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.
Interesting. In the credibility dept. none of the actors really have any, so what's actually happening is anyone's guess at this point. Sikh militants are a hard-core bunch. I've seen some of them at the milas in Surrey. One of my Sikh friends calls them the Taliban...lol. That said, my sympathies are with the majority moderate Sikhs who seem to be caught between two irreconcilable forces: Khalistan Independence and Hindutva, the later being just as capable of extreme actions, whether spontaneous or government sponsored.
I cannot comment on developments, evidence, or sources, but you are correct. I feel bad for all parties. Glad that Sputnik and RT have picked up where I left off.
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.
Canada was founded by white men. The real First Nations are the English, French, Scottish and Irish. It is their country. John McDonald would not have recognised the country it is today - a result produced by Trudeau's father's spite. Even the Red Indians, to give them their real name, have made no contribution to the civilisation that is Canada - everything is given to them by the real Canadians.
Admitting, in the large numbers, the international connivers who drive us to support the IDF was the start of many of our current problems, including mass immigration.
Some sites are censorious on the topic of international Jewry. I agree that euphemism should have no place in discussions of their scheming. (But your use of “IDF” is barely less euphemistic.)
Perhaps 2 "wrongs" don't make it right. Reconciliation could maybe have a better chance with the recognition of 3 founding nations, with all citizens having strong rights. Not the vote-bank politics of LPC's "official multi-culturalism" since about 1970. Quebec has "interculturalism".
What is often forgotten is that while white people founded Upper and Lower Canada, there were plenty of non-Irish, British and French in the early days, and aside from the native people who were already here you also had the Métis. Where I live (BC) is part of Canada by virtue of the Chinese who built the most difficult part of the CPR after the Poles, Ukrainians, Germans and Swedes took one look at the Rocky Mountains and opted for homesteading the prairies instead. Of course the Chinese weren't allowed to stay, even though they earned their place. Sikhs had similar problems, even though they were here circa 1900 and helped establish the lumber industry, and later much of the farming. Then there's the large number of refugees from all over Europe post WWII, so I reckon they've made a contribution as well, and let's not forget the escaped slaves that arrived in Nova Scotia via the underground RR, or the Japanese fishermen who had their homes and boats stolen and were placed in camps, while people of German ancestry were largely left alone.
Canada has a lot to answer for. Not that we're alone in that respect, but to argue that Canada is a 'white country' flies in the face of history and common sense. Where exactly do you draw the line on who's a contributor and who's a liability?
Where I draw a polemical line between a contributor and a liability has nothing to do with anything, and I don't play polemics unless it's systemic (ie. guilt or innocence) or appropriate. Too many view far too much as black or white without seeing grey. I loathe racial, ethnic and religious tribalism and its consequent politics, and think our practiced policy of multi-culturalism doesn't lessen it. Let's argue salad vs a melting-pot stew.
Won't work. Demography is destiny as they say, and immigrants tend to have more children. I don't see how you get around that since western women hold a veto on how many children they have, and careers seem to be more important than raising a family with many of them. Even couples who do have kids are having fewer for economic reasons. Unfortunately western people have lost the extended family values that characterizes most of the immigrant cultures. You could stop immigration completely and it still wouldn't make any difference. That horse left the barn years ago.
Speaking of values, there's a certain irony to your program that you seem to be missing. On the whole, immigrants in Canada tend to have more conservative values than your 'original' Canadians, extended families being just one of them. Belief in God is another, which we seem to have abandoned, as well as the concept of working hard to get ahead, which most Asians excel at.
The simple fact is we've lost our way as a culture, and I don't see how you can reverse that. If you look around where I live (rural BC) all you see is fat guys in pick-up trucks and equally fat women covered in tattoos. Lots of drug addicts of course - they're everywhere now, even in the smallest communities. Churches are mostly empty, bars and Tim Hortons being the preferred gathering places these days. Not to say they're all like that. Some are decent people, but they're not having enough kids to replace themselves, so that's a wash as well.
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 at all--certainly not in the massive numbers we have done.
"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.
End LPC's "official multi-culti" tribalism-fostering vote-banking. Try, as in Quebec, this: "Interculturalism is a political movement that supports cross-cultural dialogue and challenging self-segregation tendencies within cultures.[1] Interculturalism involves moving beyond mere passive acceptance of multiple cultures existing in a society and instead promotes dialogue and interaction between cultures.[2] Interculturalism is often used to describe the set of relations between indigenous and western ideals, grounded in values of mutual respect." - wikiP
"Plan for what?" To return Canada to its original founders, as per David's comment.
I follow MLK on the 'judge people by the content of their character' thing. There are certain cultures (or subcultures) I dislike from which I keep my distance, but I'm not in a position to do much more than that. Are any of us?
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.
"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.
I am in the GTA, basically since the early 1960s. The virtues of Slkhism is not the point. Ethnic-tribalism, increased by our policies, is. Have you ever heard of Indira Gandhi and her fate?
I'm familiar with what happened to Gandhi. Could have been avoided by simply surrounding the temple and waiting them out. Instead she went full Waco and got a lot of innocent people killed, so no tears shed for her.
Speaking of ethnic tribalism, I don't see too many Canadians calling out the Zionists among us. Same goes for the Banderistas who not only have the support of our govt. but apparently a majority of the population as well. I guess it's OK when it's over there and not here. Out of sight, out of mind.
What I object to is the knee jerk response to blame the Sikhs for what happened when the story is a bit more complex than that. What was the Indian govt. doing setting up a consular mission in a Hindu temple anyway? Not trying to justify what happened, but people seem to have missed that detail which was seen as a provocation by Sikhs - part of the ongoing Hinduvta agenda of the current Indian govt. which is constitutionally bound to respect all minorities, but which follows a Hindu supremacist line every since the BJP came to power. Where was the national outrage over that?
I agree we need better control over our immigration policies, not disputing that. I just get annoyed when people throw a particular ethnic group all together in the same basket.
I've witnessed lamenting and subtle criticism of Modi/Hindutva in MSM here prior to the spectacle, which was not less than that for the Khalistan separatist/independence movement to establish an ethno‐religious sovereign state. I won't dispute your hyperbolic Waco reference, though not (completely) analogous, nor your viewing the bodyguards' treachery as a virtuous expression of faith creating poetic justice. Those bodyguards' could have resigned, but that's a modern, civilized approach. I feel so culturally insensitive and racist now - a real deplorable ol' Canadian.
"I won't dispute your hyperbolic Waco reference, though not (completely) analogous, nor your viewing the bodyguards' treachery as a virtuous expression of faith creating poetic justice."
Where did I mention poetic justice or that the actions of her bodyguards was virtuous? I just pointed out that there was an alternative Gandhi could have pursued, and that the results of not doing so were entirely predictable. Bear in mind the attack came on a Sikh holy day when many worshippers who had nothing to do with separatism were present. Gandhi's bodyguards didn't do the Sikh community any favours either. The resulting Hindu riots killed over 5000 of their coreligionists, which again was entirely predictable.
As for Waco, it's completely analogous in the sense that they could have just sat them out but instead went on the attack. Also analogous is the resulting innocent deaths. So how is that hyperbole?
OK. I (too) do hyperbole. I surmise that the security situations were not identical. Both Waco and the temple incidents can each be discussed, in various regards, for eternity without consensus, I think. Many still are.
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
Interesting. In the credibility dept. none of the actors really have any, so what's actually happening is anyone's guess at this point. Sikh militants are a hard-core bunch. I've seen some of them at the milas in Surrey. One of my Sikh friends calls them the Taliban...lol. That said, my sympathies are with the majority moderate Sikhs who seem to be caught between two irreconcilable forces: Khalistan Independence and Hindutva, the later being just as capable of extreme actions, whether spontaneous or government sponsored.
I cannot comment on developments, evidence, or sources, but you are correct. I feel bad for all parties. Glad that Sputnik and RT have picked up where I left off.
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.
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.
"This was a profoundly stupid comment."
Way to win friends and influence people...LOL!
"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.
Canada was founded by white men. The real First Nations are the English, French, Scottish and Irish. It is their country. John McDonald would not have recognised the country it is today - a result produced by Trudeau's father's spite. Even the Red Indians, to give them their real name, have made no contribution to the civilisation that is Canada - everything is given to them by the real Canadians.
Add all the native "nations" There are treaties/agreements, prior to the Canadian state existing, with the English/UK Crown.
Admitting, in the large numbers, the international connivers who drive us to support the IDF was the start of many of our current problems, including mass immigration.
Exactly!
"international connivers"
What's with the euphemism? Why can't you just name them?
Some sites are censorious on the topic of international Jewry. I agree that euphemism should have no place in discussions of their scheming. (But your use of “IDF” is barely less euphemistic.)
Perhaps 2 "wrongs" don't make it right. Reconciliation could maybe have a better chance with the recognition of 3 founding nations, with all citizens having strong rights. Not the vote-bank politics of LPC's "official multi-culturalism" since about 1970. Quebec has "interculturalism".
What is often forgotten is that while white people founded Upper and Lower Canada, there were plenty of non-Irish, British and French in the early days, and aside from the native people who were already here you also had the Métis. Where I live (BC) is part of Canada by virtue of the Chinese who built the most difficult part of the CPR after the Poles, Ukrainians, Germans and Swedes took one look at the Rocky Mountains and opted for homesteading the prairies instead. Of course the Chinese weren't allowed to stay, even though they earned their place. Sikhs had similar problems, even though they were here circa 1900 and helped establish the lumber industry, and later much of the farming. Then there's the large number of refugees from all over Europe post WWII, so I reckon they've made a contribution as well, and let's not forget the escaped slaves that arrived in Nova Scotia via the underground RR, or the Japanese fishermen who had their homes and boats stolen and were placed in camps, while people of German ancestry were largely left alone.
Canada has a lot to answer for. Not that we're alone in that respect, but to argue that Canada is a 'white country' flies in the face of history and common sense. Where exactly do you draw the line on who's a contributor and who's a liability?
Where I draw a polemical line between a contributor and a liability has nothing to do with anything, and I don't play polemics unless it's systemic (ie. guilt or innocence) or appropriate. Too many view far too much as black or white without seeing grey. I loathe racial, ethnic and religious tribalism and its consequent politics, and think our practiced policy of multi-culturalism doesn't lessen it. Let's argue salad vs a melting-pot stew.
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.
Won't work. Demography is destiny as they say, and immigrants tend to have more children. I don't see how you get around that since western women hold a veto on how many children they have, and careers seem to be more important than raising a family with many of them. Even couples who do have kids are having fewer for economic reasons. Unfortunately western people have lost the extended family values that characterizes most of the immigrant cultures. You could stop immigration completely and it still wouldn't make any difference. That horse left the barn years ago.
Speaking of values, there's a certain irony to your program that you seem to be missing. On the whole, immigrants in Canada tend to have more conservative values than your 'original' Canadians, extended families being just one of them. Belief in God is another, which we seem to have abandoned, as well as the concept of working hard to get ahead, which most Asians excel at.
The simple fact is we've lost our way as a culture, and I don't see how you can reverse that. If you look around where I live (rural BC) all you see is fat guys in pick-up trucks and equally fat women covered in tattoos. Lots of drug addicts of course - they're everywhere now, even in the smallest communities. Churches are mostly empty, bars and Tim Hortons being the preferred gathering places these days. Not to say they're all like that. Some are decent people, but they're not having enough kids to replace themselves, so that's a wash as well.
The Canadian stand is subordinated to US interests and dual modus operandi.....
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 at all--certainly not in the massive numbers we have done.
"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.
"Your view, I guess, is that this is simply inevitable.'
Maybe. So what's your plan? You guys talk a lot, but I've yet to see anything resembling an actual plan.
Plan for what?
What is your “plan “?
End LPC's "official multi-culti" tribalism-fostering vote-banking. Try, as in Quebec, this: "Interculturalism is a political movement that supports cross-cultural dialogue and challenging self-segregation tendencies within cultures.[1] Interculturalism involves moving beyond mere passive acceptance of multiple cultures existing in a society and instead promotes dialogue and interaction between cultures.[2] Interculturalism is often used to describe the set of relations between indigenous and western ideals, grounded in values of mutual respect." - wikiP
"Plan for what?" To return Canada to its original founders, as per David's comment.
I follow MLK on the 'judge people by the content of their character' thing. There are certain cultures (or subcultures) I dislike from which I keep my distance, but I'm not in a position to do much more than that. Are any of us?
End "official multi-culturalism" and align a little closer to Quebec's cultural concepts?
If Trudeau is hated so much why is he still in office?
Because there hasn't been an election in 2024. Look at all polls, current and past, regarding his personal and party's popularity.
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.
"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.
I am in the GTA, basically since the early 1960s. The virtues of Slkhism is not the point. Ethnic-tribalism, increased by our policies, is. Have you ever heard of Indira Gandhi and her fate?
I'm familiar with what happened to Gandhi. Could have been avoided by simply surrounding the temple and waiting them out. Instead she went full Waco and got a lot of innocent people killed, so no tears shed for her.
Speaking of ethnic tribalism, I don't see too many Canadians calling out the Zionists among us. Same goes for the Banderistas who not only have the support of our govt. but apparently a majority of the population as well. I guess it's OK when it's over there and not here. Out of sight, out of mind.
What I object to is the knee jerk response to blame the Sikhs for what happened when the story is a bit more complex than that. What was the Indian govt. doing setting up a consular mission in a Hindu temple anyway? Not trying to justify what happened, but people seem to have missed that detail which was seen as a provocation by Sikhs - part of the ongoing Hinduvta agenda of the current Indian govt. which is constitutionally bound to respect all minorities, but which follows a Hindu supremacist line every since the BJP came to power. Where was the national outrage over that?
I agree we need better control over our immigration policies, not disputing that. I just get annoyed when people throw a particular ethnic group all together in the same basket.
I've witnessed lamenting and subtle criticism of Modi/Hindutva in MSM here prior to the spectacle, which was not less than that for the Khalistan separatist/independence movement to establish an ethno‐religious sovereign state. I won't dispute your hyperbolic Waco reference, though not (completely) analogous, nor your viewing the bodyguards' treachery as a virtuous expression of faith creating poetic justice. Those bodyguards' could have resigned, but that's a modern, civilized approach. I feel so culturally insensitive and racist now - a real deplorable ol' Canadian.
"I won't dispute your hyperbolic Waco reference, though not (completely) analogous, nor your viewing the bodyguards' treachery as a virtuous expression of faith creating poetic justice."
Where did I mention poetic justice or that the actions of her bodyguards was virtuous? I just pointed out that there was an alternative Gandhi could have pursued, and that the results of not doing so were entirely predictable. Bear in mind the attack came on a Sikh holy day when many worshippers who had nothing to do with separatism were present. Gandhi's bodyguards didn't do the Sikh community any favours either. The resulting Hindu riots killed over 5000 of their coreligionists, which again was entirely predictable.
As for Waco, it's completely analogous in the sense that they could have just sat them out but instead went on the attack. Also analogous is the resulting innocent deaths. So how is that hyperbole?
OK. I (too) do hyperbole. I surmise that the security situations were not identical. Both Waco and the temple incidents can each be discussed, in various regards, for eternity without consensus, I think. Many still are.