> You are talking about countries which invaded other nations on very shaky grounds.
Who did Canada invade on shaky grounds?
> While the Khalistanis were getting a free reign, shall we talk about how Canada treats its indigenous people? From residential school graves to those who oppose land encroachment for oil mining?
Would love to. It's horrific, and Canada hasn't done enough to issue financial and societal reparations to it's first nations. I believe firmly that Canada should return significant "Crown Land" to first nations group (aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Back). Should honor treaties, and never encroach on first nations land for mining or pipelines.
And if a Canadian First Nations Nijjar equivalent was in hiding in India while fighting for the rights of Indigenous Canadians and Canada killed him, there would be protests in the streets of Canada and I would be there with them.
OK, your turn.
> Canada is known to neglect very insidious activities due to political biases.
Non-Indian Citation Needed
> Ok then - I guess by your standards, the conspiracy that led to 9-11 in US was just an expression of 'free speech' in their country and that the same applies to Chinese interference in Canada.
I actually don't know enough about what the Chinese justification is for electoral interference. My possibly uninformed opinion is that China is attempting to dominate the 21st century politically, and in order to do so it attempts to influence the governments of every country in the world much as the US has in the 20th. I don't believe this is a good thing, but I also suspect they'll get away with it. As far as I know this is State-on-State brinksmanship. We're talking about the actions of individuals.
I don't know what you mean when you talk about the 9-11 conspiracy, however the historical narrative that 9-11 was in many ways a response to decades of US interventionism is pretty clear.
The rest of your post shows there is no point us continuing to go back and forth. You stated something is unacceptable to international norms and goes beyond freedom of expression. I asked you for evidence that it violates international norms which you did not. And I don't think my criteria for freedom of expression is unusual.
> US for all its problems is not known to bend their political spine to separatists in another nation. Canada on the other hand, is soon going to have a nice international label of being an offshore haven for separatists, saboteurs and terrorists. Enjoy your rep.
The US is not the bar for hypocrisy or morality. Canada does not have this reputation from anyone except India.
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.
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.
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.
Everything is relative. Objectively humans are shitty to other humans, and Those In Power get away with as much as they can without losing it.
Having said that:
According to the latest complete 2022 rankings of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World, Canada is the 5th freest country in the world. The United States is 61st. India is 87th.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index, Canada is 12th in the world. The United States is 30th. India is 46th.
> You are talking about countries which invaded other nations on very shaky grounds.
Who did Canada invade on shaky grounds?
> While the Khalistanis were getting a free reign, shall we talk about how Canada treats its indigenous people? From residential school graves to those who oppose land encroachment for oil mining?
Would love to. It's horrific, and Canada hasn't done enough to issue financial and societal reparations to it's first nations. I believe firmly that Canada should return significant "Crown Land" to first nations group (aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Back). Should honor treaties, and never encroach on first nations land for mining or pipelines.
And if a Canadian First Nations Nijjar equivalent was in hiding in India while fighting for the rights of Indigenous Canadians and Canada killed him, there would be protests in the streets of Canada and I would be there with them.
OK, your turn.
> Canada is known to neglect very insidious activities due to political biases.
Non-Indian Citation Needed
> Ok then - I guess by your standards, the conspiracy that led to 9-11 in US was just an expression of 'free speech' in their country and that the same applies to Chinese interference in Canada.
I actually don't know enough about what the Chinese justification is for electoral interference. My possibly uninformed opinion is that China is attempting to dominate the 21st century politically, and in order to do so it attempts to influence the governments of every country in the world much as the US has in the 20th. I don't believe this is a good thing, but I also suspect they'll get away with it. As far as I know this is State-on-State brinksmanship. We're talking about the actions of individuals.
I don't know what you mean when you talk about the 9-11 conspiracy, however the historical narrative that 9-11 was in many ways a response to decades of US interventionism is pretty clear.
The rest of your post shows there is no point us continuing to go back and forth. You stated something is unacceptable to international norms and goes beyond freedom of expression. I asked you for evidence that it violates international norms which you did not. And I don't think my criteria for freedom of expression is unusual.
> US for all its problems is not known to bend their political spine to separatists in another nation. Canada on the other hand, is soon going to have a nice international label of being an offshore haven for separatists, saboteurs and terrorists. Enjoy your rep.
The US is not the bar for hypocrisy or morality. Canada does not have this reputation from anyone except India.