He’s involved Canada in a foreign conflict in which it has no stakes and which is now being partially waged on his country’s soil with some of its own citizens as casualties.
Well, there shouldn't be any Indians in Canada at all, let alone running major political parties. The size of India is such that immigration from that country could overwhelm Canada (and Britain and Australia).
I won't say there should be absolutely no Sikhs (or by extension South Asians in general) in Canada and the US. But the relentlessly open-ended diversity fetish of Western liberals is certainly self-destructive and tends to import problems like the one we are discussing.
Obviously not everyone follows the faith, just as many Christians tend to stray. I can say this though from personal experience. In over 30 years of living and working among them in Vancouver, I have never once come into conflict with them. Unfortunately I can't say the same about other Canadians, including people from my own background, which is British.
This was a profoundly stupid comment. They are different and are a hostile and separate identity group in all Western societies. They should never have been allowed in Canada. They all peddle the so-called anti-racism meme. Even if YOU think that "we are all the same and can't we just get along", THEY don't think that - they are explicitly ethnocentrist and favour themselves over everyone else. The fact that you are "trying to get past race" just means you are a patsy for their growing power in Canada. In 1960, how many Vancouverites were non-white? Hardly any. In 1961, non-Chinese and non-Japanese Asians were just 0.2% of the population in the whole of Canada. Canada as a whole was over 98% white.
Yeah, and before that 100% indigenous. So the replacers are being replaced? Cry me a river. And where did I say "we're all the same and can't we just get along?" Obviously we can't and you're a prime example. Here's a suggestion. You want to be with people who think like you? Go join the IDF or the Azov Brigade.
I went though about a dozen different news reports looking for information relating to what RT published: "The Indian government has condemned an attack by alleged Sikh separatist activists on a Hindu temple in Canada, where a consular camp was organized by the diplomatic mission, calling the incident “deeply disturbing.”"
No Canadian news outlet except the Toronto Sun made any mention of that. One of them characterized it as a "visit" which I found a bit disingenuous.
"Sikhs for Justice alleged Hindu nationalists had provoked the fighting and has claimed Indian officials use visits to religious sites to find informants to target Sikh separatists. The Indian high commission in Ottawa did not immediately respond to the claims.
The group is asking that Indian consular officials be barred from undertaking work outside of their diplomatic premises, arguing external site visits “directly endanger the safety and security of pro-Khalistan citizens in Canada.”
It's the only instance I could find of the Sikh point of view being published. They have a point I would say. Since when do you set up a diplomatic mission in a Hindu temple when you're supposed to be representing a secular state? This is just another example of Hinduvta and was clearly meant as a provocation. Unfortunately Sikhs took the bait.
I don't buy the idea that the Canadian government is "embracing" Sikh nationalists.
What is happening in North America is that we have allowed mass immigration from South Asia--especially India--and, in so doing, we have imported India's domestic problems.
A few decades ago, South Asians had very low visibility in the US, though they had been a higher percentage of immigrants in Canada going further back.
But over the last 30 years or so, the presence of Indians has roared past East Asians in the US. Seems like you can't find a gas station that isn't owned/run by Indians now. And their presence in government and media is also massive. Sikhs in the US Army are now allowed to wear beards and turbans.
East Asians were once more visible in the US although they have always been somewhat culturally reclusive. But now South Asians have put them in the shade.
Bottom line: When you import the Third World, you import the Third World's problems. And that has nothing to do with "embracing" this or that Third World social/political movement.
"Seems like you can't find a gas station that isn't owned/run by Indians now."
Most of those gas stations are franchises, at least in Canada. I worked for a major oil company during the 80's which was when the independent gas stations were run out of business by oil co. owned self-serves which were a new thing at the time. Independents had two choices. Become a franchise operator or go out of business. Indians were able to operate the franchises more efficiently as family enterprises. That's the advantage of being family oriented and sharing the costs of living among three generations, which Canadians don't do anymore.
You see the same thing in farming, which is mainly done by Sikhs where I live (BC). Farming is a low margin business which Canadians have largely abandoned. Again, Sikhs are more effective since they combine family resources in the enterprise. It's not uncommon for three generations to live under one roof and for everyone to work in the venture, even while holding outside jobs, such as working in a gas station or 7-11.
People complain that "they took our jobs" but does anyone want to work in farming or run a gas station any more? The truth is those businesses were squeezed by corporate interests to the point were no one want to work in them anymore. Sikhs have made a go of it because they're used to communal living and sharing resources. So which would you rather have, Sikhs running farms and gas stations, or Sikhs living on welfare like Somalis or Haitians? You can't turn back the clock on the corporate greed that drove the independent farmers and gas station owners under, so which is it?
"So which would you rather have, Sikhs running farms and gas stations, or Sikhs living on welfare like Somalis or Haitians?"
I don't think it's the either-or choice you are offering here. We didn't need to let them in--certainly not in the massive numbers we have.
"People complain that "they took our jobs" but does anyone want to work in farming or run a gas station any more? The truth is those businesses were squeezed by corporate interests to the point were no one want to work in them anymore."
Yes, that's true. So corporate interests and diversity fetishists are in a de facto alliance to transform the West into a Third-World hell-hole for fun, profit, and ideology.
Your view, I guess, is that this is simply inevitable. If that's the case, then I guess it's just "Sauve qui peut." So when the "Masters of War" coming looking for their volunteers/conscripts for their wars with ____________ (fill in the blank), let the 107th Punjabi Light Infantry of Toronto do the fighting. If there is truly no recourse, as you say, let the Anglosphere go the way of Rome.
"Be that as it may, there’s a huge difference between peacefully protesting and publishing online agitprop and rampaging through a place of worship and threatening diplomats, the latter of which is one of this movement’s newest tactics that violates the Vienna Convention."
The truth is, you need the full context to understand what's going on here, including the historic background to understand the motivation for wanting to separate from India.
This is what could have been, at least in the Punjab
It's important to understand the difference between a small militant group and the aspirations of a significant number, perhaps even a majority, of Sikhs. Obviously I can't speak for them all, but as someone who worked for over 25 years with Sikhs and has studied their language and religion, I can say unequivocally that I'd much rather live in a land ruled by Sikhs than by Hindus. India declares itself to be a secular society, but that has only even been honoured in the breach. For all the external trappings of modernity, Hindu attitudes and beliefs still hold sway, the worst aspect of which is the caste system which disenfranchises large sections of their population.
Sikhism opposed caste from the very beginning and is arguably the true secular impulse in India, both historically and in the present. Islam is a close second as it shares the same belief as Sikhs in the equality of all men, while Sikhs take it a step further and declare the equality of both men and women, plus respect for the religions of other people.
Well, there shouldn't be any Indians in Canada at all, let alone running major political parties. The size of India is such that immigration from that country could overwhelm Canada (and Britain and Australia).
I won't say there should be absolutely no Sikhs (or by extension South Asians in general) in Canada and the US. But the relentlessly open-ended diversity fetish of Western liberals is certainly self-destructive and tends to import problems like the one we are discussing.
"Rivers of blood."
Sikhs have been in Canada for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_Canada
Rather than see them as different, why not read up on their beliefs and see how similar they are to Christians in their outlook.
https://www.learnreligions.com/primary-sikh-beliefs-2993513
Obviously not everyone follows the faith, just as many Christians tend to stray. I can say this though from personal experience. In over 30 years of living and working among them in Vancouver, I have never once come into conflict with them. Unfortunately I can't say the same about other Canadians, including people from my own background, which is British.
See https://whitepapersinstitute.substack.com/p/oh-canada-22 for a great piece on how the clock could be turned back on the Great Replacement in Canada.
This was a profoundly stupid comment. They are different and are a hostile and separate identity group in all Western societies. They should never have been allowed in Canada. They all peddle the so-called anti-racism meme. Even if YOU think that "we are all the same and can't we just get along", THEY don't think that - they are explicitly ethnocentrist and favour themselves over everyone else. The fact that you are "trying to get past race" just means you are a patsy for their growing power in Canada. In 1960, how many Vancouverites were non-white? Hardly any. In 1961, non-Chinese and non-Japanese Asians were just 0.2% of the population in the whole of Canada. Canada as a whole was over 98% white.
"Canada as a whole was over 98% white."
Yeah, and before that 100% indigenous. So the replacers are being replaced? Cry me a river. And where did I say "we're all the same and can't we just get along?" Obviously we can't and you're a prime example. Here's a suggestion. You want to be with people who think like you? Go join the IDF or the Azov Brigade.
You might be interested in what I wrote a while back on this issue.
https://www.thecanadafiles.com/articles/canada-india-assassination-allegations-as-further-logic-to-expand-spying-powers-and-intelligence-integration
I went though about a dozen different news reports looking for information relating to what RT published: "The Indian government has condemned an attack by alleged Sikh separatist activists on a Hindu temple in Canada, where a consular camp was organized by the diplomatic mission, calling the incident “deeply disturbing.”"
No Canadian news outlet except the Toronto Sun made any mention of that. One of them characterized it as a "visit" which I found a bit disingenuous.
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/politicians-condemn-shameful-reports-of-violence-at-brampton-hindu-temple
"Sikhs for Justice alleged Hindu nationalists had provoked the fighting and has claimed Indian officials use visits to religious sites to find informants to target Sikh separatists. The Indian high commission in Ottawa did not immediately respond to the claims.
The group is asking that Indian consular officials be barred from undertaking work outside of their diplomatic premises, arguing external site visits “directly endanger the safety and security of pro-Khalistan citizens in Canada.”
It's the only instance I could find of the Sikh point of view being published. They have a point I would say. Since when do you set up a diplomatic mission in a Hindu temple when you're supposed to be representing a secular state? This is just another example of Hinduvta and was clearly meant as a provocation. Unfortunately Sikhs took the bait.
I don't buy the idea that the Canadian government is "embracing" Sikh nationalists.
What is happening in North America is that we have allowed mass immigration from South Asia--especially India--and, in so doing, we have imported India's domestic problems.
A few decades ago, South Asians had very low visibility in the US, though they had been a higher percentage of immigrants in Canada going further back.
But over the last 30 years or so, the presence of Indians has roared past East Asians in the US. Seems like you can't find a gas station that isn't owned/run by Indians now. And their presence in government and media is also massive. Sikhs in the US Army are now allowed to wear beards and turbans.
East Asians were once more visible in the US although they have always been somewhat culturally reclusive. But now South Asians have put them in the shade.
Bottom line: When you import the Third World, you import the Third World's problems. And that has nothing to do with "embracing" this or that Third World social/political movement.
"Seems like you can't find a gas station that isn't owned/run by Indians now."
Most of those gas stations are franchises, at least in Canada. I worked for a major oil company during the 80's which was when the independent gas stations were run out of business by oil co. owned self-serves which were a new thing at the time. Independents had two choices. Become a franchise operator or go out of business. Indians were able to operate the franchises more efficiently as family enterprises. That's the advantage of being family oriented and sharing the costs of living among three generations, which Canadians don't do anymore.
You see the same thing in farming, which is mainly done by Sikhs where I live (BC). Farming is a low margin business which Canadians have largely abandoned. Again, Sikhs are more effective since they combine family resources in the enterprise. It's not uncommon for three generations to live under one roof and for everyone to work in the venture, even while holding outside jobs, such as working in a gas station or 7-11.
People complain that "they took our jobs" but does anyone want to work in farming or run a gas station any more? The truth is those businesses were squeezed by corporate interests to the point were no one want to work in them anymore. Sikhs have made a go of it because they're used to communal living and sharing resources. So which would you rather have, Sikhs running farms and gas stations, or Sikhs living on welfare like Somalis or Haitians? You can't turn back the clock on the corporate greed that drove the independent farmers and gas station owners under, so which is it?
"So which would you rather have, Sikhs running farms and gas stations, or Sikhs living on welfare like Somalis or Haitians?"
I don't think it's the either-or choice you are offering here. We didn't need to let them in--certainly not in the massive numbers we have.
"People complain that "they took our jobs" but does anyone want to work in farming or run a gas station any more? The truth is those businesses were squeezed by corporate interests to the point were no one want to work in them anymore."
Yes, that's true. So corporate interests and diversity fetishists are in a de facto alliance to transform the West into a Third-World hell-hole for fun, profit, and ideology.
Your view, I guess, is that this is simply inevitable. If that's the case, then I guess it's just "Sauve qui peut." So when the "Masters of War" coming looking for their volunteers/conscripts for their wars with ____________ (fill in the blank), let the 107th Punjabi Light Infantry of Toronto do the fighting. If there is truly no recourse, as you say, let the Anglosphere go the way of Rome.
"Be that as it may, there’s a huge difference between peacefully protesting and publishing online agitprop and rampaging through a place of worship and threatening diplomats, the latter of which is one of this movement’s newest tactics that violates the Vienna Convention."
Indeed there is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star
some background.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Operation-Blue-Star
At least they didn't do this:
https://cpcml.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/1984GoldenTempleAfterIndianGovernmentRaid-PubDomain.jpg
The truth is, you need the full context to understand what's going on here, including the historic background to understand the motivation for wanting to separate from India.
This is what could have been, at least in the Punjab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire
This what you're dealing with today if you're a Sikh or Muslim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva
It's important to understand the difference between a small militant group and the aspirations of a significant number, perhaps even a majority, of Sikhs. Obviously I can't speak for them all, but as someone who worked for over 25 years with Sikhs and has studied their language and religion, I can say unequivocally that I'd much rather live in a land ruled by Sikhs than by Hindus. India declares itself to be a secular society, but that has only even been honoured in the breach. For all the external trappings of modernity, Hindu attitudes and beliefs still hold sway, the worst aspect of which is the caste system which disenfranchises large sections of their population.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2021/04/dalit-born-life-discrimination-and-stigma
Sikhism opposed caste from the very beginning and is arguably the true secular impulse in India, both historically and in the present. Islam is a close second as it shares the same belief as Sikhs in the equality of all men, while Sikhs take it a step further and declare the equality of both men and women, plus respect for the religions of other people.