynsham 3y ago
  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.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  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 3y ago

Manuel_D 3y ago

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.

lambdasquirrel 3y ago

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 3y ago
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 3y ago
  Rightly put.

mabbo 3y ago

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?